|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 6:22 pm
I had an idea on physics, involving the speed of light and time travel. EDIT- I have read a bit on physics, but I don't know all of the rules perfectly, so my thesis may make actual professional physicists cringe.
NOW- This is not some random Sci-fi crap about "lol shoot ur grandfather befor u were b0rn", and it actually goes against Hawking's theory of the speed of light and time travel.
Ok, so we all know that some things can travel faster than the speed of sound. Bullets, for example. Now, if a bullet is shot faster than the speed of sound, it reaches the target before the sound information does. What would happen if we could only experience sound? From our perspective and math, it would seem to us that the bullet arrived befrore it did. The only information we could witness would arive AFTER the bullet would, according to our math, and thus it would be back in time.
Now, let's relate this to light. Light is the fastest thing we can witness. So what happens if we go faster than light? Some physicists think we would actually go back in time. I disagree. I think that it is just another extention of the bullet. Assume with the bullet- The fastst thing we witness is light. By using some kind of ungodly amount of energy, we shoot a bullet faster than light. The bullet will arrive before the light does. To us, it will APPEAR that the bullet arrives before it does. However, I feel that it would just arive before the light information does. There would be no time travel.
What could it look like? Well, since going past the speed of sound makes a large exlopsion of sound, I suggest that something going past the speed of light would firstly appear to shrink in size as it got closer to the speed of light, until it looked like a beam of light. As it surpassed light speed, it could flash in a large explosion as it breaks through the barrier of vision. The light it left behind would be just that- It would continue as a beam of light, with the actual object passing well in front of it. Assuming for argument's sake that the image would retain it's full form, one passing light speed would be invisible, and could turn around to see their image behind them. If someone touched the passing image, their hand would pass through it as it is simply the left-behind light wich is not yet attached to the object. It would be fun to be in the vessel traveling faster than light, as the front of the craft would move through you and suddenly through you as you left it's image behind. The image would catch up to you later, when you slowed down. You would not arrive before you did, but before your IMAGE did. It would be a matter of perspective, and only from the perspective of one who does not understand the idea of leaving light behind would you appear to time travel.
For example- You can fly faster than the speed of sound. (or light) and you send a message through a device which sends signal at the speed of sound (or light). saying that you will get there as soon as you can. You get in your plane and fly there before the message arrives. To others it looks as though you got there before the message was setn, but if you pan out, you see that you simply traveled faster than the thing you did previously. No time travel whatsoever.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 4:30 pm
Mm... That's... No. sweatdrop Addressing the last example, if you're not actually traveling backwards in time, in your proposed situation... Well. It'd be difficult to measure how soon before the message you got there. Actually, given that you'd have to get on your ship and then accelerate to FTL speeds, the message almost certainly would get to the destination before you did unless it was a good light-distance away. But assuming that you're on your ship and you transmit it as you're leaving, and assuming that the location is on Earth, you could only arrive at the destination maybe a fraction of a moment before the message got there.
Mm.... Really, what you're saying isn't anything theoretical or new. xd You're just saying that something that goes faster than another thing will arrive there first, the answer to which is a-duh. To the appearance, though, your after-image wouldn't be there long enough for someone to try to interact with it; After you have left that location, light no longer has anything to reflect off of. And you wouldn't become totally invisible, because light would still reflect off of you, just not in as long a stream as previously. Colors and location would be difficult to determine; Although you'd also be impossible for the human eye to track simply because you're moving too fast.
Hm. I think a large flaw to what you were saying early on is that light isn't information transmitted by the object; It's not really similar to sound at all. The image you see is light from another source reflecting off an object. Sound is made by the object, and so comes from it. So, where sound can seem to be coming from the space behind an object, light really can't. It's like... Grr... It's like when you're driving in a car. If you have a super soaker on the inside, and you shoot the super soaker out the window, the water flows out and in a stream behind you as the car moves forward. This is like sound; It seems to be coming from behind you because it's coming from you.
But if someone outside the car holds a super soaker in front of them and is just shooting a steady stream, if a car is right in front of them it will bounce off. But if the car is moving past them, it will only bounce off for as long as the car is in front of them. It doesn't seem to bounce off of where a car once was. In fact, if anything, it may move forward with the car slightly before bouncing off.
