TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Time Travel
Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »

sure but for a short period of time. Light can go through walls(quantum tunneling) so I dont know how much good that would be. But what would be the point of that? are you trying to study light trapped within a container or something?

it's just that this has been one of the better threads in chill out ream. i have so many questions and i think it's very interesting

quote:

Originally posted by Dumonde Trancer i am more interested on any further developements of this story! come on, wether you belive in time travel or not, id liek to see how he could make all that money on jsut "inside information" alone.

Its easy if he has information about a company's 'secret' research and developments, etc.
For example, if a drug company is researching a new drug that is supposed to cure AIDS, and this dude knows about it before it becomes public information he can buy the company's stock. When the information becomes public you can be for sure that the said company's stock price will skyrocket. Thats because when the drug is marketed and sold, the company will have sales and profits coming out their asses. Hence their stock price will jump. Stock prices are based partly on expected future earnings and sales and so on.

I have seen a pharmaceutical company's stock price drop $10 in one night because they could net get a drug they were planning on selling approved for distribution by the FDA.

I'll leave the physics talk to the rest of you guys now.

quote:

Originally posted by King_Mack acid junkie, I thought a negative square root solution for the schqarzschild equation meant the existance of wormholes?

no, since schwarzschield's equation is time symmetric (that is based on a spherically symmetric spacetime), a negative square root solution implies something that is exactly opposite to the solution that represents the possibility of black holes. a worm hole is not such a thing. thinking mathematically, a white hole would have to be something that would run BACKWARDS in time (in other words, a white hole would be in so-called negative time, which means its spacetime coordinates would be opposite to those of a black hole in our time). but a different spacetime continuum also implies that it would be located in a different universe. and here's where it gets a little tricky; it is true that white holes cannot possibly exist because they would contradict the second law of thermodynamics... but! in order for the previous statement to be correct, it has to be mentioned that their existence is unlikely in OUR universe. but what do we know about other universes? do they exist? if schwarzschield's equation is correct (which would be possible only if General Relativity itself is correct) then yes because a negative square root solution outside the horizon represents something more global than just a white hole - it representes another universe. the laws of thermodynamics as we interpret them may simply not work in such a universe at all. u see if spacetime is spherically symmetric, white holes (and worm holes) have to exist in order to complete the very geometry of schwarzschield's model.

WTF? This was 5 months ago!

quote:

Originally posted by zarathustra According to Einstein, faster than light travel is possible only if repulsive gravity existed. This is the basis of the theory of cosmic inflation. A Portuguese physicist named Joao Magueijo (I can't type the accents on the letters) has another idea about this. If the speed of light were faster in the past, it would also fit the theory. So, light might not be what we think it is...

So i guess you read that article too, huh?

quote:

WTF? This was 5 months ago!

LOL i didn't even notice that, but whatever cause OH MAN this stuff is right up my field! Good job on reviving this creon!

So uhh, dammit! i was gonna say something, but i can't remember it... how fuckin annoying! but i do remember a question that i have. I've been trying to figure this sentence out from my textbook about Planck's Theory of Blackbody Radiation since the beginning of the semester (we're about 6 weeks in):

"If an object has a temperature of 1000 C, it glows with a red color, no matter what material it is made of. At higher termperatures, it glows orange, yellow, white, or even blue if the temperature is high enough." [now this is the sentence i was talking about (the other sentences were just the lead-in)] "At any temperature an object with a lower reflectivity glows more intensely at every wavelength, so that a black body, a model system that reflects no radiation at any wavelenth, has the maximum emissivity at every wavelength."

What the shit?! I've read this sentence at least 50 or 60 times trying to decipher every word as i go along. It just seems so contradictory! Someone please explain this cause it's killin me!
























also, uhh, i know this is mean but so good at the same time:

I know i'm gonna get it when it comes out!

quote:

Originally posted by DasBrotBesser "If an object has a temperature of 1000 C, it glows with a red color, no matter what material it is made of. At higher termperatures, it glows orange, yellow, white, or even blue if the temperature is high enough." [now this is the sentence i was talking about (the other sentences were just the lead-in)] "At any temperature an object with a lower reflectivity glows more intensely at every wavelength, so that a black body, a model system that reflects no radiation at any wavelenth, has the maximum emissivity at every wavelength." What the shit?! I've read this sentence at least 50 or 60 times trying to decipher every word as i go along. It just seems so contradictory! Someone please explain this cause it's killin me!

