I debunked Albert Einstein while eating ice cream - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

MrPopup · 06-19-2003, 08:08 PM

50 bowls of genius ice cream

06-19-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff
Human beings will never be able to "travel backwards through time" -- we know this to be a fact; how, you ask?

Simple, because if at any point in the future it became possible to travel back through time, someone would do it, so we would already always have known it was possible.

Now that's logic, biatches.

why would someone travel BACK in time?
who has time to waste

remember
if you travel back in time, you can never go back in the future unless you reinvent the time machine!!!

ppl in the future would rather travel in the future then back in time

freeadultcontent · 06-19-2003, 08:10 PM

Some people really need to step away from the pipe.

modF · 06-19-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I've always known Einstein was wrong about time travel but I never felt I had the time to properly debunk it.
So tonight, I'm eating Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" icecream and a simple answer to the problem presented itself

The hippie ice cream is spiked, someone may need to sit with you to talk you down

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

its a theory, thats the point of it...
still to be proven

true until proven wrong!

(and dont tell me false until proven true, with einsteins credibility, its always the other way around)

dude, I have credibility here.

why doesn't my speed of sound theory hold water?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff
Human beings will never be able to "travel backwards through time" -- we know this to be a fact; how, you ask?

Simple, because if at any point in the future it became possible to travel back through time, someone would do it, so we would already always have known it was possible.

Now that's logic, biatches.

not true, the future hasn't happened yet

warlock667 · 06-19-2003, 08:13 PM

Thought I'd chime in on this one, since I've had this one thought in my head for such a long time:

You're travelling from point A to point B. You keep doing, each time going twice as fast as the previous time. If it were possible to reach a speed that the time to take you from point A to point B was 0 (instantaneously), then if you were to go any faster than that speed, you would have to be at point B BEFORE you left point A, thereby jumping somewhere in time...

But, you will never reach "Instantaneous" speed, because if you graph out all this junk, you get an asymtope that represents instantaneous speed, which you can never reach. Is this the speed of light? I dunno.

Just thought I'd throw that out as something else to think about...

06-19-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

dude, I have credibility here.

why doesn't my speed of sound theory hold water?

are you telling me that you have more credibility than einstein :P

the fact is, 12clicks
many scientists study the theory of relativity
and if they were so certain that it was impossible, everybody would know of it by now.

what you say maybe makes sence to you, and to others, but PROBABLY isint the fact

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by modF

The hippie ice cream is spiked, someone may need to sit with you to talk you down

dude, its mind expanding

06-19-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warlock667
Thought I'd chime in on this one, since I've had this one thought in my head for such a long time:

You're travelling from point A to point B. You keep doing, each time going twice as fast as the previous time. If it were possible to reach a speed that the time to take you from point A to point B was 0 (instantaneously), then if you were to go any faster than that speed, you would have to be at point B BEFORE you left point A, thereby jumping somewhere in time...

But, you will never reach "Instantaneous" speed, because if you graph out all this junk, you get an asymtope that represents instantaneous speed, which you can never reach. Is this the speed of light? I dunno.

Just thought I'd throw that out as something else to think about...

exactly. that asymptote is what its all about
thats why I DO believe in going in the future
although going in the past is somewhat farfetched

06-19-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

dude, its mind expanding

send me some

Gman.357 · 06-19-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

dude, I have credibility here.

why doesn't my speed of sound theory hold water?

For one, you're asking GFY about complex scientific relativism. We're the folks who can't stop cheaters from changing their TGP galleries on us, remember?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warlock667
Thought I'd chime in on this one, since I've had this one thought in my head for such a long time:

You're travelling from point A to point B. You keep doing, each time going twice as fast as the previous time. If it were possible to reach a speed that the time to take you from point A to point B was 0 (instantaneously), then if you were to go any faster than that speed, you would have to be at point B BEFORE you left point A, thereby jumping somewhere in time...

But, you will never reach "Instantaneous" speed, because if you graph out all this junk, you get an asymtope that represents instantaneous speed, which you can never reach. Is this the speed of light? I dunno.

Just thought I'd throw that out as something else to think about...

never reach instantaneuos.your trying to divide in half to get to zero. it can't be done.

06-19-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

never reach instantaneuos.your trying to divide in half to get to zero. it can't be done.

thats why its an asymptote

freeadultcontent · 06-19-2003, 08:17 PM

Ok lets be simple.

