Aussies rewrite Einstein....... [Archive]

iGav

Aug 9, 2002, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by dukestreet
what does this mean to the rest of us non astrophysicists?

not really a whole hell of a lot.......

we can't go back it time to go faster, we can't even go fast now, relativistically speaking. :rolleyes:

They're really on something aren't they the Aussies...... first off they manage to 'teleport' a couple of months ago...... no they're saying Einstein was wrong.... How long until they invent time travel as well?? and change world history...... they'll take over the world...... and we'll all be called Bruce or Sheila........ :eek: :eek: :eek:

Somebody stop them....... :p :p :p

saint

Aug 9, 2002, 08:40 AM

Does this mean that the speed at which electrons move is also decreasing over time?
So my cable internet is getting slower.:p
And if Apple doesn't lift their game, the processors in the powermacs are also going to get slower, not faster.:D

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by saint
Does this mean that the speed at which electrons move is also decreasing over time?
So my cable internet is getting slower.:p
And if Apple doesn't lift their game, the processors in the powermacs are also going to get slower, not faster.:D

well, if you could measure the speed of time over 1 billion years, you might see a difference (so they seem to imply). But in 1 billion years, if Apple is still around, I don't think speed will be much of an issue......

mischief

Aug 9, 2002, 10:30 AM

Entropy is universal.

Even Photons and Electrons lose velocity with distance. It's always bugged me that modern physicists just assumed that if it was small enough than it was too slight to measure so why bother. Glad to see that Newtonian physics are seeing a comeback.:D Newton always made more sense anyway.;)

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 10:51 AM

In order to understand this concept we need to explain the basics in theory.

From the experiment of the CRT we know that light is really matter and energy. The matter in light, consisting of these electrons, can be altered if there is a vaccuum of infinite density nearby, in which case, would either alter the course of the electrons or suck them in. However, the theory of which certain objects/quasars to have given off light at a decreasing speed would depend on if the deflection of this matter has been affected. An example would be the common black hole. If all light emitted from a source that far away has reached Earth and has been, in a matter of fact, been redirected by a black hole within the path from the source to Earth, the the light has not moved straight and has been "curved" in another direction. If such a curve occured, then the force of the curve would alter the direction of light and the force used to "pull" the light would decrease the speed of light. If this were the case, the word "between" would become as useful as a pop-up advertisement. It becomes useless and false.

However, if what is being said in the article remarks that light over time has slowed in general, that cannot be proved without certain verifications, as in the passage stated above. IF in a matter of fact there is ZERO pull on light whatsoever as it travels from the source to here in 10 billion years then the light will have continued its EXACT constant speed forever.

But, theoretically, it is impossible for light to have maintained its EXACT speed from one point to another if there is any nearby obstacle, because there are extremely miniscule "pulls" on light (so little we can't even tell) from the source that would alter the speed of light in one way or the other by, maybe, a billionth of a mile per hour (for our metric fans, a billionth of a kilometer per hour). These pulls include the G-forces of any nearby asteroids, planets, stars. Mostly, though, these would be the absolute largest objects, such as stars or giants. These give off such a pull over such a huge span of distance that it would be impossible for light to remain the same speed if it entered the G-forces of these stars, as previously described.

So what the article has mentioned about light not being 100 percent consistent is accurate.

Ensign Paris

Aug 9, 2002, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Could this mean that our daytime hours will eventually shift over the course of the next several billion years?

This will effect you mere mortals but not me, muhmuhmuhmuhaaa. ok, maybe not. but if we ending up with a 22 or a 26 hour day it would effect use quite a lot, even though I don't think that the human race will stay on earth that long.

Ensign

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by King Cobra
vaccuum of infinite density

oh, now that's a good one.....are you thinking of an absolute vacuum? or is a vaccuum something I've not heard of before?

you're neglecting the duality of light as a particle and a wave. This is one reason Newtonian Physics fails in accurately defining what happens as you get closer to the speed of light. Its not a simple matter of conservation of energy in collisions of photons and other matter.

Have you ever used polarized glasses? Have you ever done the interferrometry test with light waves? I think what these physicists are talking about is something more than just Newtonian ideas.

