Prev: (only $20-$38,free shipping) for newest Nike air max --Paypal
Next: The Hubble Error Clarified
From: Copie on 18 May 2010 11:04
On May 18, 3:32 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear Copie:
>
> On May 17, 11:54 pm, Copie <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote:
>
> > Assuming that the universe has a finite age,
> > civilisations only have so much time in which
> > to exist. This leads me to believe that most
> > (type III) civilisations will attempt to
> > maximise the time available by numerous means.
>
> Unlikely.  If the background temperature drops from 9K, to today's 3k,
> on to 0K, planet surface temperatures will be not much affected.
>
> > The first that jumps to mind is by moving
> > to a faster substrate.  However given the
> > malleability of time it would make sense for
> > these civilisations to find the "fastest"
> > part of the universe in which to place that
> > substrate. I.e., we know that clocks on GPS
> > satellites run slower than clocks on the Earth.
>
> Not unless they are moving very fast.  They actually tend to have more
> clock cycles in an "Earth surface second", than a clock down here with
> us.
>
> > Does this mean that when the universe ends
> > the GPS satellites will not have "lived" as
> > long as the Earth (ignoring the fact that
> > both will eventually die when the sun goes)?
>
> Lived longer, yes.  Probably wiped form the sky when our Sun goes
> through its red giant phase.
>
> > If this is the case then by extension it
> > would make sense to get off the Earth given
> > it's travelling around the Sun at a
> > measurable rate.  If we were to hang in
> > space, as still as possible relative to the
> > Sun then would time would run slower for us
> > than for our colleagues remaining on the
> > Earth, would we would effectively have longer
> > to live assuming we were immortal?
>
> You accidentally jumped to a correct answer.  If we established a
> speed of about 300 km/sec from our solar system (towards or away from
> the Virgo cluster), we would be essentially at rest wrt the Universe
> at large.  Presumably, we'd achieve maximal aging.
>
> > Taking it further is it possible to find a
> > point relative to the majority of the visible
> > universe where we would be as stationary as
> > possible (as slow as possible) where time
> > would run at it's slowest, effectively giving
> > us longer to live within the finite age of the
> > universe?
>
> A second or two per year, maybe.
>
> > Assuming all my conjecture (and shaky grasp
> > of relativity) is true, where would this
> > "slowest" point in the universe be?
>
> Moving away form us.
>
> > How would you find it?
>
> Acceleration.
>
> > Perhaps by taking a selection of known
> > period quasars and travelling in all
> > directions whilst measuring their period
> > until they ran as fast as possible,
>
> ... as *slow* as possible ...
>
> > which means you are as slow as possible?
>
> If you want the ability to age longer, you want teh rest of the
> Universe to appear to age more slowly.
>
> > Would we find numerous aliens hiding in
> > the slow spaces of the universe in order
> > to maximize their time here?
>
> Not danged likely.  If you want another "eternity", just cross the
> event horizon of a supermassive black hole, and watch a whole new
> Universe be born.  Of course, it is a pretty hot time there at the
> beginning...
>
> David A. Smith

David,
thank you for your answers, much more helpful!

Regarding your point that I have my speeds the wrong way around,
surely if the rest of the universe seems to be moving FAST then you
are moving SLOWLY? If the universe appears to be moving SLOWLY then
you are moving FAST?
From: Androcles on 18 May 2010 11:25

