Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sue...
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
 |
|
On Jul 4, 11:03 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
[...]
snip <incorrigible misappropriation of circumstances
inappropriate to this particular discussion.
|
If a cannon expoded on the field during the
Battle of Hastings there are vaild paths
where we could detect that radiation today.
Some of the most informative celestial observations
are of this type
You are in effect arging to someone of Newton's
day that the range to the moon can't be measured with
light because it takes too much fuel to
put a reflector there and the lenses would
be impossible to construct.
That would be an invalid argurment
just as yours is.
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Osmium
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
On Jul 4, 10:12�am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... unable to stay on topic blathered:
On Jul 4, 11:03 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
[...]
snip <incorrigible misappropriation of circumstances
inappropriate to this particular discussion.
If a cannon expoded on the field during the
Battle of Hastings [....]
snip
We were talking about sunlight photons originally
reflected from images making it through clouds to
a celestial body 477 LY away not being resurrectable
into an understandable image.
I have yet to find anything from you that is
directly on topic. I also provided an on
topic challenge:
If you can find a legitimate counterargument then you
should be able to come up with an optical wavelength
telescope that sees through the atmosphere and cloud
cover as well as the best possible space based optical
telescope. It seems I need to remind you that coherent
images through clouds is the core issue here.
that you have chosen to ignore. I can't think of anything
further that you will be able to contribute to this
conversation.
Best of luck to you.
|
I should have said, "I could not go back in time and participate in
the Battle of Hastings". Just by virtue of a time traveler from the
future being present in the past we will have a different past.
(you can never go home, again)
However there are millions of different pasts existing now with
millions of versions of the B of H.
It would be great to go to one of them and not have to deal with Uncle
Al or people trying to find themselves or Tai Chi or political
correctness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 12:18 am, Osmium <Rusht...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 1:18�pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Get near extreme gravity. The future of the rest of the universe will
rush around you because of your clock running slow. We can only travel
into the future.
If you wanted to go back in time you would have to run everything
backward not yourself but your environment.
.
Mitch Raemsch
You cannot go back in time. I cannot go back and watch the Battle of
Hastings---there was no Battle of Hastings at any time with Andrew
Smyth as a spectator.
Andrew Smyth can become a spectator at the Battle of Hastings
tonight by simply looking at a celestial object 477 LY distant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
|
Unless, as is likely, it was cloudy that day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 8:35 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
[...]
You cannot go back in time. I cannot go back and watch the Battle of
Hastings---there was no Battle of Hastings at any time with Andrew
Smyth as a spectator.
Andrew Smyth can become a spectator at the Battle of Hastings
tonight by simply looking at a celestial object 477 LY distant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Unless, as is likely, it was cloudy that day.
Some seats in the coliseum are better than others.
They are still occupied by spectators.
|
Is this headed into becoming a dictionary issue?
| Quote: |
Can you see the sun on a cloudy day ?
It should work both ways. Eh ?
|
No. When the "spectator" sits behind a column the
term becomes meaningless. The few photons that
escape back up through the clouds become so
scattered that they're not capable of resolving
into a coherent image even if they happened to
hist the 477 LY distant object one happens to be
looking at. Incoherent photon arrangement alters
a spectator into a speculator.
I know....I'm boringly correct, but this isn't
really supposed to be a scifi group despite the
make-believe crap that is often being pawned off
as science here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
And where is the "movie" of these moonbounces?
I see not one actual "looking back" being recorded in any of that.
:(
Again,
I see no "observations" we can see from the past using bouncing without a
mirror.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
That is a "one way" view.
Show me what the bridge sees and then we can talk about
seeing without mirrors.
:)
Then they best remove the word "reflect" since that basically means
bounce.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 9:41 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 4, 8:35 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
[...]
You cannot go back in time. I cannot go back and watch the Battle of
Hastings---there was no Battle of Hastings at any time with Andrew
Smyth as a spectator.
Andrew Smyth can become a spectator at the Battle of Hastings
tonight by simply looking at a celestial object 477 LY distant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Unless, as is likely, it was cloudy that day.
Some seats in the coliseum are better than others.
They are still occupied by spectators.
Is this headed into becoming a dictionary issue?
|
Pfffttt. It didn't rise even to that level.
Like there was an electron biprism in the coliseum
| Quote: |
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
|
Let alone a laser!
Do you work for a government contractor by any chance? This
reply of yours is typical of a case where someone without
a wing or a prayer throws lots and lots of shit against a
slippery wall with the hope that something will stick or
perhaps will drive the opposition to ground with the stink.
That doesn't cut it.
Columns in coliseum days looked something like this:
<http://www.mccullagh.org/db9/1ds-12/parthenon-column-metope-detail.jpg>
Pay particular attention to the width.
| Quote: |
The few photons that
escape back up through the clouds become so
scattered that they're not capable of resolving
into a coherent image even if they happened to
hist the 477 LY distant object one happens to be
looking at. Incoherent photon arrangement alters
a spectator into a speculator.
