|
Into the Universe (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Acton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Redd
they're going to redo the experiment to test it more |
Yeah, I'm not sure what they're doing differently, though (yet). |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| YOU CAN'T PROVE IT FTL PARTICLES DON'T EXIST!!! ha. hahaha. Hahahaha!! HAH!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaHAHAhaHA! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
I don't think you are giving him enough credit. Lately he has been reduced to a talking robot that speaks at conventions about aliens and the future of space travel, but before that he made significant contributions to the study of quantum gravity, and the idea that black holes should emit radiation. A Brief History of Time is jam-packed with all sorts of physics mumbo jumbo. |
you ask anyone in the field to name the most influential cosmologists of the 20th century, and hawking's name will never come up. don't quote me, im paraphrasing many theoretical physicists who are on record saying so (forget which doco that was). hawking's contributions are vastly exaggerated by people like us because he's got a much bigger profile with the plebs. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
thanks for that! didn't realise it was already put to bed. |
|
|
| kadomony |
 |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJRYAN™
2) that time travel is possible. IF we were to build a train around the world that could travel at 99.9% the speed of light. If we were to travel on that train for a year, 10 years would've past for everyone else (or something like that). |
The same thing would happen if you were near the center of a blackhole. For you time would slow down a lot for everyone else you'd be gone within a second (if they could see you due to light not escaping). |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by saluyamo
The same thing would happen if you were near the center of a blackhole. For you time would slow down a lot for everyone else you'd be gone within a second (if they could see you due to light not escaping). |
That's backwards. As an object approaches the event horizon, time would pass by normally for the object, but would appear to slow down to the observer, and the observer would never quite see it pass through the horizon. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
I enjoy Hawking, we even share the same birth day. His Hawkings Radiation Theory is still considered as far as I know.
And I also enjoy his Wormhole Theories.
As they seem the most likely way to time travel, but just recently a study in Japan has proven that a Proton can not move faster or as fast as the speed of light in a vacuum. So unless someone knows another way to travel at the speed of ligh to reach a Wormhole, Hawking does have a 140 iq so he is smater than the average bear. |
|
|
| DJRYAN™ |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
That's backwards. As an object approaches the event horizon, time would pass by normally for the object, but would appear to slow down to the observer, and the observer would never quite see it pass through the horizon. |
that's not true and Hawking covers this in the movie. In the "train sequence" He was talking about it transversing our planet at 99.9% the speed of light. All time outside the train would be accelerated. However, inside the train, time would be slowed down or fractionlized so that the laws of relativity are maintained. See, if someone on the train, were to get up and start running, from the back of the train to the front. Then in theory, that person would now be traveling faster, than the train, and therefore, going faster than the speed of light. However, time inside the train slows, maintaining the speed of light speed limit.
That was quite a fascinating piece too. I still encourage you all to watch it. Good stuff.
On another note, I thought this was pretty funny:
 |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you ask anyone in the field to name the most influential cosmologists of the 20th century, and hawking's name will never come up. don't quote me, im paraphrasing many theoretical physicists who are on record saying so (forget which doco that was). hawking's contributions are vastly exaggerated by people like us because he's got a much bigger profile with the plebs. |
I never said he was the most influential, or even near being one of the most significant contributors. I just said give the man a little more credit, that he's not just a robot in a wheelchair who talks about space. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ziptnf
I never said he was the most influential, or even near being one of the most significant contributors. I just said give the man a little more credit, that he's not just a robot in a wheelchair who talks about space. |
man, i an a HUGE hawking fan. he popularised science so that retards like the OP took interest. before the days of torrents i forked out like 60 pounds to import the original hawking's universe on DVD. i just wanted to correct the OP who seems to think hawking is The Man in his field.
i would love to know what he could've done had he not succumbed to the disease :( |
|
|
|
|