"Copie" <gordon(a)copestake.org> wrote in message
news:6cc6f788-c4f9-49bf-a6a3-690df963ece1(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 2:12 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> "Copie" <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote in message
>
> news:0e12b629-4261-4cc8-8949-de45f89de716(a)d12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On May 18, 11:16 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Copie" <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:c94f3cef-c8f7-4cbc-8c6d-30f28e241903(a)y12g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 18, 8:38 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
>
> > > "Copie" <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote in message
>
> > >news:44887838-441e-4ada-aa9c-c115e06f2f2e(a)y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On 18 May, 08:05, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote:
> > > >> "Copie" <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:7a07c484-43c5-45b2-bdca-190a24c97d43(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > Assuming that the universe has a finite age, civilisations only
> > > >> > have
> > > >> > so much time in which to exist. This leads me to believe that
> > > >> > most
> > > >> > (type III) civilisations will attempt to maximise the time
> > > >> > available
> > > >> > by numerous means.
>
> > > >> > The first that jumps to mind is by moving to a faster substrate.
> > > >> > However given the malleability of time it would make sense for
> > > >> > these
> > > >> > civilisations to find the "fastest" part of the universe in which
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > place that substrate. I.e., we know that clocks on GPS satellites
> > > >> > run
> > > >> > slower than clocks on the Earth. Does this mean that when the
> > > >> > universe
> > > >> > ends the GPS satellites will not have "lived" as long as the
> > > >> > Earth
> > > >> > (ignoring the fact that both will eventually die when the sun
> > > >> > goes)?
>
> > > >> > If this is the case then by extension it would make sense to get
> > > >> > off
> > > >> > the Earth given it's travelling around the Sun at a measurable
> > > >> > rate.
> > > >> > If we were to hang in space, as still as possible relative to the
> > > >> > Sun
> > > >> > then would time would run slower for us than for our colleagues
> > > >> > remaining on the Earth, would we would effectively have longer to
> > > >> > live
> > > >> > assuming we were immortal?
>
> > > >> > Taking it further is it possible to find a point relative to the
> > > >> > majority of the visible universe where we would be as stationary
> > > >> > as
> > > >> > possible (as slow as possible) where time would run at it's
> > > >> > slowest,
> > > >> > effectively giving us longer to live within the finite age of the
> > > >> > universe?
>
> > > >> > Assuming all my conjecture (and shaky grasp of relativity) is
> > > >> > true,
> > > >> > where would this "slowest" point in the universe be? How would
> > > >> > you
> > > >> > find it? Perhaps by taking a selection of known period quasars
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > travelling in all directions whilst measuring their period until
> > > >> > they
> > > >> > ran as fast as possible, which means you are as slow as possible?
> > > >> > Would we find numerous aliens hiding in the slow spaces of the
> > > >> > universe in order to maximize their time here?
>
> > > >> Assuming that you are a ranting lunatic, you would find numerous
> > > >> aliens
> > > >> hiding in the slow spaces of the
> > > >> universe in order to maximize their time here. I will not.
>
> > > > I'm not entirely certain how my mental state effects the physics
>
> > > It doesn't affect it at all, but you were not discussing physics. Your
> > > mental state affects your sci-fi.
>
> > Thats a fair point, but Sci-Fi has done a lot to popularise physics
> > and astronomy. Blackholes for example are a household name not because
> > the public read a paper about them but because popular culture and sci-
> > fi used the idea.
>
> > Returning to my original point, I was asking if it was possible to
> > find a stationary point in the universe which would maximise the
> > length of time subjectively experienced. If I can't ask a question
> > about time dilation in the sci.physics.relativity group I'm at a loss.
> > ===============================================
> > You can ask any question you like and be pleased or displeased
> > with the answer. People that find the answer agrees with their
> > preconceived ideas are pleased, those that do not are displeased.
> > You say "we know that clocks on GPS satellites run slower than
> > clocks on the Earth. "
> > You may know it, but I don't. Nor do I believe it. Therefore "we"
> > do not know it. The only evidence you'll ever produce is hearsay.
> > Subjectivity is for psychiatrists. Objectively, time dilation is sci-fi.
> > It stems from a false assumption, not from objective rationality.
> > Ref:
> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
>
> > What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
> > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> > the "time" each way is the same?
>
> Ahh, now it becomes clear. So you, personally, do not believe that
> time dilation exists?
> =======================================
> Ahh, That is correct, I do not believe it.
> =======================================
> What is your explanation for the difference in
> clocks in the GPS satellites then?
> =======================================
> Ahh, There is no difference to explain.
> Ahh, What is your explanation for your absurd assumption that some
> difference exists in clocks in GPS satellites (aside from your
> obvious belief and blind irrational faith in hearsay)?

I'm sure you can find your own sources but a quick google search turns
up this article from Physics Today:
http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf

and this book has a short discussion on the effect:
http://books.google.com/books?id=LzQcsSCdeLgC&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false

I was under the impression that time dilation was one of the pillars
of the standard model and well proven.
=======================================
Assuming that you are an impressionable lunatic, you would find
numerous references to time dilation hiding in the slow spaces of
the universe in order to maximize their time here. I will not.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm

From: dlzc on 18 May 2010 11:50
Dear Copie:

On May 18, 8:04 am, Copie <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote:
....
> Regarding your point that I have my speeds the
> wrong way around, surely if the rest of the
> universe seems to be moving FAST then you are
> moving SLOWLY?

