The Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth

Posted by occrider on Jun-02-2005 06:08:

The Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth

In case you have high aspirations in life:

http://www.livescience.com/technolo...y_earth_mp.html

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-02-2005 10:26:

Re: The Top 10 Ways to Destroy the Earth

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
In case you have high aspirations in life:

http://www.livescience.com/technolo...y_earth_mp.html

I liked the von Neuman machines part...

Posted by Shakka on Jun-02-2005 13:30:

I've got your microscopic black hole right here, buddy!

Posted by trancaholic on Jun-02-2005 14:01:

The one about getting the Earth and a black hole together talks about the closest black hole being 1600 light years from Earth, and that by moving both of them, they can be brought together in 800 years. Can anyone explain to me, how this can be? I mean, seen from Earth the speed of the black hole would be twice the speed of light, i.e. impossible. Right? So it seems to me that time on Earth (and in the immediate vicinity of the black hole) would slow down and it would in all manners feel like 1600 years? (EDIT: Guess what I'm asking is: 800 years from what point of reference?)

Posted by Belgian Bonzai on Jun-02-2005 14:21:

quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
I mean, seen from Earth the speed of the black hole would be twice the speed of light, i.e. impossible. Right? So it seems to me that time on Earth (and in the immediate vicinity of the black hole) would slow down and it would in all manners feel like 1600 years?

Correct.

Posted by Shakka on Jun-02-2005 15:02:

Posted by auujay on Jun-02-2005 15:07:

quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
The one about getting the Earth and a black hole together talks about the closest black hole being 1600 light years from Earth, and that by moving both of them, they can be brought together in 800 years. Can anyone explain to me, how this can be? I mean, seen from Earth the speed of the black hole would be twice the speed of light, i.e. impossible. Right? So it seems to me that time on Earth (and in the immediate vicinity of the black hole) would slow down and it would in all manners feel like 1600 years? (EDIT: Guess what I'm asking is: 800 years from what point of reference?)

From that section....

quote:

(That's in an external observer's frame of reference and assuming you move both the Earth and the black hole at the same time.)

If you move the Earth 800 light years and the blackhole 800 light years so the meet in the middle then the total time will be 800 years (obviously moving at the speed of light) to cover the 1600 light years.

Anyway, my favorite bit was this one about an exercise for the reader, it sounds like it came straight from a text book

quote:

Creating a microscopic black hole is tricky, since one needs a reasonable amount of neutronium, but may possibly be achievable by jamming large numbers of atomic nuclei together until they stick. This is left as an exercise to the reader.

Posted by trancaholic on Jun-02-2005 15:17:

quote:
Originally posted by auujay
From that section....

Ahh, overlooked that part.

quote:
Originally posted by auujay
Anyway, my favorite bit was this one about an exercise for the reader, it sounds like it came straight from a text book
Laughed at that one too. Text books often leave the most annoyingly difficult parts to the reader.

Posted by josh4 on Jun-02-2005 20:14:

why dont you people just watch TV like everyone else

Posted by Shakka on Jun-02-2005 20:31:

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
why dont you people just watch TV like everyone else

LOL. At any other time of the year I'd say "amen to that!". However, the summer lull has kicked in and there is little for me to watch outside of reruns and dumb summer flash-in-the-pan shitty shows. Time to grab a book and sit outside and enjoy the longer, warmer days.

At least I still have 2 more episodes of The Shield to watch.

Posted by trancaholic on Jun-02-2005 20:42:

quote:
Originally posted by josh4
why dont you people just watch TV like everyone else

What makes you assume that we don't?

(Actually, I haven't seen TV since I moved to NYC this winter. Except for muted baseball and news clips in bars and restaurants. Btw. what's up with that? Can't you americans entertain each other without having some damn screen flickering and disturbing you?)

Posted by Shakka on Jun-02-2005 20:44:

quote:
Originally posted by trancaholic
What makes you assume that we don't?

(Actually, I haven't seen TV since I moved to NYC this winter. Except for muted baseball and news clips in bars and restaurants. Btw. what's up with that? Can't you americans entertain each other without having some damn screen flickering and disturbing you?)

They don't call it the boob-tube for nothing! Who can pass up boobs!

Posted by occrider on Jun-02-2005 21:10:

OMG who won american idol??? I NEED TO KNOW THIS!!!!

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-02-2005 22:06:

quote:
Originally posted by auujay
If you move the Earth 800 light years and the blackhole 800 light years so the meet in the middle then the total time will be 800 years (obviously moving at the speed of light) to cover the 1600 light years.

Not really. You see, that's the funny side of relativity. Regardless of the reference frame it will always take a minimum of 1600 years for two objects that are 1600 light years apart to reach each other. If we take a spot that's right in between those two objects (the Earth and the hole), they will both seem to move towards that point at the speed of light, but their speed relative to each other will also be equivalent to the speed of light. Sounds impossible, but that's the way it is, because every reference frame is equally valid and in each reference frame no object can go faster than light.

Posted by Shakka on Jun-03-2005 03:16:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
OMG who won american idol??? I NEED TO KNOW THIS!!!!

