Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/17/06 04:56 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

Also, if it is indeed possible to send messages to the past from the future once the machine is turned on then... if in the following hundreds of years people are sending back messages to the past, wouldn't the machine just about explode with information and matter as soon as it would be turned on?

Hehe, that would probably be a pretty funny sight. But on the other hand, if it had exploded, how could those messages have been sent? I guess the first message the guy who turns it on is going to read will be "Take cover". Then, after the smoke has cleared he'll take a look on the back side of the message where it says "Now try again. We promise not to send any more. Honest."

He was responding to a post that someone made about how light is "untethered by gravity"

There was no claim that black holes were accelerating light, just affecting the trajectory of photons.

I also can't remember if black holes are capable of deceleration of photons in their gravity fields. I think they are, but I'm not certain, might just affect the path.

Anyway, point is, you'll never see anything actually getting sucked into a black hole. You'll just see something sucked towards the black hole, then you'll see it go slower and slower and stop at the event horizon.

At 10/17/06 05:28 PM, Hybrid wrote:

At 10/16/06 09:46 PM, Naoki09 wrote: A solid argument, but how can you say that about black holes? If black holes have the power to suck in light, they are in essence moving light.

No, they are a phenomenon of extreme gravity, most likely created at the end of the life cycle of a star that exceeds a certain amount of mass. While it is true that their gravity is so enormous that it even affects photons

it doesnt have to be a black hole my saliva changes the paths of photons although to a such a minute extent that it would be immesaurable even after finding change in path 10 light years away, photons DO have mass. because mass is energy, anything with energy, has mass. if a photon had no mass, it would have no energy (e = mc^2).

Did anyone see the part where the little girl says "what about travel to the past?"

The sound cut out, it was weird.

At 10/17/06 05:54 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: Did anyone see the part where the little girl says "what about travel to the past?"

The sound cut out, it was weird.

from sound at end of that it sounds like he/she was rearranging the mic at that point

At 10/17/06 05:37 PM, Elfer wrote: He was responding to a post that someone made about how light is "untethered by gravity"

There was no claim that black holes were accelerating light, just affecting the trajectory of photons.

Maybe I wasn't being exact enough. I meant to respond to the statement that "black holes were in essence moving light" which isn't true. I just added the part about acceleration beacuse I thought it would fit.

I also can't remember if black holes are capable of deceleration of photons in their gravity fields. I think they are, but I'm not certain, might just affect the path.

Anyway, point is, you'll never see anything actually getting sucked into a black hole. You'll just see something sucked towards the black hole, then you'll see it go slower and slower and stop at the event horizon.

I think so, too. But since you said you were unsure if they could decelerate photons: Isn't that exactly the reason for why you would see said object move slower and slower and then stop at the event horizon? But maybe you wouldn't see the actual shape of the object anymore but rather a distorted, stretched shape as the photons travelling towards the observer become continuously slower.
I guess that would also mean that the object itself doesn't lose speed, but rather gains speed as it plunges down the gravity well.

according to the video, when things are accelerated in a black hole, they reach a point where they would be projected into the past.

Could that mean that everything sucked into a blackhole, pops back in the past, and such that they all pop back to the same point in time, being the big bang?

At 10/17/06 05:48 PM, dELtaluca wrote: it doesnt have to be a black hole my saliva changes the paths of photons although to a such a minute extent that it would be immesaurable even after finding change in path 10 light years away, photons DO have mass. because mass is energy, anything with energy, has mass. if a photon had no mass, it would have no energy (e = mc^2).

Err, mass is composed of energy, but energy does not neccessarily imply mass. Photons are massless, but they have momentum, and they interact with gravitational forces.

At 10/17/06 05:57 PM, Hybrid wrote:

At 10/17/06 05:37 PM, Elfer wrote: He was responding to a post that someone made about how light is "untethered by gravity"

There was no claim that black holes were accelerating light, just affecting the trajectory of photons.

Maybe I wasn't being exact enough. I meant to respond to the statement that "black holes were in essence moving light" which isn't true. I just added the part about acceleration beacuse I thought it would fit.

Well, black holes do kind of move light. I mean, they exert an unbalanced force on the photons, which causes them to move in a way that they wouldn't have moved had the block hole not been there to interfere.

