Large Hardon Collider

[Mizango]

Holy cow, Ive missed gold.

[Max™]

lol

I normally just ignore the argument, but after having Woozie once again call me uneducated because of a mistake HE made, I felt the need to drag it back out again, as it is difficult for me to see why the relativity thing isn't glaringly obvious.

No matter where I look, even on wikipedia, I can't find where the distances between your origin and destination are actually contracted, or that time dilation is caused by that contraction around you, rather than YOU experiencing these effects without being able to determine that you are, so you mistakenly attribute the cause to a change in everything else.



Btw, Kaylia, a meter is defined as 1/299,792,458th the distance a beam of light crosses in a second. This isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and applesauce.

http://www.curragh-labs.org/blog/wp-...hem-apples.jpg

Anyways, I'm off to sleep, feel free to explain how relativity doesn't work the way everything says it does, with mathematical support for your argument, and call me uneducated/tell me to shut the fuck up, and whatnot.

[Kaylia]

...

Really?

First you're going to handwave with a Calabi-Yau manifold implying string theory, which has background dependency problems, while accusing me of using a newtonian style absolute metric of distance and duration?

What the fuck, no wonder you guys think I'm a moron, you take what I say and assume that I meant the most ridiculous thing I could have meant when I said it.




What in the flying fuck, seriously, why in Thor's name would you assume I was making references to an absolute frame of reference?


Really, you're trolling me here, are you SERIOUSLY arguing that time dilation and length contraction only show up because you are allowed to claim the distortion of things outside of your reference frame as real distortions? Is it like a tax deduction? Maybe that's why I don't get it, here I thought relativity was about the way motion through space and time are interlaced in such a way that you can not distinguish between space and time completely, but apparently it's something the IRS came up with?

Is the Austrian patent office connected to the IRS?


These distortions show up because you are actually moving through time and space differently than you would be in an inertial frame, we can tell that you are not allowed to just declare your frame is fully valid because of general relativity, YET I got asked why I kept bringing up special relativity?

Uh, because there is NO FUCKING WAY TO RECONCILE WOOZIE'S STATEMENTS WITH ANY UNDERSTANDING OF GENERAL RELATIVITY?

In GR you can in fact determine that you are not in an inertial reference frame, as your frame would have accelerated at some point between start and finish, breaking the symmetry between all frames. Only when you are coasting would the symmetry appear again, but you would recognize it as a distortion due to your velocity, not a drastic change in the universe around you.


How someone can have the gall to accuse another of being uneducated while overlooking that is beyond me, honestly.


tl;dr, you niggas need to spend more time on wikipedia it seems, srsly, get on it, you didn't learn certain subjects you thought you learned.

Space, time, spacetime, Euclidian's distance, Minkowski's distance. There is differences and we all know them.

You're the one who takes Woozie's argument out of context and applies one to the other.

And again, saying that space is compressed or time is dilated has 0 impact on general relativity or anything. It's two side of the same coin.

[Kaylia]

Btw, Kaylia, a meter is defined as 1/299,792,458th the distance a beam of light crosses in a second. This isn't apples and oranges, it's apple's and applesauce.

Are you fucking kidding me

Do you not see the difference between:
2 light years - 2 years,
and
640 light years - 2 years?

c²T² - X² - Y² - Z²

c = m / s
t = s
x,y,z= m
c*t = meter

Minkowski distance is given in "meter". Not "time-meter"

[Max™]

Space, time, spacetime, Euclidian's distance, Minkowski's distance. There is differences and we all know them.

You're the one who takes Woozie's argument out of context and applies one to the other.

Woozie is the one who said the distance will be contracted, and that is what causes time dilation.

Which context exactly is that supposed to be taken in?

I mention space and time because they are the terms he used, I also pointed out that they are just portions of spacetime and that they are related in a fixed manner so the distance between any two points on a manifold can be defined by the invariant spacetime interval between them, though you can change the spatial portion and temporal portion of the trip by changing your velocity.

And again, saying that space is compressed or time is dilated has 0 impact on general relativity or anything. It's two side of the same coin.

Uh, saying that a 640 light year distance can actually be physically reduced to a 2 light year distance which then takes you 2 years to cross makes a big fucking impact on relativity.

Seriously though, be back later to see if anyone has figured this out yet.

[Kaylia]

Quote me his line that hurt your fancy. I read his post but havent seen anything wrong or that I disagree with.

Uh, saying that a 640 light year distance can actually be physically reduced to a 2 light year distance which then takes you 2 years to cross makes a big fucking impact on relativity.