Obviously, I'm no physicist, and I haven't moved faster than light or observed anything moving faster than light, so I couldn't tell you what happens. Or even what I think happens. I tend to follow the theory that it's impossible within our universe, and so the only way to FTL travel would be to enter some alternate sub-space, and then re-enter our space at the location I am trying to get to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 5:35 pm
I.Am Mm... That's... No. sweatdrop Addressing the last example, if you're not actually traveling backwards in time, in your proposed situation... Well. It'd be difficult to measure how soon before the message you got there. Actually, given that you'd have to get on your ship and then accelerate to FTL speeds, the message almost certainly would get to the destination before you did unless it was a good light-distance away. But assuming that you're on your ship and you transmit it as you're leaving, and assuming that the location is on Earth, you could only arrive at the destination maybe a fraction of a moment before the message got there. Mm.... Really, what you're saying isn't anything theoretical or new. xd You're just saying that something that goes faster than another thing will arrive there first, the answer to which is a-duh. To the appearance, though, your after-image wouldn't be there long enough for someone to try to interact with it; After you have left that location, light no longer has anything to reflect off of. And you wouldn't become totally invisible, because light would still reflect off of you, just not in as long a stream as previously. Colors and location would be difficult to determine; Although you'd also be impossible for the human eye to track simply because you're moving too fast. Hm. I think a large flaw to what you were saying early on is that light isn't information transmitted by the object; It's not really similar to sound at all. The image you see is light from another source reflecting off an object. Sound is made by the object, and so comes from it. So, where sound can seem to be coming from the space behind an object, light really can't. It's like... Grr... It's like when you're driving in a car. If you have a super soaker on the inside, and you shoot the super soaker out the window, the water flows out and in a stream behind you as the car moves forward. This is like sound; It seems to be coming from behind you because it's coming from you. But if someone outside the car holds a super soaker in front of them and is just shooting a steady stream, if a car is right in front of them it will bounce off. But if the car is moving past them, it will only bounce off for as long as the car is in front of them. It doesn't seem to bounce off of where a car once was. In fact, if anything, it may move forward with the car slightly before bouncing off. Obviously, I'm no physicist, and I haven't moved faster than light or observed anything moving faster than light, so I couldn't tell you what happens. Or even what I think happens. I tend to follow the theory that it's impossible within our universe, and so the only way to FTL travel would be to enter some alternate sub-space, and then re-enter our space at the location I am trying to get to. Exactly, it is continuing with that idea rather than dropping it once you get to light. They say that you would go BACK in time. I say no, you would just get there before it APPEARS that you would get there. And I know it's not trandmitted, but it does require the object to be seen, so going faster than light would leave the light being reflected, however distorted it may be, behind. It would be like being hit by the supersoaker but driving o fast that the water was left behind after it hit. Assuming you got perpendicular to the light, that is, but I'm not sure about light hitting from head-on. And the example was just that- we can't GO anywhere near light speed, let alone actually carry through the example I gave. It was just an example of how it could work in a visible representation. Kind of like how atoms aren't neccisarily round orbs attached to eachother, that's just the easiest way of showing them and how they work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:15 pm
But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that, if you aren't actually going backwards in time, it would not look like you were going backwards in time; It's impossible to create that illusion, because it would require you to be at your destination to reflect light before you actually arrived there. Which, without time travel, is impossible.
And yes, but it wouldn't be like you'd leave the image of what appears to be you behind, where people can interact with it. It would look more like your vehicle got very stretched out and squashed. Not that Star Trek is always realistic, but similar to when the Enterprise jumps to warp; It stretches out, and the warp drives leave a temporary trail of light behind. And light coming head on... Mm. I don't know for sure. I'd theorize that it would probably move around the vehicle like air, or possibly bounce back at an increased relative speed. More likely it would kind of bounce off at angles, moving around the car, unless it was moving perpendicular to the light.
