Doc B...
*ahem*
yeah, right.. god did it!
[addsig]
Doc B...
*ahem*
yeah, right.. god did it!
[addsig]
ROFL!!! 
thou hath been smoted....er...smited...er....wtf is that word again??...
Doc B...


slept in huh? you lucky dog.
i haven't made it till 5 in 20 years or more.. i was up at 2 this morning, and again around 4.
be glad you can sleep as long as you can ![]()


That's terrible, Orph. Does it interfere with your life? Have you tried taking sleep medications?
I was, however, trying to cough up pieces of my right middle lobe of my lung this morning. It's not the most enjoyable sensation in the world.
[addsig]

Trust me: Americans are just as annoyed at our 'litigious society' as you are.
Gravity is a variable, dependent on
velocity and mass (amongst other things). And Earth's gravity doesn't
go the speed of light ... Not even close . You've have to "particle
accelerate" mass to turn it to energy, then it could go the
speed of light (obliterating it in the process).
Tracer can
explain this in more detail, I imagine. I've had minimal physics, but
I have a general idea how most things work, and you're way off.
Oh
and by the way, gravity is acceleration and speed is velocity.
Granted one is the derivative of the other, they are in no situation
the same.
the only thing faster than light, is dark.
when you think about it, dark always arrives first, since its always there before the light arrives.
paradoxically, people think dark is the absence of light, but who's to say that if we were created to see in the dark, then light would be just as invisible to our sight.
i have always wondered, why is there so much more dark, if it is indeed nothing important.
[addsig]
No one said darkness isn't important, but, darkness doesn't hold energy and can't be measured on its own. You have to
measure the amount of light and compare it to the area and such to
find the amount of "darkness", since light is made up of
rays and such.
Darkness is the absence of light for that
reason.
If you're "created" to see in the dark, that
just means you have a slight variance in your retinas and you're able
to make out objects at lower levels of light. It's hard to explain,
but believe me, it's been researched for many years.
Pick up a physics book sometime.
no, not lower light levels, i am referring to opposite evolution. you can actually see without light, and cannot see light at all.
you know, i am just thinking out loud, i have no hypothesis for anything i said. i am just thinking.
its just this, every time someone says "nothing can exceed the speed of light" dark always come to my mind. i firmly believe dark moves. if we had the ability to see at 186,000 miles a second, the wave front where light begins would have another dark wave moving aside to let it pass.
anyways, thats how i think it is.
[addsig]


Light is a physical object (kind of). Dark is a concept that we use to describe the absence of light. The reason why you can't "see" in the "dark" is because there is nothing within your detection range. "dark" isn't really the absence of light. It is the absence of light you can see. There is nearly always something bouncing around that you can't. If you want, I can give a breif description of how your eyes work photochemicaly.
I think what he means by gravity "going the speed of light" is that the force is transmitted at that speed. For example, if you have two masses a certain distance apart, and you move one of them, there will be a change in the gravitational field the other experiences. Now you might imagine that this would enable FTL communication, but the change in the field only propagates at or below the speed of light (I'm not entirely sure about this but it makes sense). The same is true of all forces.
The only theoretically feasible way to achieve "FTL travel" is through a wormhole. That is of course if General Relativity and the Standard Model are correct. I put "FTL travel" in quotes because even then, you aren't moving faster than light, you're just taking a shortcut.
How the hell did we get on this topic anyway? What happened to Tsunamis?
[addsig]

How the hell did we get on this topic anyway? What happened to Tsunamis?
waves of that type travel at what? 3 to 6 hundred miles per hour? you gotta admit, 186,000 per second is a bit more compelling a topic.
anywho's my whole point is, dark "IS" a substance, not one our photo-receptors can utilize, but a substance none the less. and i think that whatever its classification/designation, it moves at least "AS" fast as light does.
/me is done, this level of thinking hurts my noggin.
[addsig]
You can consider "dark" to be something if you want. Indeed, electrical engineers and physicists do something similar all the time when they talk about electrons and "holes", but in both cases, there is not physical object behind the concept. However, it can be usefully to think of it as if it were something real. You are perfectly right to conclude that "dark" travels at the speed of light. Think about a Morris code signal someone sends you with a flashlight: it doesn't make any difference weather you count short and long pulses of light, or the spaces between the pulses of "dark" each is equally detectable in its own way. You don't get the message any faster by counting the dark pulses rather than the light.
[addsig]
just once, i would like to have a conversation without the need to resort to "layman's" terms.
reducing the physics of light and black holes to a flashlight beam is degrading. 
how about we talk about explosives sometimes. that is a subject i have a working knowledge of. i may have forgotten much of it, but at least i used to know. tis more than flashlight pulses at least. :/
[addsig]
Sorry. I like simple analogies. They make everything much more clear, even for me.
I don't know much about explosives other than bits and pieces of the chemical kinetics of detonation propagation. I also know how to make them in many forms (I love chemistry) but sadly I've never had the balls to do it. It must have been fun to use that stuff in the military!
[addsig]
I think what he means by gravity "going the speed of light" is that the force is transmitted at that speed. For example, if you have two masses a certain distance apart, and you move one of them, there will be a change in the gravitational field the other experiences. Now you might imagine that this would enable FTL communication, but the change in the field only propagates at or below the speed of light (I'm not entirely sure about this but it makes sense). The same is true of all forces.
The only theoretically feasible way to achieve "FTL travel" is through a wormhole. That is of course if General Relativity and the Standard Model are correct. I put "FTL travel" in quotes because even then, you aren't moving faster than light, you're just taking a shortcut.
How the hell did we get on this topic anyway? What happened to Tsunamis?
I must have mis-interpreted what he was
trying to say, then.
Not a big deal.
I barely covered
non-classical physics though. It was around the time I covered
circuits.
