Very old computer working?

[CompTIA_Rep]

Well as long as nobody brings string theory into this equastion.

 

[megame255]

Well as long as nobody brings string theory into this equastion.

I've just wasted about a 1/2 hour of my life that I will never get back skimming over this thread. I've seen this thread go from a pointless quest for a power cord to turning into a discussion board for physics theories. I now say to everyone who participated in this pointless but entertaining thread:
"Mr. Madison(maypep_necro), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 

[uber_g]

Well as long as nobody brings string theory into this equastion.

I've just wasted about a 1/2 hour of my life that I will never get back skimming over this thread. I've seen this thread go from a pointless quest for a power cord to turning into a discussion board for physics theories. I now say to everyone who participated in this pointless but entertaining thread:
"Mr. Madison(maypep_necro), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Jesus Loves u

 

[gm0n3y]

if i were to hock a lugie into space...how long until it reaches the speed of light during an eclipse?

You could not hock one faster then the pull of gravty (9.8/m/s/s). If you started from space, it would freeze right away then burn up as it approched the eclipse. If it was away from the eclipse, it would burn up anyway from the suns energy. If it was nowhere near the suns energy *impossible, then it would continue at the rate at which you hocked it as things do not move faster for no reason. It would however, slow down due to gravitational friction as it passed objects.

It could conceivably gain some momentum by using the gravitational force of large bodies to help 'whip' the lugie around the body (at least that was the plan in Apollo 13, although I think they needed thrusters to break from lunar orbit at some point).

I agree not to bring up any more discussion involving a large stick (Roosevelt quotes excluded), but if anybody else starts one I make no promises.

 

[branson]

if the speed of light decreased, would i have to open the apperature on my digital camera to compensate? why?

 

[JonathanDeane]

Well as long as nobody brings string theory into this equastion.

I have heard mixed things about string thoery (it doesnt seem like a good thoery but alot of smart people think its a good one ?!?!?!)

Some poeple think its a crock.

I dont know enough about it to form an opinion one way or the other lol

 

[vikris]

Well as long as nobody brings string theory into this equastion.

I've just wasted about a 1/2 hour of my life that I will never get back skimming over this thread. I've seen this thread go from a pointless quest for a power cord to turning into a discussion board for physics theories. I now say to everyone who participated in this pointless but entertaining thread:
"Mr. Madison(maypep_necro), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Everyone has a right for his own opinion!

Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it

This aplies to you also!

 

[aBg_rOnGak]

I *really* hope nobody would come with the idea of discussing about 4th dimension or some kind of time travelling.....all this discussion really made me more intelligent (i think...or is it the other way around :?: )....and please.. no more kitten killing....i really hope Catwoman and ThunderCat would hunt all of you down

 

[mpjesse]

[G]DIE THREAD DIE!!!![/G]

 

[JonathanDeane]

[G]DIE THREAD DIE!!!![/G]

This thread is like that guy from Friday the 13th. You think he is dead but then he gets up, grabs his machete and comes after you again !!!

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

if the speed of light decreased, would i have to open the apperature on my digital camera to compensate? why?

No. If the speed of light decreased because it was going though a material, such as air / water / gel, the color would slightly change color (such as more red, blue, or more green, usualy), but you would be recieving equal amounts of light.

If you mean the value of C (light in a vacuum) decreased to say, 10,000ft per second, the image would just be normal, and again, you would be recieving equal amounts of light as you would have normally.

Shutter speed is something you would need to adjust though. Because light is traveling X amount slower, you would want to slow down your shutter accordingly. (not the same as opening the aperture alone).

 

[gm0n3y]

First of all, the speed of light can not be changed. The WAVELENGTH of the light can be changed (to produce different colors, etc). So I assume you mean if we lived in a hypothetical universe where the speed of light is slower than in our actual universe would you need to open the apperative on your camera.

You would need to adjust the settings on your camera (assuming the speed change was significant enough). Think about a river and the water is like the light. If the river is moving quickly, then more water is flowing through any particular point. You could adjust the aperature, but you would probably get better results from adjusting the shutter speed.

 

[corvetteguy]

First of all, the speed of light can not be changed. The WAVELENGTH of the light can be changed (to produce different colors, etc). So I assume you mean if we lived in a hypothetical universe where the speed of light is slower than in our actual universe would you need to open the apperative on your camera.

You would need to adjust the settings on your camera (assuming the speed change was significant enough). Think about a river and the water is like the light. If the river is moving quickly, then more water is flowing through any particular point. You could adjust the aperature, but you would probably get better results from adjusting the shutter speed.

No actually the speed of light DOES change enough to be percieved. I'll use the example of a prism. White light does seperate yes, but a laser slows down slightly.

