Large Hardon Collider

[Max™]

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?

Woozie observes an extremely distorted universe, where everything is compressed into a small disc ahead of him, (lulz, he can't actually distinguish Betelgeuse from the rest of the light in the universe without using a really powerful computer to cancel out the relativistic aberration), shit looks weird at these speeds.

This is a simple representation of the aberration without taking into account the doppler changes:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...Aberration.jpg

This is a better representation with the doppler shifts taken into account:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...p/OrionRel.jpg

Here is a proper description of what is happening:

Even at these speeds Celesta hardly notices any motion at all. At 0.99c she experiences time about 7 times slower than the surrounding universe, and thus speeds on at about 7 light years in a year ship-time (note that she only measures a covered distance of about 1 light year from her own inertial frame, but space from there is Lorentz-Fitzgerald contracted 7 times). To get to the nearest extrasolar star alpha Centauri would take her about 7 months ship-time. To see stars fly by like in certain sci-fi series, she would have to travel much faster, on the order of light years per experienced ship second. This corresponds to the actual velocity of 0.9999999999999994c, or (1 - 6x10-16)c. At this extremely high ultra-relativistic velocity, radiation from the universe would emanate from a single point in the direction of travel, and all radiation, even the cosmic background, would be Doppler shifted out to gamma ray wavelengths or far radio, with next to nothing in between. Not exactly as seen on TV (surprise!).

Thanks Baez, Thaez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...spaceship.html


see any difference between "she crosses 7 light years in a time she measures as 1 light year, but due to her Fitzgerald Contraction she only observes that 7 light year distance as around 1 light year", compared to "she crosses 1 light year which takes around a year", nevermind the fact that at Woozie's hypothetical velocity, everything in the universe would appear to be a single point of gamma radiation ahead of you.

Seriously, Woozie, this entire time you've just been saying "nuh uh" because maybe you actually don't see what is wrong with what you said was happening, and what those books you're suggesting (which I've read, many many times, long ago) say is the reason for the effect you're observing.

[Shiroikage]

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.

Not tough to get a foot in the door, you'd just be better of with an actual bioengineering degree.

I need to go skim the paper because it doesn't make clear what method of detection they're using in the article. Using biotin as an example is almost cheating because avidin/steptavidin have absurdly high affinities for biotin, so it's likely that you're not going to get that sort of detection with other analytes.

[Woozie]

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

This is what we should be discussing right now. This is awesome. You're a bio major, right? Is this the kind of stuff you plan on doing?

[Shiroikage]

This is what we should be discussing right now. This is awesome. You're a bio major, right? Is this the kind of stuff you plan on doing?

Sadly, the paper is less interesting than the article.

[Woozie]

Way to kill my buzz, Shiro. I thought we were a major step closer to IMMORTALITY! (or at least some cool diagnostic abilities).

[Kryssan]

Weren't you the one asking me about nuclear fields, Woozie? Maybe it was Eli. I know someone made a query a few dozen or more pages ago.

In the case it was you, or that others might also think about it in the future, I would like to comment on one particular of your post:

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.

People don't look things up. They don't read things in books. They probably don't even follow the links unless they're really bored. I haven't honestly been following your debate so I can't comment on the content or the people in it, but I can comment on this.

As someone who desires to work in a field that other people do not admittedly understand, you should never quit arguing it. Even when the people you're talking to are the thickest, most dull, arrogant, stubborn, mulish, abhorrently wrong fools in the world. Because when you do, then that person goes and talks to someone else and spreads their misinformation, again and again and again. And as fate would have it, the fools tend to be the loudest and get the most attention. You can't let it happen. No matter what, you can't let it happen.


*sigh*


Now, on topic, and I do mean this with all the levity I can muster - from my most scientific examination of the fifteen to thirty seconds I spent reading the last five or six pages of the thread (and by that I mean skimming without stopping) before hitting the reply button, I have yet to see Woozie use the race card. Thus, he must be right. "They" (finger quotes) only play that card when they're wrong.


*runs*

[Chun Liroy]

This is what we should be discussing right now. This is awesome. You're a bio major, right? Is this the kind of stuff you plan on doing?

Yeah I'm a bio major, but I'm only in year 2 of undergrad. I want to get into these type of things, but I can't pretend that I have even the slightest clue of how it works. Most of the things I've research for papers and such involve genetics and viral vectors.

[Chun Liroy]

*sigh*


Now, on topic, and I do mean this with all the levity I can muster - from my most scientific examination of the fifteen to thirty seconds I spent reading the last five or six pages of the thread (and by that I mean skimming without stopping) before hitting the reply button, I have yet to see Woozie use the race card. Thus, he must be right. "They" (finger quotes) only play that card when they're wrong.