Ummmm.....Carrie Underwood, with a close second by Bo Bice....shoot me...please.

Posted by smokeape on Jun-07-2005 01:55:

Well, let's blow up France at least for starters!

[[[smoke]]]

Posted by Dupz on Jun-07-2005 04:38:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Not really. You see, that's the funny side of relativity. Regardless of the reference frame it will always take a minimum of 1600 years for two objects that are 1600 light years apart to reach each other. If we take a spot that's right in between those two objects (the Earth and the hole), they will both seem to move towards that point at the speed of light, but their speed relative to each other will also be equivalent to the speed of light. Sounds impossible, but that's the way it is, because every reference frame is equally valid and in each reference frame no object can go faster than light.

forgive my ignorance, but i'm still at a loss to understand how this is possible... two objects simultaneously moving towards eachother can never exceed the speed of light..

So the light from one Alpha Centauri (or however you spell it) takes 4.35 years to reach earth.. and the light from the sun 4.35 years to reach Alpha Centauri... now, wouldnt the light from either star intersect at a point 2.175 light years from earth as it travels through space?????

That makes more sense to me, but I'm an science/physics noob..

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-07-2005 17:26:

quote:
Originally posted by Dupz
forgive my ignorance, but i'm still at a loss to understand how this is possible... two objects simultaneously moving towards eachother can never exceed the speed of light..

So the light from one Alpha Centauri (or however you spell it) takes 4.35 years to reach earth.. and the light from the sun 4.35 years to reach Alpha Centauri... now, wouldnt the light from either star intersect at a point 2.175 light years from earth as it travels through space?????

That makes more sense to me, but I'm an science/physics noob..

They can't exceed the speed of light because it is constant in every reference frame. You see, if I move towards you at 0.9 the speed of light, and emit a lightwave (like turning on a flashlight), the lightwave won't move towards you at 1.9c, but at c. It will also move away from me at c. Basically it's because relatively accelerated reference frames have time flowing differently than those which are nonaccelerated. In other words, if I sped up to nearly the speed of light, time would flow slower for me, thus making it seem from my position that light is traveling faster than it seems when viewed from your position.

Posted by occrider on Jun-07-2005 18:51:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
They can't exceed the speed of light because it is constant in every reference frame. You see, if I move towards you at 0.9 the speed of light, and emit a lightwave (like turning on a flashlight), the lightwave won't move towards you at 1.9c, but at c. It will also move away from me at c. Basically it's because relatively accelerated reference frames have time flowing differently than those which are nonaccelerated. In other words, if I sped up to nearly the speed of light, time would flow slower for me, thus making it seem from my position that light is traveling faster than it seems when viewed from your position.

Right, but doesn't that only reflect the relative velocities with respect to an observer on either object or an independant observer not in motion? As in if both objects are moving at .9c, The light eminating from both objects wouldn't be 1.9c but c. However, both objects are still travelling at velocities of .9c and regardless of how they "look" they are still moving across an equivalent distance of space given their velocities? Hmmm am I making sense?

Edit: In other words, relativivity only dictates the measured and observed speed of light for every reference frame. If we were both driving cars towards each other at .6c, it wouldn't look like you were approaching me at 1.2c. However, I am still moving at .6c and you are still moving at .6c, and we still cover the distance proscribed by that speed independant of one another.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-07-2005 19:15:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Right, but doesn't that only reflect the relative velocities with respect to an observer on either object or an independant observer not in motion? As in if both objects are moving at .9c, The light eminating from both objects wouldn't be 1.9c but c. However, both objects are still travelling at velocities of .9c and regardless of how they "look" they are still moving across an equivalent distance of space given their velocities? Hmmm am I making sense?

Edit: In other words, relativivity only dictates the measured and observed speed of light for every reference frame. If we were both driving cars towards each other at .6c, it wouldn't look like you were approaching me at 1.2c. However, I am still moving at .6c and you are still moving at .6c, and we still cover the distance proscribed by that speed independant of one another.

Umm, well, if we're both moving towards each other at .6c, it would look to each of us like we're moving towards each other at something like .8c or .9c. An independant observer would see us both traveling towards each other at .6c, thus our combined speed would seem to him to be 1.2c.

Now, what I've confused myself with just now is that if we're both driving towards each other at .6c therefore meaning that I'm driving towards you at about .9c and towards an independent observer at .6c, to me it would seem that I didn't meet up with the observer and you at the same time. Obviously this shouldn't be the case, but I can't really pinpoint why...

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-08-2005 19:42:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Now, what I've confused myself with just now is that if we're both driving towards each other at .6c therefore meaning that I'm driving towards you at about .9c and towards an independent observer at .6c, to me it would seem that I didn't meet up with the observer and you at the same time. Obviously this shouldn't be the case, but I can't really pinpoint why...

Ah, I got it explained now. So the path I traveled is not s=v/t, but it's s=(s-vt)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). IOW the object is moving towards me at 0.6c, but the virtual distance between us is greater than if we were both standing still. I suppose this makes sense now.