Yes, this is the opposite of what you sought. Fewer of your
heartbeats per revolution of the Milky Way.

> If the universe appears to be
> moving SLOWLY then you are moving FAST?

You indicated that you wanted to increase your lifespan in *this*
Universe. To do this, you'd want to add as many seconds to your
duration here as possible, which would make the "Universe in motion"
appear to be operating slowly to you. More heartbeats per Milky Way
revolution.

So you need to be at rest wrt the "average" of the Universe.

You don't need to concern yourself with the fact that people leaving
you will see you move more slowly, and those approaching you will see
you move more rapidly. The "nominal", the "gamma corrected" value is
what you are after.

And of course, you'd have to have negligible mass, and be floating in
space (most of the time). Might add a few minutes to eternity...

Davdi A. Smith
From: BURT on 18 May 2010 14:27
On May 17, 11:54 pm, Copie <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote:
> Assuming that the universe has a finite age, civilisations only have
> so much time in which to exist.

God never lets any world die. They are infinite.

Mitch Raemsch

> This leads me to believe that most
> (type III) civilisations will attempt to maximise the time available
> by numerous means.
>
> The first that jumps to mind is by moving to a faster substrate.
> However given the malleability of time it would make sense for these
> civilisations to find the "fastest" part of the universe in which to
> place that substrate. I.e., we know that clocks on GPS satellites run
> slower than clocks on the Earth. Does this mean that when the universe
> ends the GPS satellites will not have "lived" as long as the Earth
> (ignoring the fact that both will eventually die when the sun goes)?
>
> If this is the case then by extension it would make sense to get off
> the Earth given it's travelling around the Sun at a measurable rate.
> If we were to hang in space, as still as possible relative to the Sun
> then would time would run slower for us than for our colleagues
> remaining on the Earth, would we would effectively have longer to live
> assuming we were immortal?
>
> Taking it further is it possible to find a point relative to the
> majority of the visible universe where we would be as stationary as
> possible (as slow as possible) where time would run at it's slowest,
> effectively giving us longer to live within the finite age of the
> universe?
>
> Assuming all my conjecture (and shaky grasp of relativity) is true,
> where would this "slowest" point in the universe be? How would you
> find it? Perhaps by taking a selection of known period quasars and
> travelling in all directions whilst measuring their period until they
> ran as fast as possible, which means you are as slow as possible?
> Would we find numerous aliens hiding in the slow spaces of the
> universe in order to maximize their time here?

From: PD on 18 May 2010 14:52
On May 18, 1:54 am, Copie <gor...(a)copestake.org> wrote:
> Assuming that the universe has a finite age,

Why would you assume that?

> civilisations only have
> so much time in which to exist. This leads me to believe that most
> (type III) civilisations will attempt to maximise the time available
> by numerous means.
>
> The first that jumps to mind is by moving to a faster substrate.
> However given the malleability of time it would make sense for these
> civilisations to find the "fastest" part of the universe in which to
> place that substrate. I.e., we know that clocks on GPS satellites run
> slower than clocks on the Earth. Does this mean that when the universe
> ends the GPS satellites will not have "lived" as long as the Earth
> (ignoring the fact that both will eventually die when the sun goes)?
>
> If this is the case then by extension it would make sense to get off
> the Earth given it's travelling around the Sun at a measurable rate.
> If we were to hang in space, as still as possible relative to the Sun
> then would time would run slower for us than for our colleagues
> remaining on the Earth, would we would effectively have longer to live
> assuming we were immortal?
>
> Taking it further is it possible to find a point relative to the
> majority of the visible universe where we would be as stationary as
> possible (as slow as possible) where time would run at it's slowest,
> effectively giving us longer to live within the finite age of the
> universe?
>
> Assuming all my conjecture (and shaky grasp of relativity) is true,
> where would this "slowest" point in the universe be?

But your shaky grasp is not at all correct.

> How would you
> find it? Perhaps by taking a selection of known period quasars and
> travelling in all directions whilst measuring their period until they
> ran as fast as possible, which means you are as slow as possible?
> Would we find numerous aliens hiding in the slow spaces of the
> universe in order to maximize their time here?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: (only $20-$38,free shipping) for newest Nike air max --Paypal
Next: The Hubble Error Clarified