D

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 11:47 AM

>oh, now that's a good one.....are you thinking of an absolute vacuum? or is a vaccuum something I've not heard of before?

Remember what happens when black holes form? Theoretically, it's a star that has become so dense and has so much energy that outer material explodes in a supernova and whatever is left becomes a neutron star or black hole. If the remnants are even more condensed and squashed together because of the intense heat and G-force it collapses on itself and what is left is basically a hole where the matter was. Some say that the matter is so condensed that the black hole has infinite density. But, of course, that is impossible. If it were, all matter that resulted in forming the black hole would be nonexistant. Therefore, this would break the law of convervation of matter, and we know that matter cannot just vanish like that. But, in theory, the matter does become so condensed that the [what was] "material" would become too small to even see. And we know this because even light gets absorbed.

I'm well aware of the fact of duality of light, and your point is well taken. But there has been photographic proof of the light emitted from a blue star actually forming a circular formation around a small hole in the center of it. Only black holes have enough force to pull light like that. This adds to the theory that even light waves cannot escape black holes.

In the duality of light, we cannot see the particles light gives off. So there is no point in examining the particles if what we can see in this whole situation is the energy of light.

>Have you ever used polarized glasses? Have you ever done the interferrometry test with light waves? I think what these physicists are talking about is something more than just Newtonian ideas.

No, I have not experimented with any of these. I have not gotten to Physics yet. But this year I will be taking Honors Physics. So I should eventually be able to explore with these devices and theories.

topicolo

Aug 9, 2002, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by King Cobra
In order to understand this concept we need to explain the basics in theory.

From the experiment of the CRT we know that light is really matter and energy. The matter in light, consisting of these electrons, can be altered if there is a vaccuum of infinite density nearby, in which case, would either alter the course of the electrons or suck them in.

OK, first, light is NOT composed of electrons. Light is caused by the energy packets given off by electrons settling back down to a reduced energy state. These packets, or quanta of energy, are called photons, which, like dukestreet said, have the properties of waves as well as properties of solids.

By CRT, if you mean cathode ray tube, I would have to say that that does not prove that light is made out of electrons at all. THe electrons accelerated by the magnetic coils at the back of the tube are directed at a phosphor coating on the screen, which excites the electrons of the phosphorus atoms to certain energy levels, causing them to give off photons when they settle back down to their standard energy state.

Originally posted by King Cobra
However, the theory of which certain objects/quasars to have given off light at a decreasing speed would depend on if the deflection of this matter has been affected. An example would be the common black hole.

Gravity does not "deflect" mass, it always attracts it.

Originally posted by King Cobra
If such a curve occured, then the force of the curve would alter the direction of light and the force used to "pull" the light would decrease the speed of light. If this were the case, the word "between" would become as useful as a pop-up advertisement. It becomes useless and false.

That has already been proven. This is called a Doppler Shift. It changes the frequency of the light waves so that the light is a different color. But the speed of light does not change.

mischief

Aug 9, 2002, 12:01 PM

Ever thrown rocks in a pond?

On the extremely large scales we're talking about, the physical characteristics of light become less exotic. The whole "Warticle" model of light assumes ligh to be an emination separate from it's source.... like smoke from a fire. I tend to think of light more like a fractal algorythm that expands, decays and resonates in a pattern of infinitessimal points of potential arrayed in an ever expanding wave such that when it is viewed at 90 degrees to the plane of expansion (through the origin) it behaves like a particle, when in actuality it is a WAVE of potential.... like a holographic echo of the original lightsource travelling outward with rediculous velocity. ;)

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 12:03 PM

>OK, first, light is NOT composed of electrons. Light is caused by the energy packets given off by electrons settling back down to a reduced energy state....causing them to give off photons when they settle back down to their standard energy state.

You are referring to relaxation and excitement. Those statements are correct.

>Gravity does not "deflect" mass, it always attracts it.