You somehow can travel at the speed of light. You get in your spiffy machine and zoom out into space at the speed of light.

You travel for 4 light years, flip a u turn and zoom back to earth.

You land your spiffy machine, get out and you will only be 8 years older, but the rest of the people on the planet would have aged a whole lot more.

You suddenly relize yes 8 years have past for you but for the rest of the planet it is not so. That places you where? Oh yeah in the future.

Edited- forgot to double the years for the return trip.

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

are you telling me that you have more credibility than einstein :P

in certtain circles

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

the fact is, 12clicks
many scientists study the theory of relativity
and if they were so certain that it was impossible, everybody would know of it by now.

what you say maybe makes sence to you, and to others, but PROBABLY isint the fact

I think the pros have jumped to too many happy conclusions because of einsteins reputation.

06-19-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Ok lets be simple.

You somehow can travel at the speed of light. You get in your spiffy machine and zoom out into space at the speed of light.

You travel for 4 light years, flip a u turn and zoom back to earth.

You land your spiffy machine, get out and you will only be 4 years older, but the rest of the people on the planet would have aged a whole lot more.

You suddenly relize yes 4 years have past for you but for the rest of the planet it is not so. That places you where? Oh yeah in the future.

the places you were? 4 years in a space shuttle for you
50 years in a space shuttle for the others

modF · 06-19-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warlock667
But, you will never reach "Instantaneous" speed, because if you graph out all this junk, you get an asymtope that represents instantaneous speed, which you can never reach. Is this the speed of light? I dunno.

Just thought I'd throw that out as something else to think about...

While I agree with most of what you said, the speed of light is not instantaneous. If it were, it would not take 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach earth.

06-19-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

I think the pros have jumped to too many happy conclusions because of einsteins reputation.

hehehe, people study this theory day and night
they dont just sleep on what einstein said

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Ok lets be simple.

You somehow can travel at the speed of light. You get in your spiffy machine and zoom out into space at the speed of light.

You travel for 4 light years, flip a u turn and zoom back to earth.

You land your spiffy machine, get out and you will only be 4 years older, but the rest of the people on the planet would have aged a whole lot more.

You suddenly relize yes 4 years have past for you but for the rest of the planet it is not so. That places you where? Oh yeah in the future.

you have zero proof of this.
The amount of time you are gone from earth is the full amount of time youve been gone no matter how FAR you go.
get it?
If you go 20 billion miles in 5 minutes because of speed, you are still only gone for 5 minutes.

06-19-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by modF

While I agree with most of what you said, the speed of light is not instantaneous. If it were, it would not take 8 minutes for the sun's light to reach earth.

if you were in that ray of light
it would be instantaneous to get to earth

but FROM earth, 8 minutes is what it takes =)

its not the earth traveling @ the speed of light here, its the ray of light

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

hehehe, people study this theory day and night
they dont just sleep on what einstein said

so then why am I less relevant than them. I think about it as much as einstein did.

06-19-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

so then why am I less relevant than them. I think about it as much as einstein did.

but do you have graphs and pages of calculations to prove your point?

modF · 06-19-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

if you were in that ray of light
it would be instantaneous to get to earth

but FROM earth, 8 minutes is what it takes =)

its not the earth traveling @ the speed of light here, its the ray of light

So in the terms of that, an instant would get a ray of light to earth, how many instants would it take to get that same ray of light from the sun to pluto?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

if you were in that ray of light
it would be instantaneous to get to earth

but FROM earth, 8 minutes is what it takes =)

its not the earth traveling @ the speed of light here, its the ray of light

not true. if you are in the ray of light, you will take 8 minutes to get her. and your friend standing on the sun will have had 8 minutes pass.

juice · 06-19-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chodadog
I thought about this. Assume you're at point A, and you're looking at point B. If you travel from point A to point B, faster than the speed of light, and back to point A. You will be able to see yourself at point B. Dose this mean you've gone into the future? No. 'Cause afterall, that's not really you that you are looking at. That is merely the reflection of light that you have managed to overtake.

But hey, i'm no physicist. Just my 2 cents.

yes, so?

Like 12 clicks, all you do is an observation ... not really related to Einstein theory...

freeadultcontent · 06-19-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

you have zero proof of this.
The amount of time you are gone from earth is the full amount of time youve been gone no matter how FAR you go.
get it?
If you go 20 billion miles in 5 minutes because of speed, you are still only gone for 5 minutes.