*runs*

lmao

[Eliseos]

Weren't you the one asking me about nuclear fields, Woozie? Maybe it was Eli. I know someone made a query a few dozen or more pages ago.

I think I was asking about it last year when you were posting a bunch of articles on the subject. I'd still probably like to enter that area if aerospace doesn't work out (or if I do get a job and somehow I hate it). Not really sure how to get into the field though. Writing bank software for the rest of my life does not sound appealing in the slightest, and in the couple months I've been in it I already want out lol. Good thing I will be when I graduate in May.

[Shiroikage]

Well, there certainly is likely something to come out of it. The microfluidics are really interesting but IMO, they should have did a couple more experiments demonstrating detection. I certainly don't doubt that it can be optimized for different work, but it would have been nice to have seen a couple more clinically relevant examples. In the paper, they spiked the blood samples with fluorescently-labeled biotin and used a streptavidin probe for detection. They mentioned that you could immobilize different probes which I absolutely do not doubt, but I would have liked to see the actual results they got with immobilized antibodies if they even did the experiment at all.

[Qalbert]

Max if you don't shut the fuck up and stop shitting this thread up you will find yourself enjoying a temporary ban.

[Woozie]

Weren't you the one asking me about nuclear fields, Woozie? Maybe it was Eli. I know someone made a query a few dozen or more pages ago.

In the case it was you, or that others might also think about it in the future, I would like to comment on one particular of your post:



People don't look things up. They don't read things in books. They probably don't even follow the links unless they're really bored. I haven't honestly been following your debate so I can't comment on the content or the people in it, but I can comment on this.

As someone who desires to work in a field that other people do not admittedly understand, you should never quit arguing it. Even when the people you're talking to are the thickest, most dull, arrogant, stubborn, mulish, abhorrently wrong fools in the world. Because when you do, then that person goes and talks to someone else and spreads their misinformation, again and again and again. And as fate would have it, the fools tend to be the loudest and get the most attention. You can't let it happen. No matter what, you can't let it happen.


*sigh*


Now, on topic, and I do mean this with all the levity I can muster - from my most scientific examination of the fifteen to thirty seconds I spent reading the last five or six pages of the thread (and by that I mean skimming without stopping) before hitting the reply button, I have yet to see Woozie use the race card. Thus, he must be right. "They" (finger quotes) only play that card when they're wrong.


*runs*

Sig'd

Also, I agree that you can't just let things go even when it's not debatable, which is why I bothered pointing out Max's flaws in the first place in the original thread (and I'm guessing that's why Kaylia and Neosutra [before his ban] keeps arguing with him even though they know that Max is hopeless). I've already stated a page or two ago that I'm worried about Max's misinformation and how it may spread if people reading this thread sees it and doesn't recognize it as bull. But I think enough people on these forums realize that Max is a crank, and they'll also realize that every other physics person unanimously disagrees with him. And, in this particular argument, it would be hard for the misinformation to spread very far because if you go to pretty much any nerd saying the stuff Max is saying, they'll quickly correct you (this is really basic stuff that even some non-physicists will know). Basically, I don't think there's much of a danger of bad information being spread.

When I read political threads (stuff I rarely understand), I'll usually click on every link and read them thoroughly if I'm genuinely interested in them (but then again, I'm usually VERY bored or avoiding homework when I read those, so maybe you have a point). I don't always understand them, but I also don't base my opinion of the debate on how many links that were posted, or on links I didn't understand. I don't see why Psion would do so. I guess you're right though. Most people will skim through this thread (and not look at the other thread much) and anyone who isn't a math nerd probably wont do much to try to really verify any of our claims, so to them it may look like Max is trying harder. But I still don't think there's much of a danger of bad information being spread in this particular case, and, from a purely logical perspective, it makes no sense to argue this when it's deductively valid (in the framework of special relativity).

Edit: Also, I forgot to point this out, but I hardly every get into any extended arguments with anyone about anything. I just don't have the patience for it, especially something like the basics of special relativity (for reasons I already discussed). Plus, sometimes these kind of debates can ruin threads. Two interesting articles have been posted in the past few pages and one got hardly any discussion (the Mercury one. I forgot to ask Eli if Messenger took any pics). I'm glad the bio one is being discussed a bit.

@Eli: There was an article on NewScientist about how we're not training enough nuclear physicists. I wish I could find it again. Maybe that means there will be many open jobs in the future? Kryssan would know more about this than I would.

[Kryssan]

@Eli: There was an article on NewScientist about how we're not training enough nuclear physicists. I wish I could find it again. Maybe that means there will be many open jobs in the future? Kryssan would know more about this than I would.

