What Are You Interested In That Most People Aren't

[Panjandrum]

Dialogue.  It makes or breaks TV and movies for me.  Everything else is a distant second.

[pissclams]

Dialogue.  It makes or breaks TV and movies for me.  Everything else is a distant second.

cinematography - boom, roasted.

Michael Mann

[eastcat]

Dialogue.  It makes or breaks TV and movies for me.  Everything else is a distant second.

cinematography - boom, roasted.

Michael Mann

Movie making god.

[That_Guy]

I have a lot of useless knowledge. if you gave me a book with just random facts, I'd enjoy the hell out of it.

[yoga-like_abana]

I have a lot of useless knowledge. if you gave me a book with just random facts, I'd enjoy the hell out of it.

yeah they have a book for that just for the shitter....

[That_Guy]

I have a lot of useless knowledge. if you gave me a book with just random facts, I'd enjoy the hell out of it.

yeah they have a book for that just for the shitter....

Yeah, I forgot what it's called but we had them at our high school for our journalism class. I may have to get one.

[Saulbadguy]

hardware load balancers

[DQ12]

i like reading about old video games.  i don't really like playing video games though.

[pissclams]

where do you read about old video games

[yoga-like_abana]

I like to use the stud finder on myself

[pissclams]

Like, I mentioned awhile back that I nerd out over vintage airline and travel agency advertisements. examples:





What are you into that most people aren't?

http://gizmodo.com/20-gorgeous-posters-from-a-time-when-travel-was-glamoro-758243140

[asava]

where do you read about old video games

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-worst-video-game-ever-created.html

[Dr Rick Daris]

where do you read about old video games

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/the-worst-video-game-ever-created.html

 

[steve dave]

Like, I mentioned awhile back that I nerd out over vintage airline and travel agency advertisements. examples:





What are you into that most people aren't?

http://gizmodo.com/20-gorgeous-posters-from-a-time-when-travel-was-glamoro-758243140

so that lady reads the board, nice.

[KSUblumpkin]

Huge fan of Quantum Mechanics and theories regarding time.  I'm specifically intested in the linear perception of a potential curvilinear phenomenon.  I am also very intested in all things sleep. 

My nerd sock has been outed: brown gonna brown.

[Emo EMAW]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

[puniraptor]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

relative to the speed of light, which is a constant.

[steve dave]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

relative to the speed of light, which is a constant.

This explains it pretty well

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27989.msg847103#msg847103

[The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

didnt you say you liked physics?

[Emo EMAW]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

relative to the speed of light, which is a constant.

I meant relative to position determined by some sort of datum system.

And yes I do like physics, but I really only understand the practical application (engineering) of physics.  This space stuff is very weird for me.

[Emo EMAW]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

relative to the speed of light, which is a constant.

This explains it pretty well

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27989.msg847103#msg847103

That's the article I was referencing.  I don't think you understood my question.

[KSUblumpkin]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

The faster you are moving the slower time passes.  However, that is relative to the people outside of the passing object.  Take a jet.  Atomic clocks have been precisely calibrated and put in both a jet traveling at supersonic speeds of pilots and a stationary place.  The atomic clock in the jet will be slower than the clock at the stationary point.  However, I have heard many theories on what the perceptions of time would be like at light speeds.  Some claim that, while on the moving object moving at light speed that time nearly stops relative to the object moving at light speed.  Others argue that time would progress as you currently experience time, but with some dramatic effects while traveling at light speed.  The distance light travels in one year may not feel like a year, but (let's just say for argument) a day.  A day passes for you on the object, but a year travels for everyone else.  Crazy.  Let's say there is a planet 200 light years from here and we have the ability to travel safely at light speeds.  Given the physics in my example (where 1 day for you at light speed = 1 year for everyone else), it would take 200 hundred years for you to arrive to the planet and 200 years to get back, plus the number of days on/near the planet for those that are stationary.  However, for those on the "ship" traveling at light speed it would feel like 200 days to get there, plus the number of days there, plus 200 days to get back (meaning 1.5 to 2 years for you and a little over 400 years for everyone else). 

That is nuts.  In 1.5 years of your experienced time, all that you know and understand is gone.  Nuts I tell you.  Time is always relative whether on Earth or in space.  That is what quantum mechanics stipulates.  1 second of time on Earth is equivalent to 1 second anywhere.  However, the relative nature of that one second is what is interesting.  Just as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, time is a constant on a three-dimensional plane.  However, just like matter, the phase of time can differ and the nature of the constant changes relative to speeds. 

I apologize in advanced for typical the ole' Blumpster's inner head ramblings.

