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

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here I can provide you with the formulae ... it's relatively (no pun intended) simple: e=mc^2

Well, there's a "better" formula to show that you can't really reach the speed of light:
v(total) = (v1 + v2) / (1 + v1 * v2 / c^2)

Think of looking at a train driving by you with the velocity of v1. On the train a person walks in the same direct as the train drives, with the velocity v2. The velocity that person moves past you [v(total)] is then described by the formula above.

Lets say v1 approaches the speed of light and v2 is 0.5c, the formula tells you that
v(total) = 1.5c / (1 + c * 0.5 / c^2) = 1.5c / 1.5 = c.

quote:

Originally posted by Switch wasn't there an article somewhere about light not having a constant speed? and i thought i heard something about particles that do have a higher speed than light has? what's the story about this? and weren't there particles that would slow down if u give it less resistance? for instance when i push a particle forward it will slow down, and when i want to stop it, it will go faster? some things i read somewhere but forgot most of it

Light doesn't have a constant speed in all environments. But in vacuum it's speed is pretty much constant. Although some newer researches suggest that the speed of light may have not always been the same, but was a bit faster billions of years ago.

Tachyon particles are just imaginary particles whose existance isn't proven. There are some interesting effects with those particles, like their arrival before their departure and things like that.

For that last thing, I'm not familiar with it.

quote:

Originally posted by cviper Well, there's a "better" formula to show that you can't really reach the speed of light: v(total) = (v1 + v2) / (1 + v1 * v2 / c^2) Think of looking at a train driving by you with the velocity of v1. On the train a person walks in the same direct as the train drives, with the velocity v2. The velocity that person moves past you [v(total)] is then described by the formula above. Lets say v1 approaches the speed of light and v2 is 0.5c, the formula tells you that v(total) = 1.5c / (1 + c * 0.5 / c^2) = 1.5c / 1.5 = c.

Uhm no, that formula doesn't "prove" that nothing can go faster than light, it's actually derived from that assumption (I'm not familiar with it, but it's clearly based on taking speeds relative to the speed of light).

But anyway, in spite of that, it is true that modern physics won't permit FTL travel; however, that's not taking into account things like worm holes, and physics theories are always being changed or revised anyway, so it's hard to conclusively say that anything's impossible based on current theories.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider As an object with mass is accelerated close to the speed of light, relativistic effects begin to dominate. In particular, adding more energy to an object will not make it go faster since the speed of light is the limit. The energy has to go somewhere, so it is added to the mass of the object, as observed from the rest frame. Thus, we say that the observed mass of the object goes up with increased velocity. So a spaceship would appear to gain the mass of a city, then a planet, than a star, as its velocity increased. Much like someone mentioned assymptodes before, increases in energy and mass as you approach c would approach infinity. Therefore objects cannot exceed the speed of light using conventional means.

omfg, that means a spaceship traveling close to c will have such great mass that it can bend gravity and time and light and OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG OMFG

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Light doesn't have a constant speed in all environments. But in vacuum it's speed is pretty much constant. Although some newer researches suggest that the speed of light may have not always been the same, but was a bit faster billions of years ago. Tachyon particles are just imaginary particles whose existance isn't proven. There are some interesting effects with those particles, like their arrival before their departure and things like that. For that last thing, I'm not familiar with it.

Here's a link to the possible changing of constants over time.

http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...ing_010815.html

And here's a link to the time dilation experiment you mentioned earlier when they put atomic clocks on planes to see if they were slower/faster than a clock at rest.

http://www.physics.gatech.edu/acade...ortOfClocks.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here's a link to the possible changing of constants over time. http://www.space.com/scienceastrono...ing_010815.html

lol when i clicked that link i got a popup with the text "lose weight"
i wouldn't wanna travel at the speed of light right now

If a marshmallow traveled at 99.99 percent the speed of light hit the Earth, what would happen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The relativistic factor is:


1
gamma = ------------- = 70.7
2 1/2
( 1 - (v/c) )


and the total energy is then
2
E = gamma x m c


A marshmallow weighs about