Hey moog, ya think the same would apply if one twin was living near the ecuator and the other near a pole?
Printable View
Hey moog, ya think the same would apply if one twin was living near the ecuator and the other near a pole?
Did HE create time too? If so, when did HE do it? :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by jester22c
I think when He created the universe He created the laws of physics that go along with it, such as that matter occupies space.
One theory is that there was no such thing as time before the universe was created. There were also no laws of physics.
Another thought to ponder. If Adam was created from the earth, Did he have a belly button? For that matter did Eve? hmmmmm. As for the creation of the universe. God has done that and we will never understand it or be able to comprehend the vastness of his creation.
Yes, because there can be no time without space.Quote:
Originally posted by elimc
One theory is that there was no such thing as time before the universe was created. There were also no laws of physics.
I think time is just a perception and a medium of measurement. It is not a literal thing. So I don't see time as "existing" exactly, maybe God came up with the idea but it is just that, an idea.
Here's a couple more questions to ponder:
1. What is time?
2. When did "time" start?
3. Where do we come from?
4. Is space never ending?
5. Where did space/time start from, what was before that?
And so many more questions you can ask anyone, but no one will ever know the answers to this conclusively. I guess "God", whoever, wherever, whatever he/she is, is the only one to know the answer. Oh yeah, that's #6, what is God, is there really such a supreme being? Only faith can answer that question.
I beleive that Quicktime can help. If you turn on "balloon help" on Macs (pre OS X) and hold the cursor over the Quicktime extension, time is defined thus:
Quote:
Time n. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
OK, so I was pondering life's little nagging questions, and this occurred to me...
As you're aware, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle teaches us that it is impossible to know a particle's velocity AND it's location at the same time...you can determine one or the other, but not both. Granted that this is true, how can a police officer claim to have sufficient grounds to issue you a speeding ticket? If he claims he knows how fast you were going, he can't say that you were actually there...if he says you were, there, he can't say he knows how fast you were going.
:p
I also have a question relating to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Does the principle apply to a single ion? Can we detect the velocity and position of a single ion which has been accelerated into a target?
Actually I believe it is a case of, the more accurately you know a particles velocity the less accurately you know its location.
It had something to do with the device being used to measure the velocity would affect the particle more if more energy was used to determine its velocity... or something along those lines.
Oh, and I don't think its quite applicable to your speeding ticket.
[edit]
And on another point.
*** is it with all these science questions - I thought this was a highly technical PC forum, not an advanced physics forum.
OK, so people find the topics interesting which is cool, but the forum is now dominated by these kinds of threads.
Moan over.
Sorry about the extra stuff Arcanum. I fell to the same mistake when I posted the Theory Thread a long time ago and it was vanq--moved to Gadgets and Gizmos. The thing is though, this site may be in fact well known for topical questions somewhat encompassing computer related topics and I have mentioned it to the odd person(s) who excel in the physics field themselves. Good for extra traffic in any case. At least it doesn't produce massive flame threads on a regular basis...Quote:
Originally posted by Arcanum
And on another point.
*** is it with all these science questions - I thought this was a highly technical PC forum, not an advanced physics forum.
OK, so people find the topics interesting which is cool, but the forum is now dominated by these kinds of threads.
Moan over.
You have a point though.
Low frequency wavelengths dusturb the velocity of a particle less. However, the longer the wavelength used to observe a position of a particle the greater the uncertainty of it's position.
High frequency wavelengths disturb the velocity of a particle more, but you have better certainty of it's position.
Since the wavelengths from a radar gun are very unlikely to disturb your car's position I don't think you have a case.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arcanum
And on another point.
*** is it with all these science questions - I thought this was a highly technical PC forum, not an advanced physics forum.
OK, so people find the topics interesting which is cool, but the forum is now dominated by these kinds of threads.
Moan over. [/B]
A little off topic discussion is acceptable, and phyiscs/math type stuff is in the spirit of this forum. I am doning my best to keep it confined to a few threads though... :)
It is rather impressive the knowledge that some of the members have :)
There haven't been any interesting computer architecture/technology threads for a while though, which is a shame but I guess that nothing much is happening right now.