the way i see it, if you heat up a black body, it would be emitting more radiation than a non-black body. but you are right, whoever wrote this sentence was on crack, because it doesn't make any sense.


it still doesn't beat "given a truth table of n propositional variables, construct a disjunctive normal form of a compound proposition by taking the disjunction of conjunctions of the variables or their negations, with one conjunction included for each combination of valuses for which the compound proposition is true". i broke my brain reading that

quote:

Originally posted by DasBrotBesser So i guess you read that article too, huh? LOL i didn't even notice that, but whatever cause OH MAN this stuff is right up my field! Good job on reviving this creon! So uhh, dammit! i was gonna say something, but i can't remember it... how fuckin annoying! but i do remember a question that i have. I've been trying to figure this sentence out from my textbook about Planck's Theory of Blackbody Radiation since the beginning of the semester (we're about 6 weeks in): "If an object has a temperature of 1000 C, it glows with a red color, no matter what material it is made of. At higher termperatures, it glows orange, yellow, white, or even blue if the temperature is high enough." [now this is the sentence i was talking about (the other sentences were just the lead-in)] "At any temperature an object with a lower reflectivity glows more intensely at every wavelength, so that a black body, a model system that reflects no radiation at any wavelenth, has the maximum emissivity at every wavelength." What the shit?! I've read this sentence at least 50 or 60 times trying to decipher every word as i go along. It just seems so contradictory! Someone please explain this cause it's killin me!

Um, the sentence is pretty confusing. Basically a black body is a body that is absolutely non-reflective, meaning it absorbs all radiation that falls upon it. Then instead of reflecting, it radiates that absorbed radiation back as heat in a way discribed in the first sentence. The fact that it doesn't reflect any radiation back means it sucks it all up and uses it all for its own temperature emission. That's why you could say it has the maximum emissivity. A non black body would recieve just a fraction of the radiation while reflecting the rest and would therefore have weaker emissivity.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Um, the sentence is pretty confusing. Basically a black body is a body that is absolutely non-reflective, meaning it absorbs all radiation that falls upon it. Then instead of reflecting, it radiates that absorbed radiation back as heat in a way discribed in the first sentence. The fact that it doesn't reflect any radiation back means it sucks it all up and uses it all for its own temperature emission. That's why you could say it has the maximum emissivity. A non black body would recieve just a fraction of the radiation while reflecting the rest and would therefore have weaker emissivity.

Good explanation. I guess the confusion stemmed from the differences between emissivity and reflectivity.

hey what about quantum physics? are there any theories in quantum physiscs that talk about time travel?

I have a question:

In theory, wouldn't accelerating to anywhere near the speed of light kill and destroy whatever it is because of the massive G forces it would cause?

This is all bullshit.

If you can survive entering a black hole's event horizon, without getting sucked into the black hole itself, you'd technically witness time stand still. So when you exit, you'd be in the "future" without having aged.

Of course, it's all hypothetical, since it's impossible to test present day.

And as for whoever asked about the quasar, the brilliance of a quasar is so great that a star that is 100 lightyears away would be indistinguishable from a quasar that was 9,000,000,000 light years away. They shine with a brilliance of about 200 galaxies. It's crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Omegasox If you can survive entering a black hole's event horizon, without getting sucked into the black hole itself, you'd technically witness time stand still. So when you exit, you'd be in the "future" without having aged.

How? Time is not a real physical thing that u can travel through or bend or anything, its just a measurement

quote:

Originally posted by Trancention I have a question: In theory, wouldn't accelerating to anywhere near the speed of light kill and destroy whatever it is because of the massive G forces it would cause?

that's if you accelerate rapidly. if acceleration is gradual, say 10 m/s/s - 1 g, then you wouldn't even feel anything.


that's the thing about flying to other stars. alpha centauri might be 4 light years away, but accelerating to the speed of light, provided we could ever build a spaceship that would go that fast, and then slowing down would take more time than the flight at full speed itself.


that's why wormholes, although theoretical, are the optimal way of traveling to other stars.


although we first have to prove that they exist, and then find a way to enter / exit them. and what if there's no wormhole that leads to alpha centauri?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq How? Time is not a real physical thing that u can travel through or bend or anything, its just a measurement

no it's not. nobody really knows how much of a physical thing it is, but there are theories that under enormous gravitational pulls time doesn't behave like it does normally.


