In Need Of A Job

[Groggles]

That's sounding pretty close to the description of the perfect woman.

Oh sorry Jason did I forget polishing the bike

Lainie,

If my women (greg...) forgot to polish the bike there would be trouble!!!

just call me bitch and treat me like a donut factory

[RG]

Um, in a word, no.

By special relativity, time stands still in a reference frame moving at the speed of light relative to another reference frame.

So, if you were travelling at the speed of light, you couldn't switch on your high-beams because it would take you infinitely long to do so, rendering the question moot.

Damn, thought I could pull that one off...

[Gosling1]

Think of it as Light is 'static', Speed is 'dynamic', 'speed of light' is the time/speed of the light when switched on travels from point A to point B. So if you travel at the speed of light and switch on the light, the light will be instantaneous, T=0s.
Because speed of light is so fast, we always think light is instantaneous, but actually it's not.

Um, in a word, no.

By special relativity, time stands still in a reference frame moving at the speed of light relative to another reference frame.

So, if you were travelling at the speed of light, you couldn't switch on your high-beams because it would take you infinitely long to do so, rendering the question moot.

well, actually, there is some truth in what RG says mate. It takes the light from the sun about 7 minutes to travel to earth ? ( something like that anyway). Time is an abstract concept in the first place, and is only an issue on Planet Earth because our little piece of rock spins on its own axis at a relatively constant rate - thus enabling the concept of 'time' to exist.

Consider this - if the Earth did not spin, and one side of the planet was in constant sunshine ( albeit 7 minutes late ), then how would you measure this thing we call 'time' ? We wouldn't have a 24 'hour' period, evenly spaced (almost) between 'night' and 'day'.......and the concept of 'time passing' would simply not exist, as there is no discernable difference from one 'moment' to the next. Nothing. Ever. Just constant sunlight........

Time does not pass. We age. There is a huge difference. This is why Albert thought that you wouldn't age if you travelled at the 'speed' of light (and think about that concept - speed is just distance x 'time'....) - of course Albert is right, but proof of his theory is not possible - at least not in this millenia..

does light in fact have a speed ? I know it has 2 positions......High and Low beam.......

Herewith Endeth The Physics Class.

[mick_dundee]

Light definately has a speed Mr Gos, 186,000 mps I believe it is. I remember well when in Florida watching the shuttle launch that we saw the light show loooooong before we heard any sound to go with it, pretty spectacular sight too I must say.

Also around 9 mins for light to rech us from the sun. Last but not least, what if the earth didn't spin and we lived in constant darkness... we'd all be working off sonar like bats I guess

[MG]

[mrmina]

I would expect that as an apprentise mechanic you would cop shit for being any one of the following:

female, male, short, tall, white, brown, yellow, red, green, spotty, blond, ginger, christian, jewish, muslim, french, german, italian, english, australian, kiwi, dutch , french, rich, poor, smart, dumb.

You just put up with it..... and give back as good as they get...

lucky u weren't an apprentice.

u would of copped twice as much for being a kiwi-dutchman

[mrmina]

has anyone ever rooted an apprentice without any vasaline

[MG]

has anyone ever rooted an apprentice without any vasaline

[I-K]

Consider this - if the Earth did not spin, and one side of the planet was in constant sunshine ( albeit 7 minutes late ), then how would you measure this thing we call 'time'?

Well, not with a sundial. How about an hourglass? Or windy-uppy mechanical contraptions? It'd do until we discovered that quartz crystals vibrate at a constant frequency when subjected to a potential difference.

We wouldn't have a 24 'hour' period, evenly spaced (almost) between 'night' and 'day'.......and the concept of 'time passing' would simply not exist, as there is no discernable difference from one 'moment' to the next. Nothing. Ever. Just constant sunlight........

So, how would you then account for the fact that your brains remembers being home at one point when you find yourself at a mate's house?
How, when you speak, do you get from the start of a sentence to the end without the introduction of the concept of time?

Time does not pass. We age. There is a huge difference.

Nope. It's exactly the same thing. The concept of time follows inescapably from the very observable phenomenon of the changing states of objects and systems.

Time passes because the universe isn't static.

This is why Albert thought that you wouldn't age if you travelled at the 'speed' of light (and think about that concept - speed is just distance x 'time'....) - of course Albert is right, but proof of his theory is not possible - at least not in this millenia..

Not true.

Satellite communications and the GPS network have to take relativistic effects into account in order to function.

...and anyone whinging about this being OT, FA's boyfriend may yet decide on a career in physics.

[Duane]

...and anyone whinging about this

being OT, FA's boyfriend may yet decide on a career in physics.

Because that'd be much easier than making DOUGHNUTS.. FA should become a sprinkle artist

[Buck]

I wasnt going to add to this bizarre thread on Unemployment,
Physics, Boyfriends and English Grammma but for the sake of Mina's comfort I agree with vasaline.
Steve

[Gosling1]

How about an hourglass?

Mate, have you considered the irony in this question ??