It was something I know they discussed a year or so ago. Particularly in the US, the nuclear work force is 'old'. They'll be coming up on a heavy rollover in the next decade or so and whether or not the bodies exist for such an event is definitely some cause for debate. I don't personally know how bad it is, but I am aware that even back several years ago when I was finally getting through the odd situation regarding my military service Duke Power said they would hire me as an auxiliary systems operator as long as I was not discharged on dishonourable terms. As for the physicist side of it, I couldn't say. I only dabble with theory on my own time now, and operations isn't theory. Nor, in my opinion, is operation anywhere near as fun (most of the time, anyway... I've had some few and far between).

[Eliseos]

Sig'd
Two interesting articles have been posted in the past few pages and one got hardly any discussion (the Mercury one. I forgot to ask Eli if Messenger took any pics). I'm glad the bio one is being discussed a bit.

@Eli: There was an article on NewScientist about how we're not training enough nuclear physicists. I wish I could find it again. Maybe that means there will be many open jobs in the future? Kryssan would know more about this than I would.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Messenger took pics. I'll see if I can find some.

And I remember that article now that you mention it, I'll have to take a look at some of the companies websites and see what kind of postings they have.

[Max™]

Hilarious, ah well, guess "nuh uh" wins again.

[Eliseos]

Woozie, and anyone else interested: pics from Messenger (older ones, it sounds like the current one won't turn on its systems for a few days yet).

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/me...dia/index.html

[Kaylia]

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?

Because light travel at 299,792,458 m/s regardless of what your frame of reference used to be before.
Because you defined 1 meter as 1⁄299,792,458 of the distance traveled by the speed of light.

If Betelgeuse is 2 years away from you, the distance between you and that planet has to be shorter than 2 light year or you would be traveling faster than light. For that reason, the photon had to be emited less than 2 years ago. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the postulates of relativity (invariance of c).

How often do people say that the radius of the visible universe is "0 light year" instead of 93 billions light years? The idea is important in relativity, but not so much when we speak and try to understand its effect. Like I said, Euclidean distance is the only distance we are experiencing and that's why it's always correct to use it. The argument you're trying to have is stupid.

[Mizango]

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.

Man, seriously? Get the fuck out. I've tried to sit by and be idle since Woozie is more than capable of laying the smack down, but you of all people should have just stayed the hell out of the way. It seems to me that you are just trying to inject yourself in this debate since Woozie called you out and compared you to Max. I understand, your feelings were hurt, but dont be a goddamn tard with this "loool hes winning" bullshit.

This shit is no more of a fight than what you'd have if this were a hammer sparring against a nail.

[Mizango]

Because light travel at 299,792,458 m/s regardless of what your frame of reference used to be before.
Because you defined 1 meter as 1⁄299,792,458 of the distance traveled by the speed of light.

If Betelgeuse is 2 years away from you, the distance between you and that planet has to be shorter than 2 light year or you would be traveling faster than light. For that reason, the photon had to be emited less than 2 years ago. If you don't understand this, you don't understand the postulates of relativity (invariance of c).

How often do people say that the radius of the visible universe is "0 light year" instead of 93 billions light years? The idea is important in relativity, but not so much when we speak and try to understand its effect. Like I said, Euclidean distance is the only distance we are experiencing and that's why it's always correct to use it. The argument you're trying to have is stupid.

What's sad is that point has been made, umpteen million times and its still going over folks heads. I dont even understand how this is debatable? I mean on the real, if you're disagreeing with anything that was said then I suggest you call in to work, purchase a plane ticket and go pick up your Nobel prize in physics and your hard earned 1.5M dollar prize. Fuck BG, go stick it to Hawking and Guth and make them your lapdogs. But of course you'd have to not only PROVE but show your work and how you came to this conclusion, but I suppose as long as they dont ask, then were good.

Somewhere Andreas Albrecht, Lee Smolin, JP Petit and João Magueijo are troll facing at the thought of someone, somewhere is championing VSL and is hell bent on redefining c. Fuck what you're talking Kaylia, SR and GR can be contorted to fit what I need. Fuck yo math. Fuck yo equations and Fuck yo proof. But seriously, just go pick up your Nobel because you have 0 contenders if you really believe that Max. We here on BG are minuscule fish in comparison.

[Khamsin]

Maybe his problem is just the consolidation of all the frames of reference.

For example, say you and a buddy are having a beer (on earth), and you decide to have a little fun. You shoot off into space and head toward Betelgeuse at nearly the speed of light. Your buddy stays on earth and keeps an eye on you. Meanwhile, a couple photons emitted from Betelgeuse a couple years ago approach. One hits your eye, while you're at nearly the speed of light. The other continues on by toward your buddy on earth. How long until that photon reaches him? And if you stop now (you haven't been moving for long), how far from earth are you (and the photon that just passed you)? How long was the photon's total journey from Betelgeuse to your buddy? And to you?