If you are moving at 0.999c, then yes, it's 2 light year away. The photon you receive from that distant star were sent two years ago your time. If you slow down to its frame of reference, the distance will change.


That's why Minkowski said fuck that and gave distance a new definition that is invariant because it's more convenient.

[Chun Liroy]

Now I'm not educated at all in this type of stuff (just calc/physics 2), but it seems to me that Woozie was saying shit in layman's terms. He also specifically said that "from my point of view" so wouldn't that explain why he said it in that way...?

Also, Max speaks in gibberish and it infuriates me that he talks as if he knows what he's saying when he's arguing with a person who just graduated etc.

Thought I'd share this
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0318102243.htm

New Blood Analysis Chip Could Lead to Disease Diagnosis in Minutes

ScienceDaily (Mar. 18, 2011) — A major milestone in microfluidics could soon lead to stand-alone, self-powered chips that can diagnose diseases within minutes. The device, developed by an international team of researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, Dublin City University in Ireland and Universidad de Valparaíso Chile, is able to process whole blood samples without the use of external tubing and extra components.

The researchers have dubbed the device SIMBAS, which stands for Self-powered Integrated Microfluidic Blood Analysis System. SIMBAS appeared as the cover story March 7 in the peer-reviewed journal Lab on a Chip.

"The dream of a true lab-on-a-chip has been around for a while, but most systems developed thus far have not been truly autonomous," said Ivan Dimov, UC Berkeley post-doctoral researcher in bioengineering and co-lead author of the study. "By the time you add tubing and sample prep setup components required to make previous chips function, they lose their characteristic of being small, portable and cheap. In our device, there are no external connections or tubing required, so this can truly become a point-of-care system."

Dimov works in the lab of the study's principal investigator, Luke Lee, UC Berkeley professor of bioengineering and co-director of the Berkeley Sensor and Actuator Center.

"This is a very important development for global healthcare diagnostics," said Lee. "Field workers would be able to use this device to detect diseases such as HIV or tuberculosis in a matter of minutes. The fact that we reduced the complexity of the biochip and used plastic components makes it much easier to manufacture in high volume at low cost. Our goal is to address global health care needs with diagnostic devices that are functional, cheap and truly portable."

For the new SIMBAS biochip, the researchers took advantage of the laws of microscale physics to speed up processes that may take hours or days in a traditional lab. They note, for example, that the sediment in red wine that usually takes days to years to settle can occur in mere seconds on the microscale.

The SIMBAS biochip uses trenches patterned underneath microfluidic channels that are about the width of a human hair. When whole blood is dropped onto the chip's inlets, the relatively heavy red and white blood cells settle down into the trenches, separating from the clear blood plasma. The blood moves through the chip in a process called degas-driven flow.

For degas-driven flow, air molecules inside the porous polymeric device are removed by placing the device in a vacuum-sealed package. When the seal is broken, the device is brought to atmospheric conditions, and air molecules are reabsorbed into the device material. This generates a pressure difference, which drives the blood fluid flow in the chip.

In experiments, the researchers were able to capture more than 99 percent of the blood cells in the trenches and selectively separate plasma using this method.

"This prep work of separating the blood components for analysis is done with gravity, so samples are naturally absorbed and propelled into the chip without the need for external power," said Dimov.

The team demonstrated the proof-of-concept of SIMBAS by placing into the chip's inlet a 5-microliter sample of whole blood that contained biotin (vitamin B7) at a concentration of about 1 part per 40 billion.

"That can be roughly thought of as finding a fine grain of sand in a 1700-gallon sand pile," said Dimov.

The biodetectors in the SIMBAS chip provided a readout of the biotin levels in 10 minutes.

"Imagine if you had something as cheap and as easy to use as a pregnancy test, but that could quickly diagnose HIV and TB," said Benjamin Ross, a UC Berkeley graduate student in bioengineering and study co-author. "That would be a real game-changer. It could save millions of lives."

"The SIMBAS platform may create an effective molecular diagnostic biochip platform for cancer, cardiac disease, sepsis and other diseases in developed countries as well," said Lee.

Other co-lead authors of the study are Lourdes Basabe-Desmonts, senior scientist at Dublin City University's Biomedical Diagnostics Institute, and Jose L. Garcia-Cordero, currently post-doctoral scientist at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL Switzerland). Antonio J. Ricco, adjunct professor at the Biomedical Diagnostics Institute at Dublin City University, also co-authored the study.

The work was funded by the Science Foundation Ireland and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

[Mizango]

I saw that article yesterday Leroy and thought about putting it on your wall but didnt

[Eliseos]

Simbas up in this bitch.