I just want to add something about string theory. I think it is a great theory and works out perfectly except for one thing i don't understand. The updated theory says that most matter is made of line segments of energy that attach to our universe "brane" or membrain at each end. It also says the the reason gravity is some much weaker than the other forces is because it is a ring that can go through the many branes and it therefoe weakened. Now what i don't get is that if everything is attached to a massive fairly flat surface at the quantom level, how do we have dimension. Like if the maximum distance a string can extend from the surface is about one quark then how can we have dimensions and mass. It would be almost two dimensional like a peice of paper, however like a sheet of paper it is every so slightly 3d. Maybe it is just how we percieve things but i would like further explantion of that point. Sorry if this doesn't make sense.

 

[gm0n3y]

Quote from Wikipedia (which is obviously never wrong):

In passing through materials, light is slowed to less than c by the ratio called the refractive index of the material. The speed of light in air is only slightly less than c. Denser media, such as water and glass, can slow light much more, to fractions such as ¾ and ⅔ of c. This reduction in speed is also responsible for bending of light at an interface between two materials with different indices, a phenomenon known as refraction.

Since the speed of light in a material depends on the refractive index, and the refractive index depends on the frequency of the light, light at different frequencies travels at different speeds through the same material. This can cause distortion of electromagnetic waves that consist of multiple frequencies, called dispersion.

Note that the speed of light referred to is the observed or measured speed in some medium and not the true speed of light (as observed in vacuum). It may be noted, that once the light has emerged from the medium it changes back to its original speed and this is without gaining any energy. This can mean only one thing—that the light's speed itself was never altered in the first place.

So it seems like we are both somewhat correct. I was thinking in the more technical sense, whereas your assumption was the more practical. I think that for the purposed of this question, it doesn't really matter, but lets assume that we are in a medium with a vastly high refractive index than air (even water has an index much larger than air). Assuming that we are inside the medium that is (appearing to) slow the speed of light, you must adjust your shutter speed accordingly.

 

[JonathanDeane]

I guess this would effect underwater filming ? like those deep sea documentaries I like so much.... or is the difference so small that a camera couldnt detect it ? I realy dont know 186,000 or 100,000 can a camera tell the difference ? and is this why water looks blue ?

 

[corvetteguy]

I guess this would effect underwater filming ? like those deep sea documentaries I like so much.... or is the difference so small that a camera couldnt detect it ? I realy dont know 186,000 or 100,000 can a camera tell the difference ? and is this why water looks blue ?

Water looks blue for the same reason the sky looks blue. Its refracts light and bends blue light towards us. The sky can turn red at sunset and dawn because of different thickness of atmosphere compared to the sun straight up, so the angle changes and we see red.

 

[gm0n3y]

I'm sure that under water filming requires different settings on a camera (and obviously water proofing ), but I think that the main reason for this is because of the low light conditions generally present in water (due to sediment, reflection of light, etc).

 

[maypep_necro]

I guess this would effect underwater filming ? like those deep sea documentaries I like so much.... or is the difference so small that a camera couldnt detect it ? I realy dont know 186,000 or 100,000 can a camera tell the difference ? and is this why water looks blue ?

It's because it's heavy and it breaks all little things in camera...

 

[corvetteguy]

I guess this would effect underwater filming ? like those deep sea documentaries I like so much.... or is the difference so small that a camera couldnt detect it ? I realy dont know 186,000 or 100,000 can a camera tell the difference ? and is this why water looks blue ?

It's because it's heavy and it breaks all little things in camera...

Or maybe because water conducts electricty and has a nasty habit of creeping into every nook and cranny to start sizzling on your circuits till they explode in your face.

 

[MapAid]

I think the 1ly long stick and this thread belong to a certain place where the sun doesn´t shine.

diApaM

 

[branson]

so if its possible to slow down the speed of light slightly, is it possible to speed up the speed of light? or is there something that is faster than the speed of light?

 

[vikris]

so if its possible to slow down the speed of light slightly, is it possible to speed up the speed of light? or is there something that is faster than the speed of light?

The speed of light is terminal. It can't be greater.

 

[JonathanDeane]

so if its possible to slow down the speed of light slightly, is it possible to speed up the speed of light? or is there something that is faster than the speed of light?

I guess quarks are faster but they are only theoretical ? I guess when you use light as your "eyes" to physics that something moving faster then light might be a bit hard to detect !

 

[Guest]

most stupid thread evar!

 

[cpburns]

WHY IS THIS STILL ALIVE?!?!

OMFG ... wow. Just wow. How has maypep not gotten his down syndrome ass run over by a cement truck yet? Is he still trying to plug in his P1/66 8 months later? Did he ever find a power cord? Did he ever realize that there's one plugged into the back of his horrible, slow, unbalanced media PC he's still typing from? Why would anyone ask someone else if something that other person has NEVER SEEN still works?? Jesus, plug it the **** in!! Ah well, maypep, you have a shitty computer, you're trying to save a shitty computer, and you're a wannabe-quebecqoie retard. You have made the world a worse place by your existance.