So, how would you then account for the fact that your brains remembers being home at one point when you find yourself at a mate's house? How, when you speak, do you get from the start of a sentence to the end without the introduction of the concept of time?

Your brain relies on the concept of 'memory' to remember these things, not the concept of 'time'. It doesn't need a Rolex on your wrist in order to utilise its memory functions.. You only have a concept of 'time' in the first place because that is what has been drummed into you since you were born.

Time does not pass. We age. There is a huge difference.

Nope. It's exactly the same thing. The concept of time follows inescapably from the very observable phenomenon of the changing states of objects and systems.

You mean like, night follows day ?? Only due to rotation of the Earth (which is the point in the first case..) Or you get old and die ? This is only due to being a carbon life-form, not because you have lived for 80-odd 'years'. Carbon life forms cease to exist at certain stages of their development due to their chemical properties......which we 'measure' in terms of 'years'. It is only a convenient yard-stick, thats all, and the concept of 'time' cannot alter their unique chemical properties.

This is why Albert thought that you wouldn't age if you travelled at the 'speed' of light (and think about that concept - speed is just distance x 'time'....) - of course Albert is right, but proof of his theory is not possible - at least not in this millenia..

...Not true.

Satellite communications and the GPS network have to take relativistic effects into account in order to function.

No argument there, but GPS networks are programmed using the concept of 'time' in the first place, it doesn't alter the concept of not ageing when travelling at the speed of light at all.....this is the part of the theory that will remain untested for some years to come ( maybe even a couple of light-years... )

.

..and anyone whinging about this being OT, FA's boyfriend may yet decide on a career in physics.

Consider these simple things:

1. Why is there 7 days in a week ? Not 3 or 6 or 42 ?
2. Why are there 24 hours in a day, not 5 or 10 or 30 ?
3. Why are there 60 minutes in an hour , 60 seconds in a minute etc etc ad infinitum ??

All these things are based upon the (almost) constant rotation of the Earth around the Sun, the (almost) constant rotation of the Earth on its own axis, and some old Popes who wanted to have their name on every calendar ever sold

If these conditions did not prevail, our concept of 'time' would be vastly different (ie non-existant). Try living on the dark side of the moon, and tell me how it has changed in the last 100 millenia ??? Or what time it was last night ......or the 'night' before.....or the 'month' before that.....

[Johnnie5]

Consider these simple things:

1. Why is there 7 days in a week ? Not 3 or 6 or 42 ?
2. Why are there 24 hours in a day, not 5 or 10 or 30 ?
3. Why are there 60 minutes in an hour , 60 seconds in a minute etc etc ad infinitum ??

cause the fuggin yanks wont change to metric

[I-K]

How about an hourglass?

Mate, have you considered the irony in this question ??

Not my problem some ancient Pom didn't name the thing a sandclock.

So, how would you then account for the fact that your brains remembers being home at one point when you find yourself at a mate's house? How, when you speak, do you get from the start of a sentence to the end without the introduction of the concept of time?

Your brain relies on the concept of 'memory' to remember these things, not the concept of 'time'.

So how does the brain, then, reconcile memories with the present? Why does one become the other?

The concept of time follows inescapably from the very observable phenomenon of the changing states of objects and systems.

You mean like, night follows day??

Nope. Like any change of state of anything in the universe. How did I come to type the full stop at the end of the previous sentence if not for the passage of time?

A couple of post ago you posted that light takes eight minutes to travel from the Sun to the Earth. How does the light get here if not for the passage of time.

Carbon life forms cease to exist at certain stages of their development due to their chemical properties......which we 'measure' in terms of 'years'. It is only a convenient yard-stick, thats all, and the concept of 'time' cannot alter their unique chemical properties.

You're making a physical quantity subject to a set of arbitrary units chosen to represent it.

Among physicists who work on measurement of physical constants like the speed of light to an ever-greater degree of accuracy, the unit of time is a single oscillation of a caesium maser atomic clock.

This is why Albert thought that you wouldn't age if you travelled at the 'speed' of light (and think about that concept - speed is just distance x 'time'....) - of course Albert is right, but proof of his theory is not possible - at least not in this millenia..

...Not true.

Satellite communications and the GPS network have to take relativistic effects into account in order to function.

No argument there, but GPS networks are programmed using the concept of 'time' in the first place, it doesn't alter the concept of not ageing when travelling at the speed of light at all...

The reason you would appear to stop ageing if you were to travel at the speed of light relative to an observer is because time would, for you, appear to stop. You wouldn't age because you wouldn't do anything; you would come to a stop. You wouldn't move, wouldn't breathe, wouldn't blink. It's not a fountain of youth, but a means of suspended animation.

..this is the part of the theory that will remain untested for some years to come ( maybe even a couple of light-years... )

A light-year is a unit of distance, not time.

Time-dilation is a pervasive relativistic effect which, over the scales at which it has been tested (and incorporated into, most notably, communications systems), plots exactly as special and general relativity predicts it should.

[the kid]

Now I Definitly Want Out Have a good TIME GoodDay