[Chun Liroy]

It's truly wild. I really can't wait to get into this profession but I know it's going to be hell to get a foot in the door.

[foopy]

damn, i'm really out of my league here, but my curiosity has been piqued; i need some clarification.

this is what i've gathered, please correct me if i'm wrong:

- wooz: i'm off to Betelgeuse, 640 LYs away, but i'm gonna go at .999c, so it becomes 2 LYs. you jelly?

- max: fuck that noise. here are some pictures of triangles and links that no one will click.

- wooz: lulz, i'm out, not gonna even begin to bother to argue with max.

- max: youtube links!

- kaylia: dood, it's two sides of the same coin.


so, my question is: max, if wooz is wrong, then what precisely is the correct answer?

[Psion]

I hate to say it, but currently if we were going by actual evidence max is winning, even if he is wrong. He's at least trying to prove his point with information and explanations, while you're just going no, u wrong and telling him he's stupid, resorting to ad hominem attacks and pretty much arguing in a way to make a debate teacher cry. You don't want to make the teacher cry, do you woozie? >

Though I'd make a terrible referee myself, physics is something I don't have much knowledge of other than the stuff that makes sense and doesn't make the fantasy section of a library look sane.

[Cleverness]

Holy shit can we seriously ban max from this fucking thread. This thread is awesome to read random geek information in and I can't count how many times Max has done this shit and shit up the thread. Shut the fuck up already.

[Eliseos]

I hate to say it, but currently if we were going by actual evidence max is winning, even if he is wrong. He's at least trying to prove his point with information and explanations, while you're just going no, u wrong and telling him he's stupid, resorting to ad hominem attacks and pretty much arguing in a way to make a debate teacher cry. You don't want to make the teacher cry, do you woozie? >

Though I'd make a terrible referee myself, physics is something I don't have much knowledge of other than the stuff that makes sense and doesn't make the fantasy section of a library look sane.

God damn it you shut the fuck up too.

[Chun Liroy]

Cosigned.

[Eliseos]

It's truly wild. I really can't wait to get into this profession but I know it's going to be hell to get a foot in the door.

I'm kind of in the same boat with what I want to get into (aerospace). The jobs I've been applying to sound fucking awesome, but it's super competitive since there are only so many companies. I've applied to Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX so far within the last week,but waiting (moreso hoping) for the phone to ring is the worst.

[Kaylia]

I hate to say it, but currently if we were going by actual evidence max is winning, even if he is wrong. He's at least trying to prove his point with information and explanations, while you're just going no, u wrong and telling him he's stupid, resorting to ad hominem attacks and pretty much arguing in a way to make a debate teacher cry. You don't want to make the teacher cry, do you woozie? >

Though I'd make a terrible referee myself, physics is something I don't have much knowledge of other than the stuff that makes sense and doesn't make the fantasy section of a library look sane.

When it's the 5th time you have the same debate, you just skip the explanation. No one want to make an effort that is going to be wasted.


It's pretty obvious that Woozie was using the standard definition of distance, and in the context, he is entirely correct. If someone was moving at 0.999c toward betelgeuse, he would mesure a distance that is significantly smaller than someone moving at 0.001c. There is no possible argument.

Well, there shouldnt have been, but Max decided to use a different concept of distance (that I'm sure Woozie is well aware off) and decided to call him wrong on that basis, when Woozie's statement was obvious.


dist²= x²+y²+z² <--- only distance we can measure
dist²= c²t²-x²-y²-z² <-- distance in relativity, can't be measured directly


Both are called "distance", and both are correct if they are used properly. Context is key.

[Max™]

When it's the 5th time you have the same debate, you just skip the explanation. No one want to make an effort that is going to be wasted.

No, he never gave an explanation, he just said "it's obvious that you're wrong".

It's pretty obvious that Woozie was using the standard definition of distance, and in the context, he is entirely correct. If someone was moving at 0.999c toward betelgeuse, he would mesure a distance that is significantly smaller than someone moving at 0.001c. There is no possible argument.

How exactly would he measure this distance?

How would a photon which left Betelgeuse 2 years ago in his reference frame get to him 638 years before it got to Earth? Are you now saying that though the distance between here and there shrinks, letting him cross it faster, he's still time dilated as well?

This version of distance is not correct, it is only an apparent effect one would get in a hypothetical where they completely ignored GR, and assumed the universe was whizzing past them at significant fractions of c.

Now, it IS true to say that you will make distorted measurements at high relativistic velocities, but claiming that those measurements aren't distorted at all requires one to ignore the cause of the distortion completely. Which raises a big wtf, more so when the cause of the distortion is attributed strangely to another part of the distortion in a fucked up way.