Anyways, if it's impossible, there's no reason to come up with examples; That'd be like saying, "It's not possible for a pig to fly. But if it were! The pig would leave behind gold coins in it's wake, and fart rainbows in order to gain speed."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:00 pm
I.Am But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just saying that, if you aren't actually going backwards in time, it would not look like you were going backwards in time; It's impossible to create that illusion, because it would require you to be at your destination to reflect light before you actually arrived there. Which, without time travel, is impossible. And yes, but it wouldn't be like you'd leave the image of what appears to be you behind, where people can interact with it. It would look more like your vehicle got very stretched out and squashed. Not that Star Trek is always realistic, but similar to when the Enterprise jumps to warp; It stretches out, and the warp drives leave a temporary trail of light behind. And light coming head on... Mm. I don't know for sure. I'd theorize that it would probably move around the vehicle like air, or possibly bounce back at an increased relative speed. More likely it would kind of bounce off at angles, moving around the car, unless it was moving perpendicular to the light. Anyways, if it's impossible, there's no reason to come up with examples; That'd be like saying, "It's not possible for a pig to fly. But if it were! The pig would leave behind gold coins in it's wake, and fart rainbows in order to gain speed." There is a difference between physics and randomness. We have never seen a black hole, yet we still theorize what they may be made up of and how they may work. But it would appear that one thing happened before another to person B, to person A or from a larger picture it would appear that both had happened in the opposite order. For example, going back to the signal. Sending the signal is event A, getting there is event B. PErson A is the one flying, B is the one recieving. PErson B sees the events as B then A, but if you saw the whole thing at once, it would go A then B, of course. Which is exactly what I am saying- There IS no time travel. Well, probably. And yes, people would not be able to interact, since anything they saw would be the light information left behind. Which yes, would likely end up being stretched to be like a beam of light. I think I mentioned that earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 10:35 pm
divineseraph There is a difference between physics and randomness. We have never seen a black hole, yet we still theorize what they may be made up of and how they may work. XD But the point is, if you don't believe it could happen, there's no reason to theorize. Someone who doesn't believe black holes exist wouldn't theorize about how they work or why; They would just say, "They don't exist." Quote: But it would appear that one thing happened before another to person B, to person A or from a larger picture it would appear that both had happened in the opposite order. For example, going back to the signal. Sending the signal is event A, getting there is event B. PErson A is the one flying, B is the one recieving. PErson B sees the events as B then A, but if you saw the whole thing at once, it would go A then B, of course. Which is exactly what I am saying- There IS no time travel. Well, probably. But that's not the case at all. It would just be like if you put a letter in the mail and then drove to the location it was meant for, say, a city away. It takes you an hour to get there. The letter gets there the next day. It doesn't look like you sent the letter after you left, it just looks like the letter got there after you. Because you got there faster. End of story. Quote: And yes, people would not be able to interact, since anything they saw would be the light information left behind. Which yes, would likely end up being stretched to be like a beam of light. I think I mentioned that earlier. What I'm trying to say is that the light wouldn't be "left behind." You would be there. Then you wouldn't. There would be nothing there for people to even attempt to interact with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:57 pm
I.Am divineseraph There is a difference between physics and randomness. We have never seen a black hole, yet we still theorize what they may be made up of and how they may work. XD But the point is, if you don't believe it could happen, there's no reason to theorize. Someone who doesn't believe black holes exist wouldn't theorize about how they work or why; They would just say, "They don't exist." Quote: But it would appear that one thing happened before another to person B, to person A or from a larger picture it would appear that both had happened in the opposite order. For example, going back to the signal. Sending the signal is event A, getting there is event B. PErson A is the one flying, B is the one recieving. PErson B sees the events as B then A, but if you saw the whole thing at once, it would go A then B, of course. Which is exactly what I am saying- There IS no time travel. Well, probably. But that's not the case at all. It would just be like if you put a letter in the mail and then drove to the location it was meant for, say, a city away. It takes you an hour to get there. The letter gets there the next day. It doesn't look like you sent the letter after you left, it just looks like the letter got there after you. Because you got there faster. End of story. Quote: And yes, people would not be able to interact, since anything they saw would be the light information left behind. Which yes, would likely end up being stretched to be like a beam of light. I think I mentioned that earlier. What I'm trying to say is that the light wouldn't be "left behind." You would be there. Then you wouldn't. There would be nothing there for people to even attempt to interact with. We're saying the same thing again... >< We can't do it now. That doesnt mean it's impossible, and that doesn't mean it's not important. And yes! Exactly! Except I'm working in constants, rather than something like the mail, which goes by human hands. But still, it is exactly what I'm saying. If you go faster than light, you just get there before the light that hits you does. You DON'T go back in time, which is what some physicists currently think. And yes, there would be. The image would be left behind since you left the light behind you. Again, it is a personified example. In reality, it would likely look like a beam of light, since it would be compacted. Now, the actual traveling object would be AHEAD of the light, since it was traveling faster. It would be the invisible space in front of the beam of light. And the beam of light would be what it looked like in the area it was before it left that section of light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 7:34 pm