Ok we have stars in the sky, many of which have long burned out. The light is still reaching us in the future.

06-19-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent

Ok we have stars in the sky, many of which have long burned out. The light is still reaching us in the future.

I dont think that has to do with relativity, just the speed of light.
but yes, its very true

seeing a start that is 6billion light years away

that means we see the light 6 billion years after it was sent out

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

but do you have graphs and pages of calculations to prove your point?

Albert didn't have all that much either.

freeadultcontent · 06-19-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

I dont think that has to do with relativity, just the speed of light.
but yes, its very true

seeing a start that is 6billion light years away
that means we see the light 6 billion years after it was sent out

Yes therefore we are viewing the past.

06-19-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

not true. if you are in the ray of light, you will take 8 minutes to get her. and your friend standing on the sun will have had 8 minutes pass.

8 minutes earth time
time for earth = distance/speed

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent

Ok we have stars in the sky, many of which have long burned out. The light is still reaching us in the future.

You are not the center of the universe.
Just because you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean it hasn't already happened. Much like the gunshot you never hear that kills you.

06-19-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent

Yes therefore we are viewing the past.

yes

its fascinating

06-19-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

You are not the center of the universe.
Just because you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean it hasn't already happened. Much like the gunshot you never hear that kills you.

oh god...

if we know the average life of a star (lets say its less than 6 billion years, for example)
and we know that its more than 6 billion light years away
we can then deduct that the star no longer exists

Libertine · 06-19-2003, 08:32 PM

12clicks, read this page carefully. It might give you some insight in the theory you are attacking.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

8 minutes earth time
time for earth = distance/speed

this doesn't prove your point.

06-19-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

this doesn't prove your point.

well 12clicks
the 8 minutes you say is how long it takes the earth to see the light
its the same thing as what we were talking about earlier.
if someone went near the speed of light
it would take him 4 years blah blah,
but it would take the years 50 years, for example

same thing for the ray of light
except it goes @ the speed of light, not a speed NEAR the speed of light. so instead of taking it 4 years (in the example) it would take him 0 seconds

06-19-2003, 08:35 PM

once again 12clicks
great thread, I like discussing about such things with brilliant minds

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

oh god...
if we know the average life of a star (lets say its less than 6 billion years, for example)
and we know that its more than 6 billion light years away
we can then deduct that the star no longer exists

we can also deduct that we are seeing an image from the past. so?

if that planet explodes today but we don't see the explosion for 100 years, it doesn't mean that it still didn't explode today.

what we SEE is irrelevant to time.

chodadog · 06-19-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juice

yes, so?

Like 12 clicks, all you do is an observation ... not really related to Einstein theory...

Thank you, captain obvious. I think i had that covered when i said "my 2 cents" and informed everyone that i was not a physicist. But thank you for clarifying!

freeadultcontent · 06-19-2003, 08:36 PM

Can we move onto dimensions now?

Should there be a fouth?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf
once again 12clicks
great thread, I like discussing about such things with brilliant minds

I'm having fun.

On-top · 06-19-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SykkBoy2
Am I the only one who'd love to see 12clicks all coked up and off his tree?

No.

06-19-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freeadultcontent
Can we move onto dimensions now?

Should there be a fouth?

I can not imagine anything beyond the 3rd dimension
here is why:

first dimension is a stick
second dimension is another stick, linked to the other stick with other bars (wich would give a square)
third dimension is another square, linked to the other square with other bars (wich would give a cube)

but even if you link 2 cubes to eachother with bars, it would still give you a 3d object (if we think of 3d being an object that has height, lenght and depth)

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

well 12clicks
the 8 minutes you say is how long it takes the earth to see the light
its the same thing as what we were talking about earlier.
if someone went near the speed of light
it would take him 4 years blah blah,
but it would take the years 50 years, for example

same thing for the ray of light
except it goes @ the speed of light, not a speed NEAR the speed of light. so instead of taking it 4 years (in the example) it would take him 0 seconds

Not true.
if it takes 8minutes for light to get here, thats how long it takes. if the sun explodes, it will take 8 minutes for us to see it.

chodadog · 06-19-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buff
Human beings will never be able to "travel backwards through time" -- we know this to be a fact; how, you ask?

