|
The Danny Pate facts
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 24-11-2024 23:25
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| baggieboys32 |
Posted on 06-10-2012 19:38
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1981
Joined: 01-10-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Danny Pate got bored waiting for NASA to find Alien life, so he cyclied to every planet to try and find them 
|
| |
|
|
| lluuiiggii |
Posted on 06-10-2012 20:35
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8542
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
cio93 wrote:
lluuiiggii wrote:
cio93 wrote:
Danny Pate saves 10 years of his life compared to all others by casually cycling near the speed of light every morning before breakfast.
Wouldn't it actually be the opposite? The faster you are, the faster you're going into the future? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_par...in_paradox
Or short answer: No.
Right, it isn't the opposite, but if I got it right, travelling at near infinite speed, you'd be moving into the future faster because you'd be accelerating through time rather than space in such high speeds, but aging slower because the aging process would slow down (for some reason ). At least that's what I got in ctrl+F "future" in this site Wouldn't be surprised if I got it wrong again though, relativity is too confusing
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 06-10-2012 20:37
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
The aging process wouldn't slow down, it's just that time would run "slower" for you when you travel at such high speeds.
|
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 06-10-2012 20:51
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
The aging process, just as any process in the universe, is bound to time.
Therefore, it slows down when time slows down.
lluuiiggii wrote:
Right, it isn't the opposite, but if I got it right, travelling at near infinite speed, you'd be moving into the future faster because you'd be accelerating through time rather than space in such high speeds,
Actually, as space and time are combined, you can't differentiate it that much, I think.
So through time dilation, space is affected as well. For example, moving with 0.8 c shortens the distance you travel by 50% iirc.
lluuiiggii wrote:
but aging slower because the aging process would slow down (for some reason ).
See my first paragraph
Don't take all for granted that I write here, I don't have a PhD in Physics, but I'm very much interested in that stuff. Still, I, as pretty much the whole humanity, don't really know why it is this way.
Edited by cio93 on 06-10-2012 21:22
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 06-10-2012 21:46
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
If I'd known this would turn into a scientific thread... 
TimoCycling wrote:
Don't really see the funny part of these comments to be honest . Bit disrespectful for my taste.
I understand what you mean, but no one's here to disrespect Danny Pate or something. |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 06-10-2012 22:04
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
cio93 wrote:
The aging process, just as any process in the universe, is bound to time.
Therefore, it slows down when time slows down.
lluuiiggii wrote:
Right, it isn't the opposite, but if I got it right, travelling at near infinite speed, you'd be moving into the future faster because you'd be accelerating through time rather than space in such high speeds,
Actually, as space and time are combined, you can't differentiate it that much, I think.
So through time dilation, space is affected as well. For example, moving with 0.8 c shortens the distance you travel by 50% iirc.
lluuiiggii wrote:
but aging slower because the aging process would slow down (for some reason ).
See my first paragraph
Don't take all for granted that I write here, I don't have a PhD in Physics, but I'm very much interested in that stuff. Still, I, as pretty much the whole humanity, don't really know why it is this way.
Moving clocks run slower and moving objects contract (get shorter in length). The entire point of relativity is that everything is with regards to a given frame of reference. From the inertial frame of someone standing still, someone moving very fast moves slower in time and is shrunk in the direction they are moving. From the perspective of the moving person, their time is normal and the other person is doing the same (as from the frame of the moving person they're traveling -v, where v is the velocity of the moving person). |
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 06-10-2012 22:29
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
cio93 wrote:
The aging process, just as any process in the universe, is bound to time.
Therefore, it slows down when time slows down.
lluuiiggii wrote:
Right, it isn't the opposite, but if I got it right, travelling at near infinite speed, you'd be moving into the future faster because you'd be accelerating through time rather than space in such high speeds,
Actually, as space and time are combined, you can't differentiate it that much, I think.
So through time dilation, space is affected as well. For example, moving with 0.8 c shortens the distance you travel by 50% iirc.
lluuiiggii wrote:
but aging slower because the aging process would slow down (for some reason ).
See my first paragraph
Don't take all for granted that I write here, I don't have a PhD in Physics, but I'm very much interested in that stuff. Still, I, as pretty much the whole humanity, don't really know why it is this way.
Moving clocks run slower and moving objects contract (get shorter in length). The entire point of relativity is that everything is with regards to a given frame of reference. From the inertial frame of someone standing still, someone moving very fast moves slower in time and is shrunk in the direction they are moving. From the perspective of the moving person, their time is normal and the other person is doing the same (as from the frame of the moving person they're traveling -v, where v is the velocity of the moving person).