plus remember, if you're traveling at the speed of light, not only time goes by slower for you, everything also seems to be longer (vs. an observer). einstein's theory of relativity is very interesting, i used to read about it when i was like 10.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq How? Time is not a real physical thing that u can travel through or bend or anything, its just a measurement

Gravitational fields cause a warping of time, so the closer you got to the event horizon (say within an inch) the slower time would pass. If you had a watch on, your watch would tick ~10,000 times slower (Depending on the size of the black hole) relative to a clock on Earth. So if you would hover as close as possible to the event horizon, without entering it, in a years time, 10,000 years would have passed on Earth.

I worded my post earlier wrong, if you enter an event horizon you die instantly because of the immense gravitational force, it will literally stretch you apart.

Sounds to me like the gravitys just having some strange effect on ur watch. Surely the hands would find it difficult to turn under such pressure.
How does anyone know that time looks slower if ur going at the speed of light?
And these worm holes. If u went outside the universe u would simply be in an inescapable vacuum. How can the universe be folded?
I dont believe any of this time warping shit at all. Just sounds a bit far fetched. But it is interesting.

I don't understand time myself, who even knows if it exists as we conceive of it.

As for passing through wormholes into an inescapable vacuum, look at Schrodingers cat. To me this shows the idea of multiple dimensions (universes) and that only one comes into our "reality" once it is observed. Doesn't really show that traveling through a wormhole will do anything, but I believe in multiple "realities" and only one truly comes into existence through observation.

Edit: The whole watch explanation is just there for explanation purposes, a watch wouldn't even work under such circumstances, nor would you survive being there. It's just an example.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ-Fuq Sounds to me like the gravitys just having some strange effect on ur watch. Surely the hands would find it difficult to turn under such pressure. How does anyone know that time looks slower if ur going at the speed of light? And these worm holes. If u went outside the universe u would simply be in an inescapable vacuum. How can the universe be folded? I dont believe any of this time warping shit at all. Just sounds a bit far fetched. But it is interesting.

no offence personally to you, but your have you ever tried to explain to an old christian woman how computer works? your rebuttals sounds like something she might say.

quote:

Originally posted by Omegasox I don't understand time myself, who even knows if it exists as we conceive of it.

this is the eternal human problem - evaluating the world and the universe through our own, human eyes...


we can't even begin to imagine how much there might be out there what we can never see or hear... suppose ET life exists and suppose they see differently and hear differently; just imagine how their art could be difficult for us to perceive.

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers this is the eternal human problem - evaluating the world and the universe through our own, human eyes... we can't even begin to imagine how much there might be out there what we can never see or hear... suppose ET life exists and suppose they see differently and hear differently; just imagine how their art could be difficult for us to perceive.

Just imagine how fucked our whole system of science would be if we came into contact with Aliens who lived on completely different principles than we had ever imagined. But that's an entire thread in itself.

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers no offence personally to you, but your have you ever tried to explain to an old christian woman how computer works? your rebuttals sounds like something she might say.

Not really. Since theres no proof of any of this it all comes down to opinion.
It sounds like some people r saying u can actually do shit to make the world start acting like somebodys rewinding a tape.
How can time be physical? What form exactly would it take?

quote:

Originally posted by Omegasox Just imagine how fucked our whole system of science would be if we came into contact with Aliens who lived on completely different principles than we had ever imagined. But that's an entire thread in itself.

even when we say that aliens wouldn't look like anything we could ever imagine
we're so far from the truth
because even not judging with human eyes, we could never think of what they look like, because everything we'd think up would still be based on what we've experienced, on nature.


and as to fucking up our whole system of science, imagine a world with a different atmosphere such that OUR EARTH chemistry doesn't work there at all...

*thought inspired by Michael Crichton's "Sphere", where he talked about chemical reactions being unpredictable in an atmosphere of helium and other gases


let me find the thread about the end of the world, there were some nice posts in there (by me too )

quote:

Originally posted by Omegasox Just imagine how fucked our whole system of science would be if we came into contact with Aliens who lived on completely different principles than we had ever imagined. But that's an entire thread in itself.

Yeah. I believe there probably r aliens. With the unimaginable amount of stars out there, its more or less a certainty.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.