divineseraph We're saying the same thing again... >< We can't do it now. That doesnt mean it's impossible, and that doesn't mean it's not important. Ah. I misread what you said, I apologize. Mm. But still, saying, "It's just an example, of course it wouldn't be -exactly- like that" is a cop out; I'm just giving a counter-opinion and example. I feel that there's a very significant difference Quote: And yes! Exactly! Except I'm working in constants, rather than something like the mail, which goes by human hands. But still, it is exactly what I'm saying. If you go faster than light, you just get there before the light that hits you does. You DON'T go back in time, which is what some physicists currently think. But you started with the assumption that you don't go back in time! If you start with that assumption then of course you don't go back in time. The problem with what you're saying is that the physicists who say that you could go back in time through this method are being entirely reasonable. As we currently understand it, the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time goes for occupants of the vehicle going this speed. Assuming, of course, that it's even possible to hold a ship together for such a journey. This is just as you approach light speed, and it becomes exponentially slower the closer you get to light speed; Theoretically, once you hit light speed, time would stop inside your vessel. Which would make it impossible to go past light speed, really. But, holding this to be true, once you went past light speed, you can't get any slower. Unless you started going backwards. Mm. On the other hand, one could say that as you approach light speed, it's not that time is slower within the vehicle, it's that the things inside are moving more quickly through time. That is, everyone outside is, of course, moving through time as usual, and those inside are moving through time ten times as fast or what have you. If this were the case, then passing the speed of light would mean nothing except that you would move exponentially faster forward through time. Which, really, for our example, wouldn't mean that you would get there before the letter at all; To those inside the vehicle, it may feel almost like they arrived before they left, but for those at the destination a million years have passed. xd In this case, in universe FTL travel would not only be difficult, it would be a waste of time unless you really wanted to travel into the distant, distant future. But really, disregarding that, neither of us has a doctorate's in physics. The people who say that, once you get past Light Speed, you go backwards in time do. wink I find it much more likely that men who have studied astro physics for my entire life time know more about it than I do, and are basing their hypotheses on something much more substantial than some hearsay and very simple logic. Not saying to stop considering it; Do it more. Just don't be so quick to say, "Yeah, these experts are wrong. I, freshly graduated from High School, know better than they." Quote: And yes, there would be. The image would be left behind since you left the light behind you. Again, it is a personified example. In reality, it would likely look like a beam of light, since it would be compacted. Now, the actual traveling object would be AHEAD of the light, since it was traveling faster. It would be the invisible space in front of the beam of light. And the beam of light would be what it looked like in the area it was before it left that section of light. I must be totally wrong about what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that they would leave behind a visible trail. This isn't the case; When a car moves forward, you don't see the car in it's original position either. With the hypothetical FTL vehicle it would be the same thing; There would be nothing visible in the original position, because there would be nothing for light to reflect off of. It would only be visible as a blur right behind where it was, but it would also only be visible for an extremely slight amount of time because light wouldn't have enough time for more than a single layer of photons to bounce off of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:26 pm
I.Am divineseraph We're saying the same thing again... >< We can't do it now. That doesnt mean it's impossible, and that doesn't mean it's not important. Ah. I misread what you said, I apologize. Mm. But still, saying, "It's just an example, of course it wouldn't be -exactly- like that" is a cop out; I'm just giving a counter-opinion and example. I feel that there's a very significant difference Quote: And yes! Exactly! Except I'm working in constants, rather than something like the mail, which goes by human hands. But still, it is exactly what I'm saying. If you go faster than light, you just get there before the light that hits you does. You DON'T go back in time, which is what some physicists currently think. But you started with the assumption that you don't go back in time! If you start with that assumption then of course you don't go back in time. The problem with what you're saying is that the physicists who say that you could go back in time through this method are being entirely reasonable. As we currently understand