You're now trying to say that I'm wrong because I was using newtonian measurements, which I wasn't, but he was fine because he was using his own invariant measurements which require the spacetime interval to vary instead, flipping the relationship of spacetime inside out, upside down, and backwards?

Well, there shouldnt have been, but Max decided to use a different concept of distance (that I'm sure Woozie is well aware off) and decided to call him wrong on that basis, when Woozie's statement was obvious.

No, I decided to use the actual explanation for time dilation which is NEVER stated to be an actual result of you contracting the universe around you, even though you would observe this distortion. Generally it is known that this distortion is because of YOU undergoing length contraction, as well as the aberration of incoming light due to your motion.

dist²= x²+y²+z² <--- only distance we can measure
dist²= c²t²-x²-y²-z² <-- distance in relativity, can't be measured directly

Uh, setting aside that you're setting aside the measurement of the speed of light, and how you can reach a relativistic distance measurement from there... you need to know that all observers MUST agree on the spacetime interval between two points, even though they might disagree on which portions of the interval were spatial or temporal.

The changes in the x portion and t portion along a straight path all come from your acceleration/velocity, accordingly you can't claim that your observation of one particular x value causes your observation of a particular t value in a way which prevents any other observer from measuring the same spacetime interval along your path as you did.


What Woozie is describing would prevent that, why in the hell is this hard to see? Are you sure I'm speaking gibberish, and not that you don't know what the fuck relativity is about?


Had he said "it seems this way from my frame of reference, but it is actually caused by relativistic effects" that would be fine, he said "it seems this way from my frame of reference because it is actually that way, fuck other reference frames lol" basically.

Both are called "distance", and both are correct if they are used properly. Context is key.

Ok, let's say you're right, in what context would you talk about relativistic effects such as length contraction and time dilation, without using the meaning of those terms from relativity?

[Woozie]

I hate to say it, but currently if we were going by actual evidence max is winning, even if he is wrong. He's at least trying to prove his point with information and explanations, while you're just going no, u wrong and telling him he's stupid, resorting to ad hominem attacks and pretty much arguing in a way to make a debate teacher cry. You don't want to make the teacher cry, do you woozie? >

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion when every single piece of evidence he's posted proves my point. It sounds to me like you just aren't knowledgeable enough at the subject being discussed to analyze his evidence and thus you're assuming his evidence supports him (or maybe you didn't read it?). It's okay that you can't analyze the evidence. You're not a physicists nor do you claim to be, and there's no reason a chemist should understand special relativity without reading a book on it. If you were having a chemistry argument about something I never studied, I would be totally clueless about it and unable to immediately understand any links posted.

However, you shouldn't be basing your assessment of an argument on any evidence posted if it's beyond your understanding. Just because he posted more links doesn't mean he's arguing better or that he's more right. However, since you're a chemist, you're probably at least reasonably adept at math. Go to his links or look up length contraction and see what happens when you're moving 99.9990234375% the speed of light (i.e. put v = .999990234375*c in your equations). Set your length to 640 light years.

The reason I'm not bothering arguing with Max here is (1) WE'VE HAD THIS ARGUMENT ALREADY and nothing's changes since then (2) we're arguing stuff that isn't even debatable (3) this stuff is easily verifiable (you wouldn't argue the date we landed on the moon because you could just look it up in two seconds and have your answer and anyone who disagrees could do the same. If the person refused to google it or if the person googles it, sees the answer, and still doesn't believe it, you'd conclude that he's hopeless. The current situation is even worse than the moon landing example because in the framework of special relativity, this is mathematically provable and is thus not debatable) (4)if Max really wanted to be convinced, he'd go read a special relativity book. If you're curious about the subject or the argument, you could probably do the same. Like I said, the special relativity section in a modern physics textbook would only take a few days to a week to read, understand, and do the problems (5) arguing with Max is pointless. He's content with being wrong about almost everything. If this was anyone else I would explain it (but then again, if this was anyone else, they'd open a book and check to see how stuff really works and this argument wouldn't be happening).

Every bit of information needed to prove my point has been explained by Eli, Kaylia, a few others, and myself in this thread, previous threads (including the one Max linked), and thousands of easily-available textbooks and websites, and Max's own "evidence". Give me a good reason why I should continue to argue something that's already been mathematically proven correct thousands of times over in the past 106 years (including in the links and websites Max posted, and those that you can google in a split second). If you can give me a good reason why it even makes sense to keep arguing this, I will.

Edit: Kaylia, could you please stop arguing with Max about this? You know as well as we do that it's pointless.

[Chun Liroy]

Yo max. SHUT UP.