What I meant was as light energy approaches a source of gravity, the energy does take a curve. I used the wrong word.

topicolo

Aug 9, 2002, 12:17 PM

There's an equation that lets you calculate the change in frequency of a wave depending on the relative speed of the observer and the source, lemme see if i can remember it correctly...

oh yeah. f2 = f1[(1-u/c)/(1+v/c)]^(1/2)

f2 is the final frequency
f1 is the initial frequency
u is the speed of the observer
v is the speed of the source
c is the propagation speed of the signal in the medium (ie light)

the non-relativistic version just omits the square root.

You can actually use this to calculate the change in pitch of sound waves as the source moves towards you and then recedes into the distance. Nerdy? yes. Cool? maybe. Boring? hell yes!

Just don't ask me to prove it

:D

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 12:24 PM

Well, that will help me to get me closer to my dream carreer (actually, I have a few, just one requires a heavy education :D) in being a Physics major or Astronomer.

BTW, for confirmation, is this the equation?

sneed

Aug 9, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart

ok...so my question is...if the speed of light actually has the ability to slow down over an extended period of time...

could this mean that our daytime hours will eventually shift over the course of the next several billion years?

No.

A. We are too close to the sun for this to be a factor. They are talking about 10 billion years.

B. It wouldn't matter anyway. How many daylight hours we have has nothing to do with the speed of light.

C. Daylight hours will certainly shift over several billion years due to unpredictable irregularities, and that the earth's rotation is slowing down.

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
my dream carreer in being a Physics major or Astronomer.

So you'll be a Physics major as a career? Nice goals you set for yourself. :D And if you take this route, what do you plan on after you graduate?

Physics, Astro Physics and Astronomy are fields that greatly benefit from advanced degrees. I would recommend Doctorate if you really want to get anywhere. If you're only interested in technological applications, look to engineering.

D

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra

Remember what happens when black holes form?

Some say that the matter is so condensed that the black hole has infinite density.

No, I have not experimented with any of these. I have not gotten to Physics yet. But this year I will be taking Honors Physics. So I should eventually be able to explore with these devices and theories.

You mentioned a 'vacuum of infinite density' - my response obviously wasn't explained well enough :rolleyes:

a vacuum is an absence of matter - therefore its impossible to have a vacuum of infinite density

maybe after you take your physics class come and talk to me.........

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 12:44 PM

>So you'll be a Physics major as a career? Nice goals you set for yourself. :D

Hey, man. I really appreciate the support. :)

>And if you take this route, what do you plan on after you graduate? Physics, Astro Physics and Astronomy are fields that greatly benefit from advanced degrees. I would recommend Doctorate if you really want to get anywhere.

I would like to try and get my Doctorate. And I am going to push as hard as I can to get the Masters first. My father keeps telling me something like 'once you get a masters/Ph. D. you can easily earn another one, 'cause you can keep going earning them.' If I feel that the first Ph. D. I earn was easy enough I MIGHT go for 2. But right now I am just looking forward to earning the Ph. D. and going into Physics/Astronomy.

The University of Southern Maine is up around the area I am now, so paying for an education won't be TOO much of a problem. I'll be looking forward to it in a year from now, when I move up here.

>If you're only interested in technological applications, look to engineering.

Nah. I grew up receiving an abundance of Astronomy books/magazines/whatever when I was young. And since then I have thought Astronomy was so cool.

I also have been able to excel (sp) in Math, so applying mathematics to any laws of science shouldn't be much of a problem. I know I'll enjoy the carreer, though. :cool:

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 12:49 PM

>>Remember what happens when black holes form?

>>Some say that the matter is so condensed that the black hole has infinite density.

>>No, I have not experimented with any of these. I have not gotten to Physics yet. But this year I will be taking Honors Physics. So I should eventually be able to explore with these devices and theories.

>a vacuum is an absence of matter - therefore its impossible to have a vacuum of infinite density

I didn't use "vaccuum" anywhere you happened to quote me (see ">>" section).

>maybe after you take your physics class come and talk to me.........

Easy, big guy. Just because someone words it wrong doesn't mean you have to expect a lack of response from someone. Settle down. :rolleyes:

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra

I didn't use "vaccuum" anywhere you happened to quote me

look here, 3 line from the top (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?postid=123219#post123219)

as a rule, its best not to spout off on stuff you don't know that much about, I was being nice and taunting you - if Alpha had been in here you'd have been left on the floor, shredded, to be used for cat litter.

and there is only 1 c in vacuum, its the second time you misspelled it-just thought you'd like to know

D :D

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 01:04 PM

>look here, 3 line from the top

I was referring to the ">>" part. There I did not use "vacuum" (mispelled earlier as well), but I did earlier.