it, the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower time goes for occupants of the vehicle going this speed. Assuming, of course, that it's even possible to hold a ship together for such a journey. This is just as you approach light speed, and it becomes exponentially slower the closer you get to light speed; Theoretically, once you hit light speed, time would stop inside your vessel. Which would make it impossible to go past light speed, really. But, holding this to be true, once you went past light speed, you can't get any slower. Unless you started going backwards. Mm. On the other hand, one could say that as you approach light speed, it's not that time is slower within the vehicle, it's that the things inside are moving more quickly through time. That is, everyone outside is, of course, moving through time as usual, and those inside are moving through time ten times as fast or what have you. If this were the case, then passing the speed of light would mean nothing except that you would move exponentially faster forward through time. Which, really, for our example, wouldn't mean that you would get there before the letter at all; To those inside the vehicle, it may feel almost like they arrived before they left, but for those at the destination a million years have passed. xd In this case, in universe FTL travel would not only be difficult, it would be a waste of time unless you really wanted to travel into the distant, distant future. But really, disregarding that, neither of us has a doctorate's in physics. The people who say that, once you get past Light Speed, you go backwards in time do. wink I find it much more likely that men who have studied astro physics for my entire life time know more about it than I do, and are basing their hypotheses on something much more substantial than some hearsay and very simple logic. Not saying to stop considering it; Do it more. Just don't be so quick to say, "Yeah, these experts are wrong. I, freshly graduated from High School, know better than they." Quote: And yes, there would be. The image would be left behind since you left the light behind you. Again, it is a personified example. In reality, it would likely look like a beam of light, since it would be compacted. Now, the actual traveling object would be AHEAD of the light, since it was traveling faster. It would be the invisible space in front of the beam of light. And the beam of light would be what it looked like in the area it was before it left that section of light. I must be totally wrong about what you're saying, but it sounds like you're saying that they would leave behind a visible trail. This isn't the case; When a car moves forward, you don't see the car in it's original position either. With the hypothetical FTL vehicle it would be the same thing; There would be nothing visible in the original position, because there would be nothing for light to reflect off of. It would only be visible as a blur right behind where it was, but it would also only be visible for an extremely slight amount of time because light wouldn't have enough time for more than a single layer of photons to bounce off of it. Yes, but how do we know that time truly acts that way with light? Again, we have never gone fast enough to try it. And we know that light is not outside of time- It takes time to travel. Otherwise, it would be only a singal point and never move. Those physicists are going on the assumption that time works that way, and that light is the ultimate in speed. And the two could happen at once, with time appearing slower to others outside- Just because they see things at a different rate does not mean that you are stopping or getting closer to timelessness. Because again, then light would be timeless and would either appear as one point, or be everywhere at once. And yes, that's kind of what I was saying- Even though it would be impossible for a mortal to see it, the image (or what would be left ater going so fast) would be left behind the actual moving object. Wherever you saw it, it would be ahead of where you saw it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:09 pm
divineseraph Yes, but how do we know that time truly acts that way with light? Again, we have never gone fast enough to try it. Actually, that's incorrect. As I believe I mentioned much, much earlier on, it's been tested; No, we can't go near light-speed. But we can move. xd It's only that time gets slower for you the -closer you get to light speed;- Someone traveling at 80 mph is closer to light speed than someone standing still. There have been tests with atomic clocks, showing that, at high speeds over time, there is a measurable difference between a clock in the vehicle and a clock outside the vehicle. Differences that can't be accounted for by simple errors by the atomic clocks. So to sum it up, we -have- gone fast enough to try it, and it was proven correct. wink Quote: And we know that light is not outside of time- It takes time to travel. Otherwise, it would be only a singal point and never move. Those physicists are going on the assumption that time works that way, and that light is the ultimate in speed. And the two could happen at once, with time appearing slower to others outside- Just because they see things at a different rate does not mean that you are stopping or getting closer to timelessness. Because again, then light would be timeless and would either appear as one point, or be everywhere at once. You're also completely throwing out something which is a vastly accepted physics tenant. You, an amateur high school graduate are saying that most of the experts are wrong. Based on things you've glimmered out of text books. No, light does not exist outside of time. But then again, light can approach and even reach that speed because it is something like a particle; It's not a complex biological construct. It has no moving parts inside. It is simply light. And things slow down the closer you get to that speed, not because light travels that fast, but simply because time slows down the closer you get to that speed. Presumably, light constantly moves at that speed because it's as fast as you can go and photons are basically so full of energy that they just go as fast as is possible. But then, again, I'm not a physicist. I'm sure that by the time you get your PHD in Physics, you'd have more information about the specifics, and the formulas, that explain why light moves the speed it does, even if you probably still wouldn't have everything. Quote: And yes, that's kind of what I was saying- Even though it would be impossible for a mortal to see it, the image (or what would be left ater going so fast) would be left behind the actual moving object. Wherever you saw it, it would be ahead of where you saw it to be. Okay, yeah, that's true. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:44 pm