If you would elaborate to what part of the quote you refer and what this exactly adds to the discussion, I'd be a happy man
(no offense intended, I just don't see it )
Edited by cio93 on 06-10-2012 22:29
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 06-10-2012 23:14
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just trying to clarify a bit. Also, you did that calculation wrong. The slowdown/shrinking factor for .8c is 60%.
s = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) |
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 06-10-2012 23:20
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
Deadpool wrote:
Just trying to clarify a bit. Also, you did that calculation wrong. The slowdown/shrinking factor for .8c is 60%.
s = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
That either is some hardcore physics knowledge or good google search
Actually, that was everything but a calculation, but thanks for clarifying that
It is incredibly complex to really understand, but I can't think of anything more fascinating than astrophysics or stuff related to that!
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 07-10-2012 00:21
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
cio93 wrote:
Deadpool wrote:
Just trying to clarify a bit. Also, you did that calculation wrong. The slowdown/shrinking factor for .8c is 60%.
s = sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
That either is some hardcore physics knowledge or good google search
Actually, that was everything but a calculation, but thanks for clarifying that
It is incredibly complex to really understand, but I can't think of anything more fascinating than astrophysics or stuff related to that!
More like perfect timing. We just went over shrinking factors in my Special Relativity class this week. |
| |
|
|
| TheManxMissile |
Posted on 07-10-2012 00:21
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 18187
Joined: 12-05-2012
PCM$: 0.00
|
cio93 wrote:
It is incredibly complex to really understand, but I can't think of anything more fascinating than astrophysics or stuff related to that!
BOOBS
|
| |
|
|
| MatisMJK |
Posted on 07-10-2012 00:30
|
Amateur
Posts: 5
Joined: 13-05-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
if you travel by the speed of light to the moon and back it will have taken 500 hundred year on earth but for you traveling it would only have taken 5 years... |
| |
|
|
| cio93 |
Posted on 07-10-2012 00:32
|
World Champion
Posts: 10845
Joined: 29-10-2007
PCM$: 500.00
|
MatisMJK wrote:
if you travel by the speed of light to the moon and back it will have taken 500 hundred year on earth but for you traveling it would only have taken 5 years...
I don't know where you have that information from, but in my universe, the moon is ~400.000 km away from earth. That makes 800.000 km both ways, divided by c makes 2.66 seconds.
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 07-10-2012 07:59
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
MatisMJK wrote:
if you travel by the speed of light to the moon and back it will have taken 500 hundred year on earth but for you traveling it would only have taken 5 years...
That's not right, though.
For example, it takes 8 minutes from the sun's light to reach the earth, so to the moon is very close.
Maybe you were confusing it with some planet/star? |
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 07-10-2012 12:29
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ian Butler wrote:
MatisMJK wrote:
if you travel by the speed of light to the moon and back it will have taken 500 hundred year on earth but for you traveling it would only have taken 5 years...
That's not right, though.
For example, it takes 8 minutes from the sun's light to reach the earth, so to the moon is very close.
Maybe you were confusing it with some planet/star?
There's nothing really of note 250 light years away. I think he's just being an idiot. |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 07-10-2012 12:32
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I took "to the moon" to be shorthand for "though space" as it is sometimes colloquially used.
Regardless this whole discussion is way over my head. Which I just realised is a regrettable pun.
Edited by CountArach on 07-10-2012 12:32
|
| |
|
|
| Deadpool |
Posted on 07-10-2012 12:54
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7357
Joined: 06-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
I took "to the moon" to be shorthand for "though space" as it is sometimes colloquially used.
Regardless this whole discussion is way over my head. Which I just realised is a regrettable pun.
The whole point though is that you can't go the speed of light. Look at what happens when you put v = c into that equation, you end up with sqrt(0) on the right hand of the equation, so you get the trivial solution that has no bearing on physical reality. The speed of light is the upper bound of the universe, and one of time or space has to bend to allow us to accelerate head of each other while still fitting in underneath it. If you actually go the speed of light, the entire system breaks down, for both frames of reference, and you end up breaking causality. His statement means nothing because it's impossible within the bounds of relativity.
But not, consequently, within the bounds of quantum mechanics, because we've observed entanglement, and so we know that there are phenomena that break relativity. The entire point of the LHC and the Higgs Boson was to try and come up with an answer for this (the Grand Unified Theory of Physics), and we'll see what happens over the next few years with it. |
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 07-10-2012 14:46
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
Regardless this whole discussion is way over my head. Which I just realised is a regrettable pun. Over your head ? But you're already walking upside down in Australia. I'm confused now. |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 08-10-2012 06:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Booooring!
|
| |
|
|
| Ian Butler |
Posted on 08-10-2012 07:11
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 21854
Joined: 01-05-2012
PCM$: 400.00
|
Has the time finally come? No more Danny Pate jokes? Everyone's out of them.
Maybe this thread did what thought to be impossible; it made an end to all Pate-humor. This is like ending a fire by flooding it with O2. Burn itself out... |
| |
|
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
