re Ooops, a question

[Guest guest]

Hi BobbyG,

You asked a mouthful! My official response

is... "In the immortal (because I keep repeating them...) words of my dear

friend Bill 'Uh... I dunno'". A less official response is threaded

into the question below: (And do take it with considerable salt,

I haven't thought much about special relativity since I took it as an undergraduate

some 25 or more years ago.)

Love, Mark

Dear Mark:

I have a question for you since you were/are a physicist.

Since the relative passage of time (rate of change) slows as a body

approaches the speed of light, is it possible there is a body that

remains completely at rest and the lifespan of the universe is

infinitely small? The key here is the word

"relative". If you take off on a rocket ship and get close to the

speed of light with respect to the earth, your friends on earth will seem

to you to speed up, and according to them, you will slow down (it's not

symmetric because you did all the accelerating), but you won't notice any

changes in your own experience of time unless you smoke marijuana or something.

So to that imaginary particle that "remained at rest with respect to the

center of the big bang", the universe may well appear to be, say for the

sake of argument, 12 billion years old today (happy birthday, universe!

I'm sorry I forgot to buy you a gift. I was busy.) To you, who have

been traveling away from that particle at some appreciable fraction of

the speed of light (gee, I wonder what this fraction actually is... I dunno.),

if you turn around and travel back to visit it, you may find you've been

traveling say, 10 billion years, while it has aged 12. This is a

good way to age cheese or whiskey, if you have the fuel and the space ship.

Oh, and if you don't mind taking your friends along with you, for who wants

to have aged cheese and whiskey alone? Well, besides a grumpy old

hermit like me, that is? Oh, and who knows whether the cheese will

be there when you get back anyway? Some one always eats the cheese

when I travel around on space ships. It's some physical law or other,

I forget. It's been billions of years since I was an undergraduate.

Oh darn, I seem to be straying from your kind question. (Hey,see

below, I like my second answer better. I think it's more correct.

Or, more to the point, as you were not suggesting turning around to go

back)

We are on a planet that has been blown out in the big bang at an

appreciable fraction of the speed of light and as we swing around a

sun that swings around the center of the galaxy which which swings

around the center of the mass of the universe all adding to momentum

(?) Is this speed sufficient to account for our seeing the age of

the current expansion of the universe at the rate we are so familiar

with relative to a body at the exact center of the Big Bang which

remaining unmoving by relation to us would see no passage of time at

all or rather the passage of time would be so fast as to make the

lifespan of the universe infinitely small or non-existent?

Well, as I say, I'm not really very familiar

with special relativity now, but I think there are two issues here. One

is the relative motion, and the other is the distance between our position

and the center of the universe. To take just the first, if we are

whizzing by the center of the universe at close to the speed of light,

from the point of view of the center of the universe, our processes seem

slow. So let's say you are eating some aged cheese as you pass by.

You will experience the eating of the cheese at a normal rate, let's say

one pound per minute. (you really LIKE cheese.) From the center of

the universe's point of view, this might seem to take you half an hour

(you are moving really FAST), and the center of the universe thinks you

are just fine and dandy while in fact you are an amazing glutton.

Well, let's substitute me for you here, so that there is no need to be

offended. I am an amazing glutton. Hang on a moment, I need

to go get some cheese.

Now what was the second issue? Oh yes, the

center of the universe is alarmingly far away. Or it would be if

there were such a thing. Actually, I think everywhere is the center

of the universe. Isn't there some sort of topological trick that

makes that a true statement? Geez, I should have gone to more classes

when I had the chance. (I was too busy recovering from a cheese hangover)

I know it seems reasonable to think of there being a center of the universe.

If you blow up a bomb (oops, unfortunate metaphor these days, but having

made the faux pas, let's carry on...), there would be a center of the explosion,

and one could, if one had made an amateur video tape of the explosion,

talk Dan Rather into running the film backwards, and we could pinpoint

where in space the bomb was when it first blew up. BUT, think about the

universe for a bit. There WAS no space before the big bang.

To do the movie trick, you need to have space for the camera and for the

bomb to exist, but the universe IS the space. Physicists, bless their pointed

little hearts, do like to pretend to run the film backwards to determine

how old the universe is, but they don't get to find out where in the universe

the universe came to be, because there was no such place. So if you

run the movie backwards from any spot in the universe, exactly there is

where the whole thing collapses. So I guess the second issue is moot,

so let's just focus on the first issue, while I go grab some more cheese.

So how fast is the center of the universe moving

with respect to us? Well, we just realized that WE ARE AT THE CENTER

of the universe, and always have been, so it's standing still with respect

to us, and out of respect for us, I suppose, so the universe is as old

as it seems to us, and I will not tolerate any other answer, so please

memorize it in time for Thursday's quiz. thank you, and please remember

to bring along some cheese Thursday, if you want to pass this time.

Is this question decipherable at all?

Well, I had to use high speed decryption techniques,

but yes, I think it's an interesting question.

I sometimes write little stories and your input would be appreciated.

Hey, I'd love to read one. Feel free

to alter the physics to fit your concepts, so long as you admit to it.

Love

Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

LMBO!!!!!

 

, "Mark W. Otter" <mark.otter@s...> wrote:

> Hi BobbyG,

>

> You asked a mouthful! My official response is... "In the immortal

> (because I keep repeating them...) words of my dear friend

Bill 'Uh... I

> dunno'". A less official response is threaded into the question

below:

> (And do take it with considerable salt, I haven't thought much about

> special relativity since I took it as an undergraduate some 25 or

more

> years ago.)

