When I did my graphic design thing, a key take away is that you want to enlarge your text as much as possible. Smaller fonts may look ok to you but older folks or seeing impaired may have difficulty seeing it. So the font at 30 seconds before and after, is imo a tini bit small. There are some good graphic design books.. one text trick is to have your titles in one font and the reading font in another, to contrast. Another thing to consider is that the words you use may just tie in the ideas, whereas if you want to write whole paragraphs you might consider voice, or images, to enable people to synthesize what you are talking about. None the less, in terms of art I really think artists should just do their own thing there is no right or wrong. Avoid small fonts whenever possible even if you can read it others may not be able to. The text inputs were sloppy and you used white text that overlapped images that totally blured the text. You might want to consider boxing in or shadowing to create a contrastive backing so that you arn't blurring in with images. If you want to showcase the images, then you might consider moving text, or type in text that disappears after being faded in and out or scrolled in and out. Most video editing software can do those type of text effects fairly easily. JMHO. Its all good. Overall picture book with sloppy text. Some of the images and movement stuff was nice.. the mix and matching seemed a little incoherent, and the up and down of font sizes seemed chaotic. Again hopefully you had fun doing it. That is why I do my hobby stuff like music because I like making it.
Last edited:
Sorry gave up! Text too small and feint to read.I'm really passionate when it comes to that kind of stuffThis is my first vid! ^^
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1why507Tbs
Move in an instantaneous way isn't possibile, to do this in fact we would have an infinity speed. The equation of the speed=space/time, in order to reach them points instantaneously force the time to be 0, and the speed to be infinity. The space, with this element wouldn't have any importance and we could reach every point of our universe that we want without problems. But, as I have already sayd, it isn't possible, or at least I don't think that is possible. But I think that for as, people and probe, made out of matter, is possible to reach at least an half of the speed of light, and thanks to the future changement, we can menage to get a lot of new discoveries on this fields, in fact the closest star to us is Proxima Centauri, and with my previousy waether of data we can reach it in seven years, so we can use this in our advantage, isn't the best thing that we can have, but is an interesting beginning
Excuse me if I interfere in your speech, but only the clock of the ship would slow down, so for the Earth and for us the time will rest at the same speed. Thus, during his life the hypothetically astronomer would travel through the space without any problem for 100000 years, isn't important for him, because maybe he would have become old of 80 years (I don't know anythigh about the relative law, and numbers are taken casually). When he will return home, he will find probably an Earth destroied by the passing of time, he will discover to be the last one of the uman race. He won't can communicate his discoveries with us, the time passed here is too much. It would be useless.
The clocks will look normal to those next to them, but the clocks that appear, by either party, to be moving will appear to run slower. The space crew will determine those on Earth are aging slower. There is some sort of symmetry break that happens when the ship stops then returns so that the travelers will arrive having aged at the lesser rate. I don’t understand how this happens, but that’s what I’ve been told.
Excuse me, I feel to disagree with you. I think that at the speed of light they ( the hypotetically crew) are aging slower than us on the Earth, in fact I have heard that the time pass slower when the speed is high, here there is a inverse proportion. I can even wrong, I'm not an expert and you have also more experience than me, but I remember this.
You hold the opinion I once held. The "Twin Paradox" account would support your view as the twin traveling in the spaceship would return younger than the Earth sibling. Although SR (Special Relativity) demonstrates this -- atomic clock "twins" have confirmed this with one returning from space having run slower -- SR is more complicated when you want to talk about what different observers say about the clocks. The space travelers will look at Earth clocks and see them run slower.
At first I thought that the space travelers had to see the Earth clocks run slower simply because the light from the clocks took more and more time to reach the ship, but this time lag won't be enough to account for the actual time observed. I wish I understood it better, but I don't.
There is something wrong. If the traveller when return on Earth is younger than his twin, we are forced to say that the time ran faster on Earth. If the time on Earth had run slower as you said, the traveller would have returned elder than his twin, and for this reason I disagreed (and now too) with you. The example of the clocks can't exist if the time and the clocks are the same thing...
I'm really passionate when it comes to that kind of stuff
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1why507Tbs
Personally I think we humans underestimate the odds of what it takes to duplicate life as we know it here on earth.
It's only natural that humans not wanting to think that we are along in our solar system.
If we ever come to grips that we are alone we might all need some therapy or a script to deal with this.
You're on the right trail but you have a ways to go, IMO.
> We agree that on Earth our clocks won't speed up or slow down in rate. All will seem normal for those on Earth with their own clocks.
> The spaceship time to reach their destination will not suggest their clocks ran slower. IOW, at, say, a ship's speed of 80% the speed of light, Earth would determine that it took a spaceship about 5.4 years to reach proxima Centauri. [That's 5.4 years using Earth clocks.]