Simple, because if at any point in the future it became possible to travel back through time, someone would do it, so we would already always have known it was possible.

Now that's logic, biatches.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html

06-19-2003, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

Not true.
if it takes 8minutes for light to get here, thats how long it takes. if the sun explodes, it will take 8 minutes for us to see it.

once again, 8 minutes for earth

if EARTH times the ray of light, it would take 8 minutes
but if we stick to the theory, if the ray of light had a watch, it would take him 0 seconds

06-19-2003, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chodadog

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html

lol please dont go there

foe · 06-19-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nazgul
Traveling at the Speed of light doesn't send you back in time, it theoretical sends you to the future. A rough proof of this is in the has actually been tested.

Scientist took two clocks and set them at exactly the same time. The left one clock on the ground, and put the other in a plane. They then flew the plane around the world a few times. When they took the clock off the plan it was no longer in synch but was behind the clock that as on the ground.

The theory is that if you travel at the speed of light, you will actually "stands still" as everything around you ages. So when you stop traveling at the speed of light, you seem to have gone forward in time.

This speed of light theory doesn't have anything to do with traveling to the past.

Now that is just the theory you were talking about.

Read some of steven hawkings shit. That will really scramble your noodle. He talks about space and time being fabrics. Comparing them to a taught sheet that create a plane. Then have multipe instance of the same moment occuring on each of those planes. He talks about how black holes and the gravity of stars then create indentiations, or ripples in the plane, much like what would happen if you put a bowling ball in the center of a sheet that two people were holding on the ends. his theory is basically the gravity generated at those points is great enough to allow you to travel, to the alternate planes. By traveling to these alternate planes you can travel to diffrent places in time.

Something to that effect anyway. Been a long time since i have read this shit, but it is called

"The Universe in a Nut Shell"

Your right, except for one thing it wasnt in a plane it was in space. (Rockets travel at 40,000 miles per hour or something)
Its a fun read

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf

once again, 8 minutes for earth
if EARTH times the ray of light, it would take 8 minutes
but if we stick to the theory, if the ray of light had a watch, it would take him 0 seconds

No.
It would take zero time for the light to be created by the sun but it would take 8 minutes for the light particle to reach the earth.

06-19-2003, 08:08 PM	#51
MrPopup Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: on the internet Posts: 3,783	50 bowls of genius ice cream __________________ <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" border="1" bgcolor="#008000"><tr><td><font size=3>Gone</font></td></tr></table>

06-19-2003, 08:10 PM	#53
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	Some people really need to step away from the pipe. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

06-19-2003, 08:17 PM	#65
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	Ok lets be simple. You somehow can travel at the speed of light. You get in your spiffy machine and zoom out into space at the speed of light. You travel for 4 light years, flip a u turn and zoom back to earth. You land your spiffy machine, get out and you will only be 8 years older, but the rest of the people on the planet would have aged a whole lot more. You suddenly relize yes 8 years have past for you but for the rest of the planet it is not so. That places you where? Oh yeah in the future. Edited- forgot to double the years for the return trip. __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites Last edited by freeadultcontent; 06-19-2003 at 08:23 PM..

06-19-2003, 08:32 PM	#85
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	12clicks, read this page carefully. It might give you some insight in the theory you are attacking. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

06-19-2003, 08:36 PM	#91
freeadultcontent Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: "evitcepsrep ruoy egnahc" Posts: 9,976	Can we move onto dimensions now? Should there be a fouth? __________________ Exclusive Ethnic & Microniche Sites

06-19-2003, 08:13 PM	#57
warlock667 Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 142	Thought I'd chime in on this one, since I've had this one thought in my head for such a long time: You're travelling from point A to point B. You keep doing, each time going twice as fast as the previous time. If it were possible to reach a speed that the time to take you from point A to point B was 0 (instantaneously), then if you were to go any faster than that speed, you would have to be at point B BEFORE you left point A, thereby jumping somewhere in time... But, you will never reach "Instantaneous" speed, because if you graph out all this junk, you get an asymtope that represents instantaneous speed, which you can never reach. Is this the speed of light? I dunno. Just thought I'd throw that out as something else to think about...

06-19-2003, 08:35 PM	#88
buddyjuf Guest Posts: n/a	once again 12clicks great thread, I like discussing about such things with brilliant minds