The problem with black holes is that they screw up a lot of physical laws because of the huge amount of force that's present near them. It's like when you start throwing infinity all over the place in math equations.

At 10/17/06 06:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

Well, black holes do kind of move light. I mean, they exert an unbalanced force on the photons, which causes them to move in a way that they wouldn't have moved had the block hole not been there to interfere.

Argh, am I that hard to read? Yes, they do move light, meaning they move or affect the movement of photons. But they ARE not "moving light", they are a gravitational phenomenon.

Hmm. Come to think of it, it's probably me who got it wrong in the first place. Sorry.

Not to be a buzzkill, but this is all based on if's, whats and whens.

If we study history, people have been imagining the future as too grand.

2001 anybody.

At 10/17/06 09:22 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: 2001 anybody.

Oh, yes please. I loved that movie.

At 10/17/06 06:06 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/17/06 05:48 PM, dELtaluca wrote: photons DO have mass because mass is energy, anything with energy, has mass. if a photon had no mass, it would have no energy (e = mc^2).

Err, mass is composed of energy, but energy does not neccessarily imply mass. Photons are massless, but they have momentum, and they interact with gravitational forces.

if a photon were massless, it would have no energy ' e = mc^2, m = 0 -> e = 0' so youre saying photons are exempt from einsteins equations?

At 10/16/06 07:10 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: didn't some sciency guy or other work out that we can only go forward in time?

Huh? Am i the only one to spot the obvious oversight that this "sciency" doco seems to rather conveniently overlook?

bah ~ i'm all out of paperclips and flat paper.. so here's a mock scenario...

At 10/18/06 12:15 PM, dELtaluca wrote: if a photon were massless, it would have no energy ' e = mc^2, m = 0 -> e = 0' so youre saying photons are exempt from einsteins equations?

Are you saying that Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula applis to anything other than objects with mass at rest or a system at rest?

Because it doesn't.

Think about it, if the equation applied to every situation, that would mean that an object at rest and an object approaching the speed of light would have the same amount of energy, regardless of the enormous difference in kinetic energy.

Nearly every equation out there is non-universal, it only covers certain situations. A lot of equations you learn in physics only apply to situations with constant acceleration, etc.

Likewise, the mass-energy equivalence formula only cover bodies with mass which are at rest, and since the speed of light is a constant regardless of the velocity of the observer, it can never be measured at rest.

Next time you're throwing equations around, make sure you actually know what they're for.

At 10/16/06 07:03 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: If time-traveling is possible, then why hasn't anyone yet to visit us from the future today?

Another possibility is that they have, screwed something up, and somebody went back and stopped them from doing whatever they did. This could have happened any number of times without anybody's knowledge. Probable? Not really.

At 10/18/06 06:55 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: BBC is full of shit I perfer Fox News or CNN.

Oh yes FOX is so much better at giving you all the facts as is CNN. Anyway let's not turn this into a debate on networks dude, please. Keep your comments about the BBC to yourself or in a thread which talks about networks and politics in news.

must go back to 1955, and stop Biff Tannen from getting a sports statistics book, and turining small town Hill Valley, into a corupt hell world.

At 10/18/06 10:07 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: must go back to 1955, and stop Biff Tannen from getting a sports statistics book, and turining small town Hill Valley, into a corupt hell world.

>.> wha? Sounds like something personal...

At 10/18/06 10:07 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: must go back to 1955, and stop Biff Tannen from getting a sports statistics book, and turining small town Hill Valley, into a corupt hell world.

Then maybe I'll pain a picture of an artist painting a picture of a landscape, but then paint myself into the landscape, and then paint myself painting that landscape, and so on and so forth until my picture is complete.

At 10/18/06 10:08 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/18/06 10:07 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: must go back to 1955, and stop Biff Tannen from getting a sports statistics book, and turining small town Hill Valley, into a corupt hell world.

>.> wha? Sounds like something personal...

>> It's not personal. Biff murdered my dad, and raped my mom and made her have fake implants. I shouldn't have bought that book from the future.

At 10/18/06 10:12 PM, hongkongexpress wrote: >> It's not personal. Biff murdered my dad, and raped my mom and made her have fake implants. I shouldn't have bought that book from the future.

