Random Knowledge / Facts

Conscript · 1 Jan 2009 at 14:28

Did you know....there are no Dutch Elms left in Britain.

Disgusting.

platinum87 · 1 Jan 2009 at 14:31

Inquisitor said:
I don't see your point. You've conceded that nothing can travel faster than light, yet you're arguing that they are?

correct

Inquisitor said:
If an observer sees two objects moving in opposite directions at some fraction of c, say 0.6c, this does not mean that the speed of one relative to the other is 1.2c.

yes thats true, how about they are moving at 2.6c...would that assume each one is moving 1.3c?

figure it out its kinda a trick question, but the speed at which the distance increases is still 2.6c

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 14:38

Change your sig to:

"I actually have no clue about any topic, i just like to argue!"

Thanks!

platinum87 · 1 Jan 2009 at 15:20

Mr^B said:
Change your sig to:

"I actually have no clue about any topic, i just like to argue!"

Thanks!

just because you dont understand it you immediately jump to insults?

try to figure it out, or ask me to reveal it!

mangobreeder · 1 Jan 2009 at 15:34

platinum87 said:
where did you read that

http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html

The task of the BIPM is to ensure world-wide uniformity of measurements and their traceability to the International System of Units (SI).

or

http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf

page 113

Pwned!!!

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 15:35

platinum87 said:
just because you dont understand it you immediately jump to insults?

try to figure it out, or ask me to reveal it!

Sorry, I got to the "moving apart at 2.6c" bit and stopped because you clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about.

c is the speed limit for the universe, only very strange theoretical particles and some of the weirder aspect of string theory and quantum gravity "break" this limit, and certainly it holds for large-scale (special relativity) applications.

If you shine a light in one direction, and a light in the opposite direction, the distance between the photons (if you want to model it that way) of the two sources increases at 2c, which is the maximum speed at which the distance between two objects can increase.

Similarly if you are travelling at 99% of c and shine a light out the front, it'll still be travelling at c (and not c + 99% of c).

What two particular magical objects move apart at 2.6c? Unless you're talking about quantum tunnelling...but I doubt it...

platinum87 · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:10

mangobreeder said:
http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html

The task of the BIPM is to ensure world-wide uniformity of measurements and their traceability to the International System of Units (SI).

or

http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf

page 113

Pwned!!!

not saying your wrong, ive not got time to read up on it though, right now atleast

Mr^B said:
If you shine a light in one direction, and a light in the opposite direction, the distance between the photons (if you want to model it that way) of the two sources increases at 2c, which is the maximum combined speed that two objects can travel.

yes this is 100% true

Mr^B said:
2c is therefore the maximum speed at which the distance between two objects can increase.

no that is wrong

(i slightly modified your quotes to blatanly contradict myself, i hope you dont mind , or atleast it appears -- get down to the wording...)

Mr^B said:
Similarly if you are travelling at 99% of c and shine a light out the front, it'll still be travelling at c (and not c + 99% of c).

yes obviously!!!

Mr^B said:
What two particular magical objects move apart at 2.6c? Unless you're talking about quantum tunnelling...but I doubt it...

im not talking about quantum tunnelling no.

i will put answer soon

, fun though ?

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:35

If you're going to quote me, quote me correctly. Your changes alter the meaning of what I said.

And it's not fun arguing with the mis-informed, just irritating.

mangobreeder · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:45

fight fight fight

fini · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:47

Can I point out that you're both wrong because neither of you have actually defined "c" except through inference. "c" could thus be anything. Sloppy debating people!

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:52

fini said:
Can I point out that you're both wrong because neither of you have actually defined "c" except through inference. "c" could thus be anything. Sloppy debating people!

If you can't work out what it means, then you probably shouldn't join in.

platinum87 · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:52

the answer is the expansion of space..

im disappointed that because you cant solve it you go on to insulting me and getting annoyed..

i fixed the quote to point out the difference between the speed of said objects and the speed which the space between them increases, hence i wasnt actually contradicting myself before

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:54

mangobreeder said:
fight fight fight

There's no fight, I'm intrigued as to what he's talking about - it's just a pity I don't think he knows...all this "hmm I'll tell you later" smacks of someone prevaricating because they haven't got a Scooby.

ps3ud0 · 1 Jan 2009 at 16:54

platinum87 has single-handedly ruined what was a good thread...

He also receives my first :rolleyes:

of the year...

ps3ud0 :cool:

platinum87 · 1 Jan 2009 at 17:00

Mr^B said:
There's no fight, I'm intrigued as to what he's talking about - it's just a pity I don't think he knows...all this "hmm I'll tell you later" smacks of someone prevaricating because they haven't got a Scooby.

the answer is above that post!

ps3ud0 said:
platinum87 has single-handedly ruined what was a good thread...

He also receives my first of the year...

ps3ud0

is that your random fact?

Mr^B said:
I don't think he knows...all this "hmm I'll tell you later" smacks of someone prevaricating because they haven't got a Scooby.

simply trying to give you a chance to work it out, which i think is fun tbh

ps3ud0 · 1 Jan 2009 at 17:02

Yep - about as anti-climatically as yours I thought

I was thinking about holding back for at least 3hours for no reason but I thought it might annoy people not knowing

ps3ud0

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 17:02

platinum87 said:
the answer is the expansion of space..

im disappointed that because you cant solve it you go on to insulting me and getting annoyed..

You're still talking about the distance between two objects increasing at greater than the speed of light, not an object travelling at greater than the speed of light.

It's a common misconception regarding c, local space-time, special relativity and red-shift, I wouldn't worry about getting it wrong, before Einstein everyone else did too!

platinum87 · 1 Jan 2009 at 17:03

Mr^B said:
You're still talking about the distance between two objects increasing at greater than the speed of light, not an object travelling at greater than the speed of light.

It's a common misconception regarding c, local space-time, special relativity and red-shift, I wouldn't worry about getting it wrong, before Einstein everyone else did too!

i didnt get it wrong... look at my original post.. (1 sec)

2) some objects do move away from each other at greater the speed of light

had to edit it to over 2x speed of light to get rid of the shining a light in opposite directions, i said the objects do not exceed the speed of light if you read previous posts, simply the distance between them appears they are moving faster, explained by expansion of space.. done (and i also mentioned its a bit of a trick question) so dont type that stuff up there now!

good riddle though?

dangerstat · 1 Jan 2009 at 17:08

Please shut up platinium87 like others have said your RUINING a good thread.

Mr^B · 1 Jan 2009 at 17:09

[snip]