>as a rule, its best not to spout off on stuff you don't know that much about, I was being nice and taunting you - if Alpha had been in here you'd have been left on the floor, shredded, to be used for cat litter.

See I was trying to give out [what I thought was] information I knew about, based on what I've read and seen. Where do you get your "information" from?

sneed

Aug 9, 2002, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet

You mentioned a 'vacuum of infinite density' - my response obviously wasn't explained well enough :rolleyes:

a vacuum is an absence of matter - therefore its impossible to have a vacuum of infinite density

maybe after you take your physics class come and talk to me.........

Perhaps this is the answer...

Einstein's speed of light is based on the speed of light in a vacuum, so instead of showing that the speed of light (c) is not a constant, perhaps all the aussies have shown is that space is not a vacuum.

topicolo

Aug 9, 2002, 01:46 PM

KC: yeah, that's the equation. Good luck with your physics major thing, God knows I wouldn't touch that :D. I'm more of a biochemistry/organic chemistry type of guy (but yes, we're still forced to take fizziks. ugh :))

SNEED: maybe all of this only applies to a "vaccuum" but not to a vacuum, which is what space pretty much is (except for the 1 molecule flying through every m^3 or so);) ;) ;)

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by sneed

Perhaps this is the answer...

Einstein's speed of light is based on the speed of light in a vacuum, so instead of showing that the speed of light (c) is not a constant, perhaps all the aussies have shown is that space is not a vacuum.

no, no, no - of course its not a perfect vacuum - that's not my point - what KC - VOID (ah, KC's brain is a Vacuum Of Infinite Density ---- V.O.I.D :p )

what he said makes no sense, he was thinking of an absolute vacuum, which is only really an ideal case, there are all sorts of things floating, zipping around in space, its not a true vacuum.

What everyone seems to be missing is that its not Newtonian Physics at play here. Just because the speed of light might have changed doesn't mean that as a photon gets older it slows down. No, what they are saying is that the constant c has changed.

For example - if you were to measure a brand new photon's velocity along side of that of one 10 billion years ago they would be travelling at the same speed - c - which is 299,792,458 m/s (meters per second - that is equal to 186287.490 miles per second.

But 10 billion years ago the value of c might have been different - they never went into how much difference, but lets just say its was greater than 299,792,458 m/s.

Light can slow down - when travelling through a transparent medium, like air or water, when the index of refraction is greater than 1, but we're talking about a vacuum, and for this we can make the assumption that space is effectively a perfect vacuum.

Did this help anyone?

D

Sun Baked

Aug 9, 2002, 01:56 PM

Quick contact Yahoo Serious, looks like we'll need another Einstein movie after all.

sneed

Aug 9, 2002, 01:57 PM

If a fly lands on a steel beam, does the steal beam bend?

Perhaps it is different in a 'vaccuum', but the fly would bend the beam in any circumstance. It may not be measurable, or easily measurable, if the beam were of your standard construction length, but it would be if the beam were 10 billion feet long.

topicolo

Aug 9, 2002, 02:05 PM

And don't even get me started on zero point fields in a total vacuum...

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 02:06 PM

what I was pointing out was not whether light slows down when moving through a transparent medium - thats been proven - its the fact that the constant *c* has changed over time.....does no one get this?

your analogy is flawed though - the 10 Billion foot beam of steal would bend under its own weight first.

:eek: :confused: :(

sneed

Aug 9, 2002, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
what I was pointing out was not whether light slows down when moving through a transparent medium - thats been proven - its the fact that the constant *c* has changed over time.....does no one get this?

your analogy is flawed though - the 10 Billion foot beam of steal would bend under its own weight first.

:eek: :confused: :(

sneed

Aug 9, 2002, 02:39 PM

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 02:52 PM

sneed, in case you haven't noticed, there is a little button, called the "edit" button, which will allow to get away from double posting from now on. :p

>(duke)KC's brain is a Vacuum Of Infinite Density

What? No! You're brain is a VOID. It's also an egotistical cocky attitude redistributor! Or, maybe I'll just abbreviate it as Ecar. See how you feel now, jerk.

