-
Hey Guest!
British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!**Upgrade Now**
(PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Faster than the speed of light?
- Thread starter Baz
- Start date
Share this page
Nunyas
Yoda
Offline
Baz said:
Now that I think about it... isn't this how we're supposed to recharge our lights in our LBCs?
<u>Recharging LBC Lighting</u>:
1) Accelerate to the speed of light
2) Turn on light switch to open the "light emitting" valve.
3) At this speed, the ambient lighting will enter the "light emitting" valve and recharge the system.
4) Once the light reservoirs are full turn off light switch.
5) Slow to a stop. CAUTION: traveling at light speed can be disorientating be sure to check the speedometer before attempting to get out of the car!
6) Have a cold one for a job well done! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cheers.gif
MattP
Jedi Knight
Offline
I've always had philosphical trouble with the theory of special relativity. I think it goes back to the argument between what is reality, the thing or your perception of it. By traveling greater than the speed of light you can go to a point where the light emited from an event actually happened. In effect seeing it as it happened. But I personally don't get how that should change when the event itself actually occurred; mearly our perception of it.
I find it easier to deal with time as a constant, because I am constantly out of it.
However I must admit some merit to special relativity. Most of my relatives are special. I just never knew that the short bus went the speed of light.
I find it easier to deal with time as a constant, because I am constantly out of it.
However I must admit some merit to special relativity. Most of my relatives are special. I just never knew that the short bus went the speed of light.
D
Deleted member 3577
Guest
Guest
Offline
Cool....Nunyas said:
So the headlights become a 2 big photon funnels /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbsup.gif
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I think it goes back to the argument between what is reality, the thing or your perception of it.[/QUOTE]
My perception is my reality...prove me wrong!
My perception is my reality...prove me wrong!
MattP
Jedi Knight
Offline
Take three bowls. Fill the first with ice water, the second with tepid water, and the third as hot as you can stand it. Put one hand in the ice water, the other in the hot. After thirty seconds, move both hands to the tepid. Is the water hot, cold or the same temperature it's been?
One hand perceives the water as cold, the other as hot. Which of your perceptions are correct? It would take an outside, constant measurement to prove. The reality remains that the tepid bowl is still tepid, your perception would say that it is two different temperatures. So, either there is some discrepancy between your perceptions and the reality, or you are holding the many-worlds theory in your hands. Petting Schrodinger's cat, maybe.
One hand perceives the water as cold, the other as hot. Which of your perceptions are correct? It would take an outside, constant measurement to prove. The reality remains that the tepid bowl is still tepid, your perception would say that it is two different temperatures. So, either there is some discrepancy between your perceptions and the reality, or you are holding the many-worlds theory in your hands. Petting Schrodinger's cat, maybe.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Whatever I believe about something (my perception) is my truth....should I chose to disregard all the evidence you present because it doesn't square with my understanding/thoughts/beliefs, its still my truth whether right or wrong....
MG's are better than Morgans - if I truely believe that statement, I'll be able to counter every argument you offer with ones that support my 'truth'.
MG's are better than Morgans - if I truely believe that statement, I'll be able to counter every argument you offer with ones that support my 'truth'.
MattP
Jedi Knight
Offline
True. (Ok, that was just smart-alecky)
The essential truth is not altered by your choice to decieve yourself about it. (Even though MG's are better than Morgans.) Also your supposition only deals with the differences between fact and opinion, a radically different concept than reality and truth.
If you fervnently believe that that train going down the tracks on which you stand will not hurt you, it will be cold comfort to the people who have to scrape you up after you meet the steel reality of the cattle catcher.
The essential truth is not altered by your choice to decieve yourself about it. (Even though MG's are better than Morgans.) Also your supposition only deals with the differences between fact and opinion, a radically different concept than reality and truth.
If you fervnently believe that that train going down the tracks on which you stand will not hurt you, it will be cold comfort to the people who have to scrape you up after you meet the steel reality of the cattle catcher.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
But my perception/reality isn't their reality!
Ah, but my truth IS my reality....not wanting to get into a religious discussion but faith is a perfect example...you can't prove it, there is no factual, scientific documentation suporting it - just a person's perception (truth) about the realities of faith....& another person can never prove to a believer that their perception (truth) is wrong no matter what argument they use.
MattP said:
Ah, but my truth IS my reality....not wanting to get into a religious discussion but faith is a perfect example...you can't prove it, there is no factual, scientific documentation suporting it - just a person's perception (truth) about the realities of faith....& another person can never prove to a believer that their perception (truth) is wrong no matter what argument they use.
Offline
Y'all are makin' my head hurt...
SilentUnicorn
Yoda
Offline
no no no..."I am, therefore i wrench!"
mark
mark
MattP
Jedi Knight
Offline
I see. Most often I hear the "my reality" argument as an stance for there not being a concrete reality. You are arguing it as being that your reality is mearly an interpretation of that constant into your conciousness through your perception. That I'll agree to. In fact, that was a part of my original point about special relativity. I feel that time and the universe are constants, and there are only things that we could do to alter our perceptions of that constant.
To use your faith example(and just as an example), without getting religious. I believe in a specific, constant God. Someone else may believe in a relativistic Holy Force, or even (Heaven forbid /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif) nothing at all. By the basic belief in the constant, thier lack of faith would do nothing to alter my constant God. The relativeistic view would say that my specific God belief, and the athiestic point would weaken his Holy Force as it has that much less belief in it. The athiest would blow a raspberry and go for a hamburger. Three perceptions of reality, one reality. If there is a specific God, he will exist or not regardless of any of the perceptions anyone holds about the fact.
That was my point about the whole time travel thing. I figure that it might be possible to go to a point where if we possessed the technology, we could watch the photons that bounced off of an event. But we could no more affect that event than we could affect the same event on a video tape. Or an event that occured near Alpha Proxima about four years ago.
To use your faith example(and just as an example), without getting religious. I believe in a specific, constant God. Someone else may believe in a relativistic Holy Force, or even (Heaven forbid /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif) nothing at all. By the basic belief in the constant, thier lack of faith would do nothing to alter my constant God. The relativeistic view would say that my specific God belief, and the athiestic point would weaken his Holy Force as it has that much less belief in it. The athiest would blow a raspberry and go for a hamburger. Three perceptions of reality, one reality. If there is a specific God, he will exist or not regardless of any of the perceptions anyone holds about the fact.
That was my point about the whole time travel thing. I figure that it might be possible to go to a point where if we possessed the technology, we could watch the photons that bounced off of an event. But we could no more affect that event than we could affect the same event on a video tape. Or an event that occured near Alpha Proxima about four years ago.
tony barnhill
Great Pumpkin - R.I.P
Offline
Well, whatever I believe on any subject is the truth so far as I'm concerned....hehehehe