I.Am divineseraph Yes, but how do we know that time truly acts that way with light? Again, we have never gone fast enough to try it. Actually, that's incorrect. As I believe I mentioned much, much earlier on, it's been tested; No, we can't go near light-speed. But we can move. xd It's only that time gets slower for you the -closer you get to light speed;- Someone traveling at 80 mph is closer to light speed than someone standing still. There have been tests with atomic clocks, showing that, at high speeds over time, there is a measurable difference between a clock in the vehicle and a clock outside the vehicle. Differences that can't be accounted for by simple errors by the atomic clocks. So to sum it up, we -have- gone fast enough to try it, and it was proven correct. wink Quote: And we know that light is not outside of time- It takes time to travel. Otherwise, it would be only a singal point and never move. Those physicists are going on the assumption that time works that way, and that light is the ultimate in speed. And the two could happen at once, with time appearing slower to others outside- Just because they see things at a different rate does not mean that you are stopping or getting closer to timelessness. Because again, then light would be timeless and would either appear as one point, or be everywhere at once. You're also completely throwing out something which is a vastly accepted physics tenant. You, an amateur high school graduate are saying that most of the experts are wrong. Based on things you've glimmered out of text books. No, light does not exist outside of time. But then again, light can approach and even reach that speed because it is something like a particle; It's not a complex biological construct. It has no moving parts inside. It is simply light. And things slow down the closer you get to that speed, not because light travels that fast, but simply because time slows down the closer you get to that speed. Presumably, light constantly moves at that speed because it's as fast as you can go and photons are basically so full of energy that they just go as fast as is possible. But then, again, I'm not a physicist. I'm sure that by the time you get your PHD in Physics, you'd have more information about the specifics, and the formulas, that explain why light moves the speed it does, even if you probably still wouldn't have everything. Quote: And yes, that's kind of what I was saying- Even though it would be impossible for a mortal to see it, the image (or what would be left ater going so fast) would be left behind the actual moving object. Wherever you saw it, it would be ahead of where you saw it to be. Okay, yeah, that's true. 3nodding But how is seperate experiences of time relate to traveling faster than light being impossible? Has the math shown that at light, time stops? Or perhaps there are shifts of time experience- For example, reaching light speed would be going one experience of light faster than the other things. Like going Mach 1 and 2 wouldn't put you outside of time if you could only experience sound, but it would make you go faster than you could be witnessed. And yes, it is going against accepted ideas. But that's what physics is- Theories that come along that go against the last theory. And mine doesn't really go against anything per se, aside from the "Light speed = time" idea. I like how we take 5 posts of restating the same thing before we figure out that we're agreeing. "I think it's red." "I think it's a primary color that isn't blue or yellow." "I think it's the color of most ripe apples, cherries and strawberries." "Nah, it's more like the color of a stopsign." "Ah, yes, stopsign color it is."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 12:03 am
Quote: But how is seperate experiences of time relate to traveling faster than light being impossible? Has the math shown that at light, time stops? Or perhaps there are shifts of time experience- For example, reaching light speed would be going one experience of light faster than the other things. Like going Mach 1 and 2 wouldn't put you outside of time if you could only experience sound, but it would make you go faster than you could be witnessed. ...You're not making much sense. When the car stops, the clock in the car reads, for instance, 12:30 while the clock just outside reads 12:45. It's not like they are experiencing what seems to be different times, and then when they stop time snaps back together. There is an obvious "slowing" of time within the car. It is an observance at our time scale showing what happens as you approach time; Logic and science dictates that the trend will continue, unless there's a reason for it not to. And you've given no reason for it not to, except that you haven't observed it further along the trend. Quote: And yes, it is going against accepted ideas. But that's what physics is- Theories that come along that go against the last theory. And mine doesn't really go against anything per se, aside from the "Light speed = time" idea. But that's a major tenant of physics. You should have better reason to throw it out then, "Eh, I just don't like it." or "Eh, I don't see how it works, so it must not work." I don't say my car doesn't work on pistons and gasoline just because I don't understand why it works that way. ...Okay, actually I totally understand why it works that way. But regardless, it's a metaphor. Just because I don't fully understand the inner workings of a machine, when I know the basics of how things work, doesn't mean that I can throw out the knowledge of the mechanic who put it together. And physics isn't theories that go against the last theories. xd That makes it sound like gladiators. Physics is explaining the universe. You don't take an accepted theory and try to prove it wrong. You try to explain the universe, and then compare it to the accepted theories. If possible, you try to make them mesh. If not, you try to explain why the supporting evidence for the earlier theory either supports your theory too, or is for some reason incorrect or misunderstood. You don't just throw the theory out and make up a new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:06 am