>Just because the speed of light might have changed doesn't mean that as a photon gets older it slows down. No, what they are saying is that the constant c has changed.

>Light can slow down - when travelling through a transparent medium, like air or water, when the index of refraction is greater than 1, but we're talking about a vacuum, and for this we can make the assumption that space is effectively a perfect vacuum.

If space is a perfect vacuum, that would mean light always travels straight and does not slow, correct? But the article said that constant "c" has changed. How?

mischief

Aug 9, 2002, 03:03 PM

c is a key frequency. Think of it as what happens to a drumhead over time. If the idea here is that the Universe is infinitely expansive (TONS more detail here;) ) than, relatively speaking a "limp" Universe will have a lower tone.

Another way to think about it is that if the whole Universe was smaller, denser and of higher potential than it would naturally have faster transfer of energy.

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 03:33 PM

mischief has the right idea.

at the beginning of the universe, at the big bang, all the constants that apply to our universe were created - have you ever wondered why Pi is 3.141...... - it just is. I some other universe it might be something totally different - thats a bit of a mind blower.

Any way, they don't really give an explanation, but from their observations its the only thing they can come up with that describes what they're seeing. By trying to measure the the distance of the quasars, they've determined the age of the universe ~10 Billion light years means its just a little older.

But what if the speed of light was faster? That would mean the age of the universe was younger because light had bridged the gap from our observations on earth to the quasars a lot faster. A light year measured now might be a lot shorter than a light year at the beginning.

If you haven't read them, several books will give you a greater appreciation of what's really going on - both Kip Thorn and Steven Hawking have a couple really good overviews. Search them down at the library - if you're really in to physics and astromony you'll love these.

Sneed - Picky, picky. I bet you were one of thos kids who was too caught up in breaking down the lesson to see the point of it.

i was one of those kids who would see the point immediately and get bored so I would break down the lesson to while away the time.....

D

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 03:55 PM

So we have two theories going: The one that started the whole topic, and this one by professor [p]ukestreet.

Apparently that's why some theorize that the universe has been so many years old. I have heard/seen numbers between 9 and 20 billion. So, obviously, there is no way to actually determine the exact age of the universe.

>I[n] some other universe it might be something totally different - thats a bit of a mind blower.

Yeah. There might be an unlimited number of universes? out there.

mischief

Aug 9, 2002, 04:10 PM

There are as many Universes as there are possible events in any of them given an infinitely large timestream.:eek:

I personally think the whole big bang theory is a bunch of ****.

There's a counter theory stating that conservation of mass/energy is maintained not within 1 Universe but across ALL of them. Effectively timespace (in this theory) is expelled into being through stars from another, higher energy Universe and folded off into another Universe of lower energy from our Black Holes. The Universal expansion is caused by there being more coming in than going out.

(shrug):D

This is where Duke get's Dogmatic maybe?;)

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 04:18 PM

I'm surprised people think you can travel out of black holes. BHs have an extreme pull and suck you right to the center of it. What makes you think you can travel around the center of something if you can barely keep from breaking apart and getting crushed to death?

>This is where Duke get's Dogmatic maybe?;)

If he does, there's only one thing to do. Cup your hands on your throat, stand absolutely straight, bend over nice and smoothly and kiss your ash bye-bye. :D :D :D :D

mischief

Aug 9, 2002, 04:20 PM

I a Big Cat.....

I can whup any Dogma you care to name.:D

kiwi_the_iwik

Aug 9, 2002, 04:26 PM

Jesus - you folks have W-A-A-A-Y too much time on your hands...

sneed

Aug 9, 2002, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by dukestreet
...

Sneed - Picky, picky. I bet you were one of thos kids who was too caught up in breaking down the lesson to see the point of it.

i was one of those kids who would see the point immediately and get bored so I would break down the lesson to while away the time.....

D

You might as well have pointed out that a 10 billion foot beam is pretty unlikely.