[steve dave]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

The faster you are moving the slower time passes.  However, that is relative to the people outside of the passing object.  Take a jet.  Atomic clocks have been precisely calibrated and put in both a jet traveling at supersonic speeds of pilots and a stationary place.  The atomic clock in the jet will be slower than the clock at the stationary point.  However, I have heard many theories on what the perceptions of time would be like at light speeds.  Some claim that, while on the moving object moving at light speed that time nearly stops relative to the object moving at light speed.  Others argue that time would progress as you currently experience time, but with some dramatic effects.  The distance light travels in one year may not feel like a year, but (let's just say for argument) a day.  A day passes for you on the object, but a year travels for everyone else.  Crazy.  Let's say there is a planet 200 light years from here and we have the ability to travel safely at light speeds.  Given the physics in my example (where 1 day for you at light speed = 1 year for everyone else), it would take 200 hundred years for you to arrive to the planet and 200 years to get back, plus the number of days on/near the planet.  However, for those on the "ship" It would feel like 200 days to get there, plus the number of days there, plus 200 days to get back (meaning 1.5 to 2 years for you and a little over 400 years for everyone else). 

That is nuts.  In 1.5 years of your experienced time, all that you know and understand is gone.  Nuts I tell you.  Time is always relative whether on Earth or in space.  That is what quantum mechanics stipulates.  1 second of time on Earth is equivalent to 1 second anywhere.  However, the relative nature of that one second is what is interesting.  Just as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, time is a constant on a three-dimensional plane.  However, just like matter, the phase of time can differ and the nature of the constant changes relative to speeds. 

I apologize in advanced for typical the ole' Blumpster's inner head ramblings.

this explains it pretty well

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091059/

[puniraptor]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

The faster you are moving the slower time passes.  However, that is relative to the people outside of the passing object.  Take a jet.  Atomic clocks have been precisely calibrated and put in both a jet traveling at supersonic speeds of pilots and a stationary place.  The atomic clock in the jet will be slower than the clock at the stationary point.  However, I have heard many theories on what the perceptions of time would be like at light speeds.  Some claim that, while on the moving object moving at light speed that time nearly stops relative to the object moving at light speed.  Others argue that time would progress as you currently experience time, but with some dramatic effects.  The distance light travels in one year may not feel like a year, but (let's just say for argument) a day.  A day passes for you on the object, but a year travels for everyone else.  Crazy.  Let's say there is a planet 200 light years from here and we have the ability to travel safely at light speeds.  Given the physics in my example (where 1 day for you at light speed = 1 year for everyone else), it would take 200 hundred years for you to arrive to the planet and 200 years to get back, plus the number of days on/near the planet.  However, for those on the "ship" It would feel like 200 days to get there, plus the number of days there, plus 200 days to get back (meaning 1.5 to 2 years for you and a little over 400 years for everyone else). 

That is nuts.  In 1.5 years of your experienced time, all that you know and understand is gone.  Nuts I tell you.  Time is always relative whether on Earth or in space.  That is what quantum mechanics stipulates.  1 second of time on Earth is equivalent to 1 second anywhere.  However, the relative nature of that one second is what is interesting.  Just as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, time is a constant on a three-dimensional plane.  However, just like matter, the phase of time can differ and the nature of the constant changes relative to speeds. 

I apologize in advanced for typical the ole' Blumpster's inner head ramblings.

this explains it pretty well

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091059/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

[Emo EMAW]

So supposedly the faster you're moving the slower time passes.  Was linked in that article on travelling to Mars or some crap.  But in "Earthly" physics, speed is always relative.  So, this speed, is relative to what "fixed" location in space?

The faster you are moving the slower time passes.  However, that is relative to the people outside of the passing object.  Take a jet.  Atomic clocks have been precisely calibrated and put in both a jet traveling at supersonic speeds of pilots and a stationary place.  The atomic clock in the jet will be slower than the clock at the stationary point.  However, I have heard many theories on what the perceptions of time would be like at light speeds.  Some claim that, while on the moving object moving at light speed that time nearly stops.  Others argue that time would progress as you currently experience time, but with some dramatic effects.  The distance light travels in one year may not feel like a year, but (let's just say for argument) a day.  A day passes for you on the object, but a year travels for everyone else.  Crazy.  Let's say there is a planet 200 light years from here and we have the ability to travel safely at light speeds.  Given the physics in my example (where 1 day for you at light speed = 1 year for everyone else), it would take 200 hundred years for you to arrive to the planet and 200 years to get back, plus the number of days on/near the planet.  However, for those on the "ship" It would feel like 200 days to get there, plus the number of days there, plus 200 days to get back (meaning 1.5 to 2 years for you and a little over 400 years for everyone else). 

That is nuts.  In 1.5 years of your experienced time, all that you know and understand is gone.  Nuts I tell you.  Time is always relative whether on Earth or in space.  That is what quantum mechanics stipulates.  1 second of time on Earth is equivalent to 1 second anywhere.  However, the relative nature of that one second is what is interesting.  Just as matter can neither be created nor destroyed, time is a constant on a three-dimensional plane.  However, just like matter, the phase of time can differ and the nature of the constant changes relative to speeds. 

I apologize in advanced for typical the ole' Blumpster's inner head ramblings.

Ok, so it's time with respect to some other "stationary" point's time (which we know is not really stationary).  What I meant by that is I am, in one way, stationary at my desk typing this post, but relative to the sun, I'm flying around it at like 67,000 miles per hour.  And the sun, relative to some other distant point, might be moving at like a billion miles per second.  So it's not time with some accepted standard or base time; it's like a differential time.