Oh hai gaiz.
Yesterday I was channel surfing before bed (so I could record things on the DVR to watch in moments of boredom. You get it.) and I saw a Nova program about weapons in outer space. I went to watch it today, and even though it was a perfectly high quality production and splendidly informative to boot, I simply couldn't bring myself to finish watching it.
It was about the development and theory of high-efficiency weapons to be used in outer space and on nearby celestial bodies such as the moon once they are colonized.
And it got me to thinking...
We haven't even reached space yet. We have scratched the surface of orbital technology and landed people on the moon, and we're working on landing Mars. With the exception of the International Space Station, we have no way of sustaining human life outside of Earth's atmosphere for any useful length of time. We have no way to transport people or freight out of the atmosphere or through space. We have light-years of growth ahead of us before we can achieve any serious space missions...
... And yet we are working diligently at finding ways to wage bloody warfare in the void.
I really think we need to grow up as a species. Our system of using warfare for achieving ends seems extremely infantile to me, like a squabble between toddlers over who will use the soccer ball first.
This also reminds me of when I saw District 9 this summer. Are humans really as dumb as they seem in that movie? I mean come on.
A sentient, intelligent species comes to earth. They don't hurt anyone. They don't cause trouble. They keep to themselves and achieve their goals quietly and without fuss. They clearly know tons more than us about engineering and space travel given that they traveled from another star system and got here in a year and a half (they have achieved extended space flight and we haven't). All they really did wrong was look like giant shrimp.
And instead of setting up talks with them, allowing them some unused space to camp, and attempting to learn as much from them as possible before they leave, we confine them to squalid concentration camps, place unfair laws on their insectoid heads, and kill them off wherever we can. And get them addicted to cat food.
Really now. Are we really that bad?
I really hope not.
What if WE'RE the Klingons in the Star Trek episode of life??
*sigh*
Peace,
DJ
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Howdy Fellow Cerebralists,
So one particular issue has been poking at me recently, and it coincidentally pertains to time, like my last posting.
Contrary to popular belief, the average day cycle of Earth is 23 hours, 56 minutes long, and not the exact 24 hours that has been canonized through the centuries. That means that the calendar is thrown off four minutes for every day that passes. This adds up to exactly 24.35 hours, or 24 hours and 21 minutes per solar year, or 365.25 days.
Where does the extra time go?
Obviously, this is why we have to reset our clocks every so often, regardless of their accuracy: they are set for a 24 hour cycle, not a 23.934 hour cycle. It's like the Flat Earth theory of knowledge: in the short term, it is easier and more practical to assume that the earth is flat, as it's curvature over short distances is negligible. However, gaps eventually start to form, and the tiniest details become very real as those kilometers (or minutes) begin to stack up.
You might look at Daylight Savings Time and breathe a sigh of existential relief, but any time saved during DST is used up after it ends in October. Also, the International Date Line: cross it in the right direction and you get to live a whole day over again, as you technically land before you took off. Go the other way, and you will completely miss an entire day, as you technically land the day after you take off, even if the flight was only a few hours.
Makes ya think, doesn't it?
Peace,
DJ
So one particular issue has been poking at me recently, and it coincidentally pertains to time, like my last posting.
Contrary to popular belief, the average day cycle of Earth is 23 hours, 56 minutes long, and not the exact 24 hours that has been canonized through the centuries. That means that the calendar is thrown off four minutes for every day that passes. This adds up to exactly 24.35 hours, or 24 hours and 21 minutes per solar year, or 365.25 days.
Where does the extra time go?
Obviously, this is why we have to reset our clocks every so often, regardless of their accuracy: they are set for a 24 hour cycle, not a 23.934 hour cycle. It's like the Flat Earth theory of knowledge: in the short term, it is easier and more practical to assume that the earth is flat, as it's curvature over short distances is negligible. However, gaps eventually start to form, and the tiniest details become very real as those kilometers (or minutes) begin to stack up.
You might look at Daylight Savings Time and breathe a sigh of existential relief, but any time saved during DST is used up after it ends in October. Also, the International Date Line: cross it in the right direction and you get to live a whole day over again, as you technically land before you took off. Go the other way, and you will completely miss an entire day, as you technically land the day after you take off, even if the flight was only a few hours.
Makes ya think, doesn't it?
Peace,
DJ
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Warp Factor Two, Mr. Sulu...
Good afternoon, thinkers.
One particular issue has been nagging at me lately, on the subject of physics. Albert Einstein determined that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, or about 300 million meters per second. He also determined, by way of his Theory of General Relativity, that as an object approaches the speed of light, time begins to affect it less: in effect, time slows down in relation to that object. For the sake of argument and the future salvation of humankind, let's assume that he was mistaken, and that it is possible to surpass the speed of light (It's only logical, isn't it? I mean, why should 300 million m/s be the cap on the speed scale? In a total vacuum, the size of the object really should not affect its velocity: it just seems so arbitrary, or even naive to assume that nothing can go as fast as light. But I digress.).
As one approaches the speed of light, time slows. Logic would dictate that as the speed of light is reached, time halts completely (no?). Assuming this is the case, what happens as the speed of light is surpassed? Does time stay at a standstill, or does it reverse?