> The Earth observers will see, perhaps to their surprise, that the space ship clock ran slower even after the time delay due to the speed of light is taken into consideration. [Earth clocks say all is normal in just the time it took them to go to another location, but if they (space travelers) report their time of arrival (ie their on-board clock) then we would be told the spaceship clock ran slower (2.6 years of travel time by the spaceship clock - ignoring all the extra time to slow down to get there).
> Thus, when the spaceship returned the same would be true and the space travelers would have aged at a less rate than those on Earth.
> But, and this is where I struggle, the spaceship travelers would argue that the clocks on Earth would not only appear slower (due to the time for light to reach them) but also because of Relativity. Namely, that relativity means that the spaceship could be regarded as still and the Earth is moving away from them. Hence they would determine that people on Earth would be aging slower, at least up to the point the spaceship began its deceleration upon arrival to proxima Centauri, or wherever.
This would make it a true paradox -- since, upon their return, we know the end result of their clock having run slower -- if this was all there was to the Twin Paradox story, but the spaceship had to decelerate upon arrival at the destination and then accelerate to return. If we make this simple relativity, then hitting the engine switch to move the entire universe while the spaceship stayed still is very illogical. [This would explain why the Earth clocks would appear by space travelers to run slower.] Somewhere in that illogical circumstance is where physicists describe the acceleration experience as causing a symmetry break -- where one clock becomes the slower running clock, namely the spaceship clock.
Perhaps a physicist is around to help us on this, especially since I could still have this wrong, admittedly.
Last edited:
Now I understand,though it is very complicate as to explain as to understand. I also understand why it is called paradox and I get along with who decide to call it so. I understand thanks to this part and also in the part in which you wrote of deceleration of the ship when it is going to return home. Thank you!
Unfortunatly, you're right. If soon we do not create a new revolutionary engine, then we will forever remain in our gravity well. Most likely it will. But there is still the possibility of creating such an artificial intelligence that can bring our DNA to exoplanets that may be suitable for life. This theory is my favorite. Then maybe in the future, our descendants will be able to create such ships that will plow the vastness of the galaxy and maybe even the whole universe
A Universal and Soulful Connection.
When you feel this deep realization it's more free spirited and spacy.
It shows your in-depth Connection with UNIVERSE
Bravo
When you feel this deep realization it's more free spirited and spacy.
It shows your in-depth Connection with UNIVERSE
Bravo
Hey this looks like fun! I'd be willing to team up. I am figuring out how to render stuff.
Illustration for flat earthers
3D EARTH & MOON MODEL
North pole view on Moon
Another North Pole Shot
Download Rhino3D 90 day trial and knock your socks off! It's better than video games, trust me
Meistro
Uh!!! That was your first video! I'm a little speechless... it was beautiful...I'm really passionate when it comes to that kind of stuff
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1why507Tbs
and beautifully done... from start to finish. I have to share this one.
That was quite a video, and all I can say to that is that it will all end in a whimper.
Isn't it weird that it will be as if it didn't exist. A moment in time from which we have no control, or do we? We postulate the idea of going back in time, Star Trek even did an episode where the crew was put in a situation where the operator tried to compel them to enter the doorway and return to a spot in time. Talking about, "Back to the Future."
I wonder if that doorway to the past inspired Stargate SG-1. Simple building blocks, compounds, minerals, etc. And the occasional spark of inspiration, and all you have to do is to duplicate it. Isn't the sun at a half-way point in its life? Milk-dramada is the least of our worries and we better figure out what is going to be our mode of transportation. Frankly I would like a Cadillac. Could someone find the keyboard and hit return.
Isn't it weird that it will be as if it didn't exist. A moment in time from which we have no control, or do we? We postulate the idea of going back in time, Star Trek even did an episode where the crew was put in a situation where the operator tried to compel them to enter the doorway and return to a spot in time. Talking about, "Back to the Future."
I wonder if that doorway to the past inspired Stargate SG-1. Simple building blocks, compounds, minerals, etc. And the occasional spark of inspiration, and all you have to do is to duplicate it. Isn't the sun at a half-way point in its life? Milk-dramada is the least of our worries and we better figure out what is going to be our mode of transportation. Frankly I would like a Cadillac. Could someone find the keyboard and hit return.
Here's my two cents on time... it's standing still and we're passing through it, and it's a man-made construct to account for aging. My perspective is based on statements of how we "look back on time." Seems to me it'd be fixed. If we say, "Remember when...?," then aren't we actually looking backwards at a fixed point to recall that story? Just a thought.
Now, if you ask me about Scotty's Star Trek reboot quote about... "It never occurred to me that space and time were actually the things moving..." then I would be at a loss to say anything further. The future's unwritten but the past is a chronological line of stories. Again, just a thought.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
TI, "If we say, "Remember when...?," then aren't we actually looking backwards at a fixed point to recall that story?"
This is effectively the BLOCK theory, which I have described elsewhere., I am just describing it. OK!
