so your basically saying that if we could access 100% of our brains we would still be as intelligent as we are now, lol that is the most ignorant thing i have heard all week.
You don't read your own posts? What evidence do you have that we would be any smarter if we "could access 100% of our brains"? What evidence do you have that we actually don't use all of our brain? Ignorance of the facts?
so we meet again, it is proven that will only use 6% of our brains and NO im not going to prove to YOU because you can go find it for your lazy self since your so persistant on shutting people down. it only makes sense to you that we wouldnt be smarter if we could access 100% of our minds.
That would be completely false. And I suggest you read the forum rules: Wrong again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%_of_brain_myth Please, learn something before you post again. Your ignorance is tedious.
yes we of course use every part of our brain thats cleary obvious everyday if your a normal human being but not at 100% i never said that we didnt use every PART of our brain i said that we cant access 100% of our brain if you wanna get specific.
The reason speed doesn't add like that has nothing to do with light. The math is the same when talking about cars, for example. Let's say two cars are traveling towards each other at a constant 60 MPH. There are two lines painted on the road spaced a mile apart from each other. At the EXACT same time (simultaneously) both cars cross the lines heading towards each other at 60 MPH. The cars continue traveling towards each other until they collide EXACTLY 30 seconds after crossing the lines. There is no secret math, time dilation, or length contraction involved. Each car traveled 60 MPH (1 mile per minute) for the duration of 30 seconds until they collided at the midpoint between the lines on the road. The cars each traveled .5 miles for 30 seconds, which is 60 MPH. The distance between the cars, however, was closing at the rate of 120 MPH (2 miles per minute, or 1 mile per 30 seconds). But we've already established that each car was traveling 60 MPH. Neither car was traveling 120 MPH.
Right. Because the road is definitely not moving, because it's attached to rock solid Earth. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
ok once again just because we use every PART of the brain there being 3 major PARTS doesnt mean we use 100% we simply dont use 100% of our brains capabilities. you cant focus on any 1 part and use 100% of it. PROVE IT.
Oh mistake again. YOU made the original claim. And backed up a couple of times. 6% was the figure you gave. "Proven" you said. Go ahead, please... Links required. Oh and while you're at it, links to this claimed increase in intelligence also, please.
Right, and light travels in space, which is distance, so it's like light is traveling along side a meter stick, as do the cars travel along the meter stick on the road. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As a matter of fact, we define the meter by light travel time, so light travel time IS distance!
Here is the issue for me. As a spaceship approaches the speed of light its mass is becoming infinite and time is slowing because of gravitational effects from near infinite mass. So if we had a camera in the spaceship transmitting to earth the spaceman would take thousands of years to move his index finger. Now if the spaceman calculates his velocity relative to the earth do his calculations come to 99.999999999% the speed of light? If so to an observer on earth a jet plane might be able to pass him. It is all very confusing...
No gravitational effects are involved. Time slows (as perceived by someone for which the spaceship is moving) just because of the difference in velocity between the spaceship and the person watching him. Yes it does sound as if you are confused. If the velocity between Earth and spaceship is 99.999999999% of c, then both the spaceman and the Earth observer will measure the relative speed to be exactly that. What might be confusing you is somethng along these lines: The spaceship leaves at 0.999999999c and travels to a point 1 lightyear from Earth, as measured by the ship while traveling. This takes ~1 year according to the pilot. For the Earth observer, it takes 22360 yrs for that 1yr to pass on the ship. So you are assuming that according to the Earth observer, the ship is taking 22360 yrs to travel 1 light year and is traveling at 0.00004c This is not the case. Because the ship is moving at 0.999999999c relative to the Earth, the spaceship measures any distance measured from the Earth as length contracted by a factor of 1/22360. IOW, The 1 light year distance that the Ship measures is length contracted distance and the Earth measures that same distance to be ~22360 light years. If you take the distance as measured by the Earth and divide it by the time it takes to make the trip according to the Earth, you get a speed for the ship of 0.999999999c, the same speed the ship gets.
I'm happy with the second place. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not sure if Einstein was wrong or who have interpreted the theory of special relativity. Unfortunately I have no time now but I will return. Until then I reproduce a post.
No. The planet sees the Earth at a distance of 0.86d (due to length contraction) aprroaching at 0.51c No, at that same moment they will see the rocket at a distance of 1.36d (due to length contraction and the Relativity of Simultaneity) and approaching at a speed of 0.809c So for the planet, it is together with the Earth in a time of t'=0.86d/0.51c and together with the rocket in a time of t'=1.36d/0.809c and both of these give an answer of t'= 1.68d/c. The time it takes for all three to come together is different for the planet than it is for the Earth. Length contraction, time dilation and the Relativity of Simultaneity combine to cause this.
Janus that makes no sense. If the space ship takes over 22,000 years to travel one light year he could not have travelled at 0.999999c as per an observer on earth. Also how can there not be gravitational effects. Theoretically mass becomes infinite if the speed of light is obtained, at slightly less than the speed of light mass has become huge and huge mass has huge gravitational effects. Just as a black hole would slow proximal time so would a spaceship that is approaching infinite mass.
This whole statement is incorrect. e=mc^2 is an approximation of an identity. It basically says that energy and mass are different forms of the same thing. Also, it is not possible for any entity with mass to achieve a velocity of C because it would require infinite energy to do so; however, *if* it somehow magically could, the result would be that the object with mass would no longer age. It would only move through space and not time. No longer applicable. It's ok if an object "observes" another object traveling faster than C. The object both objects aren't actually traveling that fast/ Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As far as gravity is concerned you are confusing rest mass with relativistic mass. Rest mass is the same for an object at any velocity and as measured by any observer. Relativistic mass is more like a measure of the force that an object in motion has and is a combination of both rest mass and velocity. Crudely put, the weightnof an object does not change with velocity but the force of impact should it hit something is proportional to both its weight and velocity relative to the thing it hits. Gravity is proportional to rest mass not relativistic mass.
