ChatterBank2 mins ago
Another light speed one. Hypothetically…
I am still trying to get my head around this speed of light thingy.
One spaceship can travel at the SoL and goes to the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy (25000 light years away). Counting onboard time, would it get there in 12500 L.Y. as it meets the light?
One spaceship can travel at the SoL and goes to the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy (25000 light years away). Counting onboard time, would it get there in 12500 L.Y. as it meets the light?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by wildwood. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I have read all of the posts on this theme & I am still none the wiser,I would comment that some of the questioners who are genuinely asking a question on a subject they know nothing about, should not be treated like idiots by the so called intelligensia, after all when we learn things at school or college or university are we not being taught or instructed by someone who was taught or instructed by someone who was taught or instructed by someone ad infinatum, so really & truly because knowledge is as it were passed on from one individual to another over time how do any of us know what is TRULY the truth?
whiskeryron, very well said. And neither should the intelligentsia assume they are preaching to idiots simply because others happen to view the possibilities with a somewhat more open mind. Personally I believe that physical laws exist within this universe that we are currently completely unaware of, and to assume that we 'know' the outcome of something that hasn't been physically tried and tested is the height of arrogance. We must never forget that once upon a time scientists assured the populace they knew exactly what would happen if those new-fangled railway trains travelled at more than about 20 miles an hour. The passengers' heads would fall off!!
Sammmo, question both science and religion all you like, but be warned - no one has ever been able to confirm the veracity of religious dogma in any way whatsoever.
Sammmo, question both science and religion all you like, but be warned - no one has ever been able to confirm the veracity of religious dogma in any way whatsoever.
Whiskeyron
The trouble with what you say is that some of the questions asked (like this one) are so complicated to explain that Answerbank is probably not a suitable place to do it. You can't debate a complicated subject with people whose questions are so naive that it is clear that they have no useful contributions to make to the argument due to their profound ignorance of the subject they are attempting to discuss. This is not meant to be arrogant or provocative, but is just a statement of the facts. It is plain to see from some of the posts that these contributors don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about and it would be better if they refrained from commenting.
The trouble with what you say is that some of the questions asked (like this one) are so complicated to explain that Answerbank is probably not a suitable place to do it. You can't debate a complicated subject with people whose questions are so naive that it is clear that they have no useful contributions to make to the argument due to their profound ignorance of the subject they are attempting to discuss. This is not meant to be arrogant or provocative, but is just a statement of the facts. It is plain to see from some of the posts that these contributors don't have the faintest idea what they are talking about and it would be better if they refrained from commenting.
vascop, I didn't intend arguing with you, or making an enemy of you, but coming from a supposedly intelligent man, your post to whiskeryron lacked the grace of good manners to say the least, and that needs to be said. How very ignorant you are. Where science is concerned man is a mere infant - he hasn't lived - but people like you are so far up their own bottoms they don't realise it. You know it all don't you?!! Well, actually, no - you don't! So convinced are you of your superiority to other people here, you haven't even taken the trouble to read my previous post properly. Just out of interest, have you ever tried to imagine where science might take us in the next, say, 10,000 years? Think about the past 200 hundred years and then think about what the next 10,000 may hold in store. Before you insult nice people further by spouting any more of your arrogant nonsense, I suggest you do your best to get your head around that because it could well do you a great favour by broadening your horizons.
How anyone knows anything at all is the million dollar question, one that can only be answered following an in depth study into the nature of and means by which we as rational beings acquire, integrate and confirm knowledge. I think we are on the right track for embarking on such a quest by virtue of our refusal to simply take someone else's word for it, especially someone who claims that it simply cannot be done, that one cannot be certain of anything, as if that was somehow a sacred fact, not to be disputed, while oblivious to the fact that they just refuted their own assertion.
If there is one thing of which I am certain it is that certainty cannot be obtained by simply listening to and believing what we've been told, no matter how reliable a source of truth someone might have proved to be in the past. Certainty is derived from within through our own understanding based on and to the extent that asserted facts correspond and correlate to ones own personal observations and experience.
When it comes to asserted knowledge, whether or not it is truly factual, apart from ones own understanding, there's no way of knowing, good or bad, right or wrong, what you might be missing. While no one can claim omniscience, the biggest fool of all is the one who refuses to acknowledge their own ignorance.
If there is one thing of which I am certain it is that certainty cannot be obtained by simply listening to and believing what we've been told, no matter how reliable a source of truth someone might have proved to be in the past. Certainty is derived from within through our own understanding based on and to the extent that asserted facts correspond and correlate to ones own personal observations and experience.
When it comes to asserted knowledge, whether or not it is truly factual, apart from ones own understanding, there's no way of knowing, good or bad, right or wrong, what you might be missing. While no one can claim omniscience, the biggest fool of all is the one who refuses to acknowledge their own ignorance.
thanks whiskeyron and naomi for sticking up for us plebs...I am always amazed at people who take exception to what others say.. I always listen to others and even if i knew they were wrong I would'nt try to belittle them..Edward de bono said every Question is worth listening to.. But going back to yesterday maybe someone will answer this for me... Going back to my previous post about the sealed box in the dark mine.. If its right that the box absorbes the light, Would it make any difference in the time it took to absorb the light if the inside of the box was different colours or textures and is this in any way measurable?
Sammmo, at the risk of subverting this thread from the question it asks, one that has hopefully been by now answered to the OP's satisfaction . . .
The light in the box would mostly be absorbed long before the persistence of vision has subsided. Even if the box consisted of mirrors, no mirror is a perfect reflector.
If the original light was of sufficient intensity the box might continue to emit an afterglow due to the heat generated by absorption, until the heat radiated away from the exterior surfaces.
There is an inherent problem with measuring, determining the precise effect the measuring device has on the quantity being measured. The eye sees light by the effect it produces in being absorbed. Our understanding of the whole is contingent on our understanding of the parts and how each interact.
The light in the box would mostly be absorbed long before the persistence of vision has subsided. Even if the box consisted of mirrors, no mirror is a perfect reflector.
If the original light was of sufficient intensity the box might continue to emit an afterglow due to the heat generated by absorption, until the heat radiated away from the exterior surfaces.
There is an inherent problem with measuring, determining the precise effect the measuring device has on the quantity being measured. The eye sees light by the effect it produces in being absorbed. Our understanding of the whole is contingent on our understanding of the parts and how each interact.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.