Beej

Aug 9, 2002, 05:38 PM

3 things.
1. w00t! Go Aussies. We rock.
2. It is obvious who knows what they are talking about. Unfortunately I missed out on contributing to this thread while it was actually going somewhere, so I'd like to thank said people for keeping this thread sane.
3. It is also glaringly obvious who has no ****ing idea what they are talking about, and I politely ask them to shut their ****ing mouths and stay out of things they have no idea about.

Thankyou for you time.

Actually, I do have one more thing. I currently have someone on my ignore list. Unfortunately I can still see where they have posted, and see when people have quoted them. Does anyone know how to stop this from happening? I don't even want to know this person exists... :rolleyes: ;)

mischief

Aug 9, 2002, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Beej
I currently have someone on my ignore list. Unfortunately I can still see where they have posted, and see when people have quoted them. Does anyone know how to stop this from happening? I don't even want to know this person exists... :rolleyes: ;)

Ouch!!

Who are you pissed at Beej?:confused:

Mr. Anderson

Aug 9, 2002, 06:06 PM

beej, your mailbox is full, you might want to clean up a little.

KC-VOID, go get Steven Hawkings A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553103741/qid=1028934244/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-9221544-6180936) and read it all the way through. Its short, shouldn't take you all that long, but it really will help you better understand it all. Kip Thorn's book
Black Holes and Time Warps (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393312763/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-9221544-6180936)

There really aren't any big equations and there are even some pictures, you'll like it.

D :D

Beej

Aug 9, 2002, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by mischief
Ouch!!

Who are you pissed at Beej?:confused: Ha! I don't wan to publicly reveal that information. I will say that it's not you, though :)

--
Originally posted by dukestreet
beej, your mailbox is full, you might want to clean up a little.
...
There really aren't any big equations and there are even some pictures, you'll like it.1. Done.
2. Good one! :D

King Cobra

Aug 9, 2002, 09:08 PM

3. It is also glaringly obvious who has no ****ing idea what they are talking about, and I politely ask them to shut their ****ing mouths and stay out of things they have no idea about.

Why don't you just come out and say that you're talking about my posts. First, I DO have some ****ing idea as to what I'm talking about. Why the hell else would I bring up black holes and the CRT? So I clearly have some idea as to what I'm talking about. Second, you sit right there on your chair and shut YOUR ****ing mouth and let me say what I want to say about something that I DO have an idea of what I'm talking about. It's not that I don't have any idea, because I do have some idea. You don't.

Actually, I do have one more thing. I currently have someone on my ignore list. Unfortunately I can still see where they have posted, and see when people have quoted them.... I don't even want to know this person exists...
Well then, you're also on my ignore list for claiming that I have no idea what I'm talking about when I do...and especially for telling me that you don't want me to exist. I don't want to remember that you exist either.

[user Beej blocked for promotoing infant cancer (smoking as an infant) through his avatar, telling me he doesn't want me to exist, and for telling me that I have no idea what I'm talking about.]

Oh, and duke, enough with the void [user dukestreet blocked -- damnit, I can't block mods...what a rip]

Sun Baked

Aug 9, 2002, 10:28 PM

It could be me, since I'm still waiting for the comic book version on this type of Theoretical Physics to come out. Though a sequel to Young Einstein might be much more enjoyable.

I know with certainty that this type of Theoretical Physics is way over my head, and I've taken more than the normal Physics courses.

I opened the door to theoretical physics, looked in and now know with certainty that Theoretical Physics for Dummies will still make my brain explode.

So anybody got the comic book version?

kiwi_the_iwik

Aug 10, 2002, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by dukestreet
...go get Steven Hawkings A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553103741/qid=1028934244/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-9221544-6180936) and read it all the way through. Its short, shouldn't take you all that long, but it really will help you better understand it all. Kip Thorn's book
Black Holes and Time Warps (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393312763/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-9221544-6180936)

There really aren't any big equations and there are even some pictures, you'll like it.

D :D

I like pictures... ...especially pop-out books. How about fold-out with a diagram of the Known Universe at 1:1 scale?

Then when someone asks where you live, you can say "G-4".

How about The Idiot's Guide to... ...Quantum Mechanics?

;)