Briefly, space-time exists as a BLOCK (so the model goes) and contains the past and the future, as well as every NOW moment between life and death, or formation and destruction in the case of objects. This is termed a world line or similar. All NOWs are "real".
A person (or anything) exists as a world line. Because we are not equipped, or have not yet evolved, an ability to comprehend an entire world line, we have invented (or evolved) a travelling NOW which defines the "present". We may be able to revisit your fixed point in the story, but only as a memory. It is not time travel, and we would not be able to interfere with the past. There are slight variations to the model, but that is the general idea. For example, dreams may be involved, perhaps as ways of avoiding the limitation of comprehending the world line we travel. Again, I am not subscribing to any particular model.
Cat
P.S. The BLOCK model has an apparent problem, in that it does seem to require predetermination.
Maybe this is dependent on our misunderstanding of the nature of the travelling NOW mechanism.
Predetermination would also contribute to 'loneliness' in that it might be associated with inability to change our futures.
This is effectively the BLOCK theory, which I have described elsewhere., I am just describing it. OK!
Briefly, space-time exists as a BLOCK (so the model goes) and contains the past and the future, as well as every NOW moment between life and death, or formation and destruction in the case of objects. This is termed a world line or similar. All NOWs are "real".
A person (or anything) exists as a world line. Because we are not equipped, or have not yet evolved, an ability to comprehend an entire world line, we have invented (or evolved) a travelling NOW which defines the "present". We may be able to revisit your fixed point in the story, but only as a memory. It is not time travel, and we would not be able to interfere with the past. There are slight variations to the model, but that is the general idea. For example, dreams may be involved, perhaps as ways of avoiding the limitation of comprehending the world line we travel. Again, I am not subscribing to any particular model.
Cat
P.S. The BLOCK model has an apparent problem, in that it does seem to require predetermination.
Maybe this is dependent on our misunderstanding of the nature of the travelling NOW mechanism.
Predetermination would also contribute to 'loneliness' in that it might be associated with inability to change our futures.
Last edited:
Right... no time-travel and no changing the past.TI, "If we say, "Remember when...?," then aren't we actually looking backwards at a fixed point to recall that story?"
This is effectively the BLOCK theory, which I have described elsewhere., I am just describing it. OK!
Briefly, space-time exists as a BLOCK (so the model goes) and contains the past and the future, as well as every NOW moment between life and death, or formation and destruction in the case of objects. This is termed a world line or similar. All NOWs are "real".
A person (or anything) exists as a world line. Because we are not equipped, or have not yet evolved, an ability to comprehend an entire world line, we have invented (or evolved) a travelling NOW which defines the "present". We may be able to revisit your fixed point in the story, but only as a memory. It is not time travel, and we would not be able to interfere with the past. There are slight variations to the model, but that is the general idea. For example, dreams may be involved, perhaps as ways of avoiding the limitation of comprehending the world line we travel. Again, I am not subscribing to any particular model.
Cat
P.S. The BLOCK model has an apparent problem, in that it does seem to require predetermination.
Maybe this is dependent on our misunderstanding of the nature of the travelling NOW mechanism.
Predetermination would also contribute to 'loneliness' in that it might be associated with inability to change our futures.
To me, the memory function seems to act like a .ZIP file, or .ZIP folder, stored in your hard drive. Either by choice or by fate, a .zip gets expanded and the story (Past) is retold, and never exactly the same way twice. Some CPU's are better designed than others which means some .zip files remain intact indefinitely while other decay and degrade.
And another thing, some of those compressed image .zip's have encoded feelings attached, that range from down right funny or laughable to the most painful tear-jerking replays you can imagine.
I will try to look at the BLOCK model a.s.a.p. And I will challenge what I see because you said there might be a problem with its framework.
And, I believe I can philosophically clear up the "inability to change our futures" statement. It's the choice/fate debate. I believe we DO NOT control the circumstances but are allowed to MANAGE the choices within, thereby creating a "steer-ability" factor.
Thank you for your input and I am open to further communication on this, and other directly related topics, with you or whomever. I think it would be both fun and interesting.
S/NK
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
The Interactor
I don't want to lead this thread off topic , so I will start a new one called "The Block Model" - for and against". I hope to encounter you there . . . . . . . .
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I already have = The Block Universe model, here in Cosmology.
Hope to see you there!
Cat
I don't want to lead this thread off topic , so I will start a new one called "The Block Model" - for and against". I hope to encounter you there . . . . . . . .
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I already have = The Block Universe model, here in Cosmology.
Hope to see you there!
Cat
Last edited:
Okay, all good here. I will have to look for it a little later and a.s.a.p.The Interactor
I don't want to lead this thread off topic , so I will start a new one called "The Block Model" - for and against". I hope to encounter you there . . . . . . . .
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! I already have = The Block Universe model, here in Cosmology.
Hope to see you there!
Cat
If I need help finding the link I will reach out, so please keep your ears open.
Thanks,
NK
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 26
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram