http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

Been watching this nonstop. f---ing awesome!

I have to admit that it's a relief from trying to comprehend the size of a barn.

Ahhh, Soundtrack Central.
The only place where Nuclear Physics and Premature Ejaculation come together.

No pun intended.

Funny you should mention barns, they're actually used often when talking about the early Universe...which I have been doing a lot off (tough course)!

cheers,

-avatar!

'Grats, you got a chuckle out of me with that one. ;)

While reading the book about the LHC I've mentioned, I keep running into pb and fb. Eventually, I ran into this (p.115), which made me realize I have to do research for the research. This is why it can often take me many months just to finish one book:

  "For example, top quarks will be strongly produced at the LHC, with a cross section of around 800 picobarns corresponding to roughly 80 million top-antitop pairs produced per year at full LHC luminosity. A top quark decays in less than a yoctosecond to a b quark and a W+ boson; about one-third of the time the W decays to an energetic neutrino and a charged lepton."

  As you can see, the LHC ejaculates before light can travel for even one nanosecond. Thus, a nervous man equipped with LHC balls would ejaculate before even seeing a hot woman. Of course, with a load measured in picobarns, there would be no mess. You could do it all day and never get swamp crotch.

hehe... what a great post!
I have to admit, I never thought about any collider in that way before
Now, let's think... You noted that all these particles are produced before light barely has a chance to go anywhere. Is that really true? If you were riding a photon, what do you think you would see? How far away would you be before you saw particles? The distance of the Milky Way is roughly 100,000 light years. Is it impossible to then cross the Milky Way in less than 100,000 years?

cheers,

-avatar!

If you like that video Idolores, you might like this one too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tb3RLqY9Xo

Jizz In My Pants is excellent.

"The Lonely Island" crew is amazing. Dick In A Box was awesome in 2006.

If you like JimP, be sure to check out their parody of Ying Yang Twins' "Whisper Song."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4iiyRv_NrQ

Oh snap!

From what I understand, photons don't get much action in actuality. The entire length (in time) of the universe has no meaning, since time does not exist for photons (they have no mass). An observer would notice a photon taking 100,000 years or more, as it would have to contend with dust and larger conglomerations of dust (stars and planets).

What if a fully conscious being rode a photon?

My guess is you wouldn't even notice your own existence. There would be a bright light and no light. And possibly not even that.

What if you sustained objective time relative to the photon? (Meaning - exemption from the subjective time of no time.)

Since length contracts as one approaches light speed, you would have no length at actual light speed. Meaning, you're not getting a girlfriend. From your point of view, they'd just be straight lines, anyway. Not every attractive. (I suppose you'd only be able to see one straight line.)

Particles with mass can go near the speed of light. The question is not if an observer would notice a photon, but what would an observer see traveling across the Milky Way at a value of v ~ c? As for a conscious being riding a photon, that's EXACTLY what Einstein asked (and answered) many years ago I'm not sure what you're asking about time. Time is by definition subjective. Also, you're confusing length contraction. If you and your girlfriend were traveling near the speed of light, she would look the same as she does just sitting next to you on the couch. It's the stationary objects that would be length contracted. Fun stuff!! Special relativity (believe it or not) is pretty straight forward, and there are basically answers to all your questions. Once you get into general relativity... all bets are off!

cheers,

-avatar!

Hey Jodo, today I was working out a problem dealing with barns! It turns out the nuclear factor for carbon and hydrogen fusion is 1.5 keV barns. Talk about TINY!! Convert that to joules and meters and you'll see what I mean. Barns are a pretty useful unit when talking about particles in stars...

cheers,

-avatar!

Cool, I will work on that. I'm still confused about cross sections and luminosity. For some reason, physicists refer to luminosity when talking about the output of an accelerator. Also, they refer to width in terms of electron volts. For instance, you reported 1.5 keV barns. To me, that looks like 1500 electron volts (a mass). Do you just mean 1500 barns? Regardless, I can tell, even without fully understanding, it is incomprehensibly small.

  You had asked something about my use of time. If one is riding a photon, then the subjective time is what one would experience, which would flash by instantaneously. However, there is still objective time, which refers to the time of an observer. My crazy question really means what if you could somehow experience the objective time of someone else? The exemption from subjective time would allow one to witness everything in the universe, rather than experience a fleeting instant. I can only ponder this strange scenario because I've read enough science fiction. Enough to be a little crazy (objectively).

Luminosity is a measure of work, however it's a way of measuring work without having to worry about distance, so that's why it's used in many physical situations. Electron volts are not mass. They're units of energy. Often they're used as mass, but that's implied to be eV/c^2 where c is the speed of light. In that case you do indeed have mass. I'm not sure what you mean by objective time of someone else? Time is not an absolute. It's simply a convenient way of describing events in multidimensions. I know it's hard to grasp many of these concepts, but that's one reason it's fun Feel free to ask any questions, I'll be happy to answer as best I can...

cheers,

-avatar!

Only with avatar and Jodo kast can we go from masturbation to this science stuff. I love these forums.

Some might argue that masturbation is in itself a science.

Not by isself, luv. Just those proficient at it.

Especially those that make their living selling masturbation aides, such as Real Doll and Fleshlight.

  I'll never forget when I first heard of the real doll. It seemed so cool to be able to have sex anytime I want. Yay! But sex with an inanimate piece of silicon resembles necrophilia, because it's not warm (I read the real doll users keep them on heating blankets). There is also the creepy factor. I can barely handle wax museums, so having a simulacrum of a human in my living space, hot or not, would give me some serious willies. Having seen a sufficient amount of Twilight Zone episodes, I know what can happen. (For more about the creepy factor, refer to the December 2008 issue of Scientific American. According to the article, silicon dolls are slightly less creepy than zombies - and corpses.)

  I think that Flesh Lights, rather than condoms, should be distributed to teenage boys and those living in poor regions. Since it simulates vaginal intercourse, it could reduce unwanted pregnancies. I don't think that satyriasis is unique to just a few males; it seems to be a shared phenomenon. Because of this, sex education would need to be modified in all regions.

yeah yeah... but what about the electron volts!

So Lonely Island's second album, Turtleneck And Chain hit recently. Anyone been enjoying it? Their trademark combination of lyrical comedy and catchy synth-pop hooks is just as strong, if not stronger, than their previous efforts. I have found personal favorites in Motherlover, Jack Sparrow and The Creep (Nicki Minaj is just too cute in her appearance here.

I've only seen the Jack Sparrow video. I was impressed with Bolton, but the gag just isn't very good. I smiled a bit, but didn't laugh once.

I did, only because it's the same guy who once did When a Man Loves a Woman. The contrast itself just made me laugh.

Correction: The same guy who once did the Michael Bolton version of "When a Man Loves a Woman." This is an important distinction.