If this is the case, it would start by going slowly in a backwards direction, and as the object reaches Warp 2 (or twice the speed of light, using vocabulary from Star Trek) it would proceed backwards at "normal" speed, or the relative speed to someone standing still on Earth. But then, what would happen as Warp 3 is reached, or Warp 4? Does time reverse again to it's accustomed direction, or does it increase flow in it's opposite direction? If this is the case, then paradoxes would pop up everywhere, because the object would reach point B before it left point A, once Warp 2 is surpassed. The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy would have temper tantrums, and the Universe would collapse. *sigh.*
Alternatively, when the speed of light is reached, time ceases to flow around that object, and as the speed of light is surpassed, it stays paused until the object drops below 300 million m/s once again. This would mean that the object would reach it's destination in zero time plus the time needed to accelerate to and slow down from light speed. For the sake of future space travel, I sincerely hope that this is the case.
And finally, a simple question: why is the speed of light so tightly linked to time flow? Is it simply the fact that light is the fastest moving natural phenomenon? I think that is the answer.
Please present your opinions on this subject: I really want to know about this.
Peace,
DJ
One particular issue has been nagging at me lately, on the subject of physics. Albert Einstein determined that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, or about 300 million meters per second. He also determined, by way of his Theory of General Relativity, that as an object approaches the speed of light, time begins to affect it less: in effect, time slows down in relation to that object. For the sake of argument and the future salvation of humankind, let's assume that he was mistaken, and that it is possible to surpass the speed of light (It's only logical, isn't it? I mean, why should 300 million m/s be the cap on the speed scale? In a total vacuum, the size of the object really should not affect its velocity: it just seems so arbitrary, or even naive to assume that nothing can go as fast as light. But I digress.).
As one approaches the speed of light, time slows. Logic would dictate that as the speed of light is reached, time halts completely (no?). Assuming this is the case, what happens as the speed of light is surpassed? Does time stay at a standstill, or does it reverse?
If this is the case, it would start by going slowly in a backwards direction, and as the object reaches Warp 2 (or twice the speed of light, using vocabulary from Star Trek) it would proceed backwards at "normal" speed, or the relative speed to someone standing still on Earth. But then, what would happen as Warp 3 is reached, or Warp 4? Does time reverse again to it's accustomed direction, or does it increase flow in it's opposite direction? If this is the case, then paradoxes would pop up everywhere, because the object would reach point B before it left point A, once Warp 2 is surpassed. The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy would have temper tantrums, and the Universe would collapse. *sigh.*
Alternatively, when the speed of light is reached, time ceases to flow around that object, and as the speed of light is surpassed, it stays paused until the object drops below 300 million m/s once again. This would mean that the object would reach it's destination in zero time plus the time needed to accelerate to and slow down from light speed. For the sake of future space travel, I sincerely hope that this is the case.
And finally, a simple question: why is the speed of light so tightly linked to time flow? Is it simply the fact that light is the fastest moving natural phenomenon? I think that is the answer.
Please present your opinions on this subject: I really want to know about this.
Peace,
DJ
Sunday, August 23, 2009
The Very First Beginning
Bonjour, tout le monde!
Here I am, at the very beginning of the very first entry in this blog. Some would say that this is the place and time to tell you, the ( as yet hypothetical ) reader, about myself: who I am, my goals in life, my every habit and idiosyncrasy. However, I choose to disregard the mumbling masses on this point, because this writing is not about me, per se. This publication's purpose is to explain my thoughts as a modern thinker in an ever- expanding universe; to organize them for later examination, for review by any readers who might choose to do so, for discussion and refinement, and possibly for refutation, where necessary.
I am looking for readers: readers who think and rethink, guess and second guess, and take the entire world with a grain of salt. I want a forum of philosophers, scientists, Cartesians, solipsists, writers (I welcome criticism), skeptics, and people who are simply perplexed with the world of thought and are looking for order in the chaos of existence. If there comes to be a time at which I find myself with readers such as these, I would like nothing more for people to present counter-arguments to my musings. There's nothing quite like playing Tug-of-War with oneself, especially on issues such as the ones I intend to bring to the proverbial table. They will be varied and, hopefully, many.
Peace,
DJ
Here I am, at the very beginning of the very first entry in this blog. Some would say that this is the place and time to tell you, the ( as yet hypothetical ) reader, about myself: who I am, my goals in life, my every habit and idiosyncrasy. However, I choose to disregard the mumbling masses on this point, because this writing is not about me, per se. This publication's purpose is to explain my thoughts as a modern thinker in an ever- expanding universe; to organize them for later examination, for review by any readers who might choose to do so, for discussion and refinement, and possibly for refutation, where necessary.
I am looking for readers: readers who think and rethink, guess and second guess, and take the entire world with a grain of salt. I want a forum of philosophers, scientists, Cartesians, solipsists, writers (I welcome criticism), skeptics, and people who are simply perplexed with the world of thought and are looking for order in the chaos of existence. If there comes to be a time at which I find myself with readers such as these, I would like nothing more for people to present counter-arguments to my musings. There's nothing quite like playing Tug-of-War with oneself, especially on issues such as the ones I intend to bring to the proverbial table. They will be varied and, hopefully, many.
Peace,
DJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)