For the thinkers out there...

[orphman]

Ok let me give you some back round.... i posed a question to my firends the other day it was... When you look at an object ie. like your computer screen your looking at right now... are you seeing the past present or the future...
the absolute answer is you are looking at the past. if you dont understand or get why that is read no further...

he posed the question...
If and ustopable force meets and imovable object what happens...

my first reaction is the object will not move and the force will travel through it... but then i realized you cant " stop wind" but when it meets say a super reinforced wall capable of withstanding say a nucular device the wind will be re directed...

any one care to chime in im intriqued...

-orph!

 

[orphman]

anyone??

 

[orphman]

man... i thought we had intellectuals on here..

 

[Siccnes]

I would have to say your mind is processing the past. It takes a little while for your eyes to relay what they see to your mind and then for your mind to process it. Your eyes can only see what's in front of it, not what's past, but on the same note..it would take a while for those images to hit your retina...so I guess past technically speaking, but it happens so fast. I would think it would be at the speed of light.

 

[orphman]

I would have to say your mind is processing the past. It takes a little while for your eyes to relay what they see to your mind and then for your mind to process it. Your eyes can only see what's in front of it, not what's past, but on the same note..it would take a while for those images to hit your retina...so I guess past technically speaking, but it happens so fast. I would think it would be at the speed of light.

you sir are absolutely correct... to further why you are correct the same thing applies when you look into space... a star 4 light years away is seen 4 years in the past... if you see it explde now it exploded 4 yrs ago...

but what baout the secod question thats the one i am having trouble with...

 

[njaremka]

nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but it still takes time for light to travel some where. (ie- it takes about 8 minutes for light to go from the sun to the earth) so, if you are looking at your computer screen, you are in fact seeing what was going on in the past. i mean, we're talking nano-seconds here, but still, the past.

 

[GNsPR5]

Doors of perception man, doors of perception....long live Jim Morrison.

 

[orphman]

nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, but it still takes time for light to travel some where. (ie- it takes about 8 minutes for light to go from the sun to the earth) so, if you are looking at your computer screen, you are in fact seeing what was going on in the past. i mean, we're talking nano-seconds here, but still, the past.

again... true but what about the second question... the question i have still yet to ponder fully to the point of conceptual understanding..

 

[GNsPR5]

you sir are absolutely correct... to further why you are correct the same thing applies when you look into space... a star 4 light years away is seen 4 years in the past... if you see it explde now it exploded 4 yrs ago...

but what baout the secod question thats the one i am having trouble with...

Almost correct, but not 4 years in the past, 4 Light years in the past. Time and distance or 2 different things.

light-year also light year (l

t

yr

)
n. 1. The distance that light travels in a vacuum in one astronomical year, approximately 9.46 trillion (9.46 10<SUP>12</SUP>) kilometers or 5.88 trillion (5.88 10<SUP>12</SUP>) miles.

 

[njaremka]

he posed the question...
If and ustopable force...

no such thing

meets an imovable object what happens...

again, no such thing

however, i think your wind and wall analogy is pretty close - redirection

 

[orphman]

Almost correct, but not 4 years in the past, 4 Light years in the past. Time and distance or 2 different things.

no light years are calculated distances based on the time it takes light to travel a distance... so 4 light years... is 4 years at the spead of light...

 

[ZoomZoomH]

man... i thought we had intellectuals on here..

first point of failure right here.

 

[orphman]

no such thing



again, no such thing

however, i think your wind and wall analogy is pretty close - redirection

ok yes.. but still what would it be... " in theory"

 

[orphman]

first point of failure right here.

hahaha

 

[GNsPR5]

agreed. I defined it in post-posting.

 

[GNsPR5]

I think there is a TSB out for this thread.

 

[njaremka]

Time and distance or 2 different things.

sort of...light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, so you can use the distance traveled by light in a specific time as a measurement of distance - thus, "light year" as a distance.

would be similar to saying "i traveled 4 hours from my house yesterday." that sould mean 10ft, but it could also mean 240miles, it all depends on how fast you travel. since car travel speed isn't constant, it doesn't make much sense. but since light speed is pretty close to constnat, "light year" does make sense.

 

[orphman]

I think there is a TSB out for this thread.

HAHAHAHA

 

[Siccnes]

I'll have to ponder that one a little longer..but..initally..an objects force is correlated to it's mass and velocity..velocity is limited..and I would assume it's mass would be limited too because the larger something becomes, the greater it's gravity becomes..and this force would cause it to compact as its mass grew which in turn would limit it's volume and become more dense..it would become so dense that it would become a black....soooo..speeding black hole meets massive wall??

 

[orphman]

I'll have to ponder that one a little longer..but..initally..an objects force is correlated to it's mass and velocity..velocity is limited..and I would assume it's mass would be limited too because the larger something becomes, the greater it's gravity becomes..and this force would cause it to compact as its mass grew which in turn would limit it's volume and become more dense..it would become so dense that it would become a black....soooo..speeding black hole meets massive wall??

wow i like the way you think... yes.. in theory.. but the " wall" would ultimately be consumed by the "black " yes?