I.Am Quote: But how is seperate experiences of time relate to traveling faster than light being impossible? Has the math shown that at light, time stops? Or perhaps there are shifts of time experience- For example, reaching light speed would be going one experience of light faster than the other things. Like going Mach 1 and 2 wouldn't put you outside of time if you could only experience sound, but it would make you go faster than you could be witnessed. ...You're not making much sense. When the car stops, the clock in the car reads, for instance, 12:30 while the clock just outside reads 12:45. It's not like they are experiencing what seems to be different times, and then when they stop time snaps back together. There is an obvious "slowing" of time within the car. It is an observance at our time scale showing what happens as you approach time; Logic and science dictates that the trend will continue, unless there's a reason for it not to. And you've given no reason for it not to, except that you haven't observed it further along the trend. Quote: And yes, it is going against accepted ideas. But that's what physics is- Theories that come along that go against the last theory. And mine doesn't really go against anything per se, aside from the "Light speed = time" idea. But that's a major tenant of physics. You should have better reason to throw it out then, "Eh, I just don't like it." or "Eh, I don't see how it works, so it must not work." I don't say my car doesn't work on pistons and gasoline just because I don't understand why it works that way. ...Okay, actually I totally understand why it works that way. But regardless, it's a metaphor. Just because I don't fully understand the inner workings of a machine, when I know the basics of how things work, doesn't mean that I can throw out the knowledge of the mechanic who put it together. And physics isn't theories that go against the last theories. xd That makes it sound like gladiators. Physics is explaining the universe. You don't take an accepted theory and try to prove it wrong. You try to explain the universe, and then compare it to the accepted theories. If possible, you try to make them mesh. If not, you try to explain why the supporting evidence for the earlier theory either supports your theory too, or is for some reason incorrect or misunderstood. You don't just throw the theory out and make up a new one. But reaching light speed does not stop time for the light. Otherwise, the light would be in all places at once. It may experience time much more slowly compared to things not traveling light speed, but time isn't stopped for it. And I never said to throw out the last theories. I said to look at this one. The ONLY theory mine directly contests is the "Go back in time" theory, with a much more simple, less paradoxical theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 8:05 pm
That's not at all true. There are many theories which branch off of relativity, which boggled the mind until relativity came along and then it was just like, "Ahhh!" Otherwise, E=MC^2 wouldn't be as well known as it is.
And why would time stopping for a particle of light make it be in all places at once? That makes no sense. Time outside of it doesn't change; Only time for it. As far as the universe is concerned, it appears to be within our time because there's nothing moving inside of it to observe moving more slowly. Grr... It's like with balls. You take a solid rubber ball and throw it against a wall, it bounces back unharmed. You take a hollow ball made of porcelain, with delicate, intricate moving gears on the inside, and throw it against the wall, and it shatters. This is not a paradox. Just because one ball reacts differently to being thrown against the wall than the other doesn't mean that there are different forces at work on them. One just reacts differently than the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:25 pm
I.Am That's not at all true. There are many theories which branch off of relativity, which boggled the mind until relativity came along and then it was just like, "Ahhh!" Otherwise, E=MC^2 wouldn't be as well known as it is. And why would time stopping for a particle of light make it be in all places at once? That makes no sense. Time outside of it doesn't change; Only time for it. As far as the universe is concerned, it appears to be within our time because there's nothing moving inside of it to observe moving more slowly. Grr... It's like with balls. You take a solid rubber ball and throw it against a wall, it bounces back unharmed. You take a hollow ball made of porcelain, with delicate, intricate moving gears on the inside, and throw it against the wall, and it shatters. This is not a paradox. Just because one ball reacts differently to being thrown against the wall than the other doesn't mean that there are different forces at work on them. One just reacts differently than the other. But if it no longer experiences time, then where is it in it's course? If it no longer experiences time, how can it move? Light travels at a certain rate- It must be inside of time because it travels through time and with time. Therefore, it cannot be that it is the limit of time, and that time stops once it reaches light speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