I know....I'm boringly correct, but this isn't
really supposed to be a scifi group despite the
make-believe crap that is often being pawned off
as science here.
You are probably right about the sci-fi part but
boringly wrong about light propagation.
|
Hardly. You're grasping at straws here. That's too
bad since it seems to me that you've done much better
science posts in the past.
regardless of such irrelevant arguments as you provide,
the essence remains true: "The few photons that escape
back up through the clouds become so scattered that
they're not capable of resolving into a coherent image."
If you can find a legitimate counterargument then you
should be able to come up with an optical wavelength
telescope that sees through the atmosphere and cloud
cover as well as the best possible space based optical
telescope. It seems I need to remind you that coherent
images through clouds is the core issue here.
You've made some statements, so let's see you can put
up or if you'll simply keep running your virtual mouth.
You're very clever but apparently smarter people than
you have not been able to make that telescope that
should be a possibility if your arguments are valid
and mine are wrong. Coherence is lost in the both the
Nobel related URLs you posted above demonstrating
their inappropriateness to this discussion.
snip <incorrigible misappropriation of circumstances
inappropriate to this particular discussion.> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
From this web page you keep referencing:
"Reflection, refraction, diffuse scattering, polarization, diffraction,
emission and absorption spectra, photoelectric effect, all of the
essential characteristics of light have been found also to be
characteristic of X-rays."
25 cent word = "reflection"
2 cent word = "bounce" or "bouncing"
Other than that, Spacedoutman is wrong as usual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Spaceman
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sanforized wrote:
| Quote: |
Sue... wrote:
On Jul 4, 10:29 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh
wrote:
Sue... wrote:
Amateur radio operators use the moon to look at
old light from the earth on a regular basis and they did it
long before the laser retro-reflector was in place.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=eme+communication&btnG=Search
And where is the "movie" of these moonbounces?
I see not one actual "looking back" being recorded in any of that.
:(
You just don't know how to look creativly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-scan_sonar
Again,
I see no "observations" we can see from the past using bouncing
without a
mirror.
Look at the image of the bridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-scan_sonar
BTW light doesn't "bounce"
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
From this web page you keep referencing:
"Reflection, refraction, diffuse scattering, polarization,
diffraction, emission and absorption spectra, photoelectric effect,
all of the essential characteristics of light have been found also to
be characteristic of X-rays."
25 cent word = "reflection"
2 cent word = "bounce" or "bouncing"
Other than that, Spacedoutman is wrong as usual.
|
So when I drop a ball the ground does not reflect the force?
Or are you confusing me with Sue that posted those links?
Spaceoutman happens to know a bounce is a reflection.
and a reflection is a bounce.
Light does "bounce" and if it did not, it would never reflect.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sanforized
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
Sue... unable to stay on topic blathered:
| Quote: |
On Jul 4, 11:03 am, Sanforized <sanfori...@naol.con> wrote:
Sue... wrote:
[...]
snip <incorrigible misappropriation of circumstances
inappropriate to this particular discussion.
If a cannon expoded on the field during the
Battle of Hastings [....]
|
snip
We were talking about sunlight photons originally
reflected from images making it through clouds to
a celestial body 477 LY away not being resurrectable
into an understandable image.
I have yet to find anything from you that is
directly on topic. I also provided an on
topic challenge:
| Quote: |
If you can find a legitimate counterargument then you
should be able to come up with an optical wavelength
telescope that sees through the atmosphere and cloud
cover as well as the best possible space based optical
telescope. It seems I need to remind you that coherent
images through clouds is the core issue here.
|
that you have chosen to ignore. I can't think of anything
further that you will be able to contribute to this
conversation.
Best of luck to you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Autymn D. C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
On Jul 3, 9:31 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
wrote:
| Quote: |
You cannot go back in time. I cannot go back and watch the Battle of
Hastings---there was no Battle of Hastings at any time with Andrew
Smyth as a spectator.
|
Anyone can go back in time as well as a spring or bob can.
| Quote: |
You can not slow time either, you can slow a clock, you can slow
actions and reactions, but slowing time itself will never be done
unless you can actually slow down the Entire Universe at your command.
|
tide then?
| Quote: |
Time dilation in a clock is simply a clock malfunction and is simply
an action/reaction rate slowdown of the ticker.
|
tide dilation then
| Quote: |
If the light took 40 yrs and your trip there took 40 seconds,
It would be 40yrs and 40 seconds after what you had seen
before you left.
There is no "time travel" period.
looking into the past can be done, but going there will never be
done til you can "turn back" the Entire Universe at will.
|
All one must do is outrun the lihthorn--find some lukewarm takýons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
93 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