>

> Love, Mark

>

> Dear Mark:

>

> I have a question for you since you were/are a

> physicist.

>

> Since the relative passage of time (rate of change)

> slows as a body

> approaches the speed of light, is it possible

there is

> a body that

> remains completely at rest and the lifespan of the

> universe is

> infinitely small? The key here is the word

> "relative". If you take off on a rocket ship and get close to the

speed

> of light with respect to the earth, your friends on earth will seem

to

> you to speed up, and according to them, you will slow down (it's not

> symmetric because you did all the accelerating), but you won't

notice

> any changes in your own experience of time unless you smoke

marijuana or

> something. So to that imaginary particle that "remained at rest

with

> respect to the center of the big bang", the universe may well

appear to

> be, say for the sake of argument, 12 billion years old today (happy

> birthday, universe! I'm sorry I forgot to buy you a gift. I was

busy.)

> To you, who have been traveling away from that particle at some

> appreciable fraction of the speed of light (gee, I wonder what this

> fraction actually is... I dunno.), if you turn around and travel

back to

> visit it, you may find you've been traveling say, 10 billion years,

> while it has aged 12. This is a good way to age cheese or whiskey,

if

> you have the fuel and the space ship. Oh, and if you don't mind

taking

> your friends along with you, for who wants to have aged cheese and

> whiskey alone? Well, besides a grumpy old hermit like me, that

is? Oh,

> and who knows whether the cheese will be there when you get back

> anyway? Some one always eats the cheese when I travel around on

space

> ships. It's some physical law or other, I forget. It's been

billions

> of years since I was an undergraduate. Oh darn, I seem to be

straying

> from your kind question. (Hey,see below, I like my second answer

> better. I think it's more correct. Or, more to the point, as you

were

> not suggesting turning around to go back)

> We are on a planet that has been blown out in the

big

> bang at an

> appreciable fraction of the speed of light and as

we

> swing around a

> sun that swings around the center of the galaxy

which

> which swings

> around the center of the mass of the universe all

> adding to momentum

> (?) Is this speed sufficient to account for our

seeing

> the age of

> the current expansion of the universe at the rate

we

> are so familiar

> with relative to a body at the exact center of the

Big

> Bang which

> remaining unmoving by relation to us would see no

> passage of time at

> all or rather the passage of time would be so fast

as

> to make the

> lifespan of the universe infinitely small or

> non-existent?

>

> Well, as I say, I'm not really very familiar with special relativity

> now, but I think there are two issues here. One is the relative

motion,

> and the other is the distance between our position and the center

of the

> universe. To take just the first, if we are whizzing by the center

of

> the universe at close to the speed of light, from the point of view

of

> the center of the universe, our processes seem slow. So let's say

you

> are eating some aged cheese as you pass by. You will experience the

> eating of the cheese at a normal rate, let's say one pound per

minute.

> (you really LIKE cheese.) From the center of the universe's point

of

> view, this might seem to take you half an hour (you are moving

really

> FAST), and the center of the universe thinks you are just fine and

dandy

> while in fact you are an amazing glutton. Well, let's substitute

me for

> you here, so that there is no need to be offended. I am an amazing

> glutton. Hang on a moment, I need to go get some cheese.

>

> Now what was the second issue? Oh yes, the center of the universe is

> alarmingly far away. Or it would be if there were such a thing.

> Actually, I think everywhere is the center of the universe. Isn't

there

> some sort of topological trick that makes that a true statement?

Geez,

> I should have gone to more classes when I had the chance. (I was too

> busy recovering from a cheese hangover) I know it seems

reasonable to

> think of there being a center of the universe. If you blow up a

bomb

> (oops, unfortunate metaphor these days, but having made the faux

pas,

> let's carry on...), there would be a center of the explosion, and

one

> could, if one had made an amateur video tape of the explosion, talk

Dan

> Rather into running the film backwards, and we could pinpoint where

in

> space the bomb was when it first blew up. BUT, think about the

universe

> for a bit. There WAS no space before the big bang. To do the movie

> trick, you need to have space for the camera and for the bomb to

exist,

> but the universe IS the space. Physicists, bless their pointed

little

> hearts, do like to pretend to run the film backwards to determine

how

> old the universe is, but they don't get to find out where in the

> universe the universe came to be, because there was no such place.

So

> if you run the movie backwards from any spot in the universe,

exactly

> there is where the whole thing collapses. So I guess the second

issue

> is moot, so let's just focus on the first issue, while I go grab

some

> more cheese.

>

> So how fast is the center of the universe moving with respect to us?

> Well, we just realized that WE ARE AT THE CENTER of the universe,

and

> always have been, so it's standing still with respect to us, and

out of

> respect for us, I suppose, so the universe is as old as it seems to

us,

> and I will not tolerate any other answer, so please memorize it in

time

> for Thursday's quiz. thank you, and please remember to bring along

some

> cheese Thursday, if you want to pass this time.

>

> Is this question decipherable at all?

> Well, I had to use high speed decryption techniques, but yes, I

think

> it's an interesting question.

> I sometimes write little stories and your input

would

> be appreciated.

> Hey, I'd love to read one. Feel free to alter the physics to fit

your

> concepts, so long as you admit to it.

> Love

> Bobby G.

[Guest guest]

, "diana" <diana@n...> wrote:

> LMBO!!!!!

>

 

Dear Diana:

 

I hate to be so dense but what does that mean?

What is the mood of the City now?

 

Love

Bobby G.