Damn what a fucking asshole! I say you go put his face in a pile of manure :P

and then make him say "SHITTTTTT" just before he crashes? and then scream out "Manuer!!!!!! I hate Manuer!!!!!!!!!" I should do that, then my dad can survive and become a famous writer. I won't get fires by my Japanese boss. "88 Miles her hour Doccccccccc!".

Time machines are impossible to make. You can not go backwards into what has already done.

I'm sorry but I bet anyone here a million dollars it will never happen.

At 10/17/06 05:28 PM, Hybrid wrote:
No, they are a phenomenon of extreme gravity,

No, they are believed to be such. That isn't definitive fact.

well if we are to believe einstein, considering so much of this is predicated on his theories it would seem reasonable to do so, travel to the past is impossible.

Einstein believed in a completely deterministic physical universe, ie nothing happens without a cause. Since the present is the result of a linear chain of cause and effect up to this point, nothing should be able to disturb it at all. I don't have to kill my grandfather in the past in order to disrupt the state of the present.

If I were to even send back a few subatomic particles, they would disrupt that arrangement of subatomic particles in the past and thus ever so slightly alter the chain of causality which resulted in the present as we know since. Since these particles originated in the present as we know it, they would no longer exist, and thus would not be able to be sent into the past in the first place. So sending anything back into the past should be impossible.

As for quantum mechanics proving that the universe is not deterministic, that is rubbish. Just because we don't understand why sub-atomic particles behave in the way they do doesn't mean there is no cause behind it. There are simply variables we are unable to account for or detect. Determinism also precludes the notion of multiple parallel universes and free-will.

Everything effect must have a cause, and this includes chemical reactions in the human brain. Your consciousness arises from these chemical reactions and thus free-will is a complete illusion. Your brain is a computer it computes input in the form of sensory stimuli with your inherent genetic propensities and determines the most desireable output.

In effect you have just had the illusion of making a descision. The parellel universes theory is predicated on the belief that random acts such as the flip of a coin produce parallel universes in which the opposite result occurs. But flipping a coin is not truely random.

It may appear to be random from our perspective, but the result of the flip is determined by a number of factors we're not fully aware of. The humidity, any wind, the speed of the rotation, the distance to the ground, the weight of the coin, and so on. Nothing arises spontaneously or randomly but only as the result of the causing forces behind it, such as the flip of a coin. These forces were in turn causes by anteceding causing forces and so on. Everything being a linear chain of cause and effect from the big bang.

This should be logically obvious

At 10/19/06 08:06 AM, ironzealot wrote:

Your consciousness arises from these chemical reactions and thus free-will is a complete illusion.

I'd rather say your answer is illusory. The reactions you speak of are not all there is to it. They are transporting elements for sure, but we are far from having proven that they are their own and only cause, so to speak. As in nature the whole is very often more than the sum of it's parts, I seriously doubt that you are correct here.
Also, and I apologize for getting very picky here, I would say that an own and free will is a prerequsite to even witness an illusion, for without it, the term "illusion" wouldn't make sense in the first place.

Your brain is a computer it computes input in the form of sensory stimuli with your inherent genetic propensities and determines the most desireable output.

Again, you equate a description of a mechanism at work with a characterization of the whole. That is too short-sighted.

In effect you have just had the illusion of making a descision.

If that were the case, then you have just had the illusion of making a point.

The parellel universes theory is predicated on the belief that random acts such as the flip of a coin produce parallel universes in which the opposite result occurs. But flipping a coin is not truely random.
It may appear to be random from our perspective, but the result of the flip is determined by a number of factors we're not fully aware of. The humidity, any wind, the speed of the rotation, the distance to the ground, the weight of the coin, and so on.

What about the decision to at all flip the coin, which comes before any of the factors you mentioned take effect? In my opinion, there are quite a number of factors that YOU may not be aware of.

This should be logically obvious

It should be logically obvious that in order to state supposed facts of such far-reaching consequence the way you did, a LOT more thought and evidence is necessary than you brought in.

At 10/19/06 06:18 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 10/17/06 05:28 PM, Hybrid wrote:
No, they are a phenomenon of extreme gravity,

No, they are believed to be such. That isn't definitive fact.

Point taken. But since that is current astronomical consensus (as far as I know), I base my assumptions on it.

At 10/16/06 07:03 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote: If time-traveling is possible, then why hasn't anyone yet to visit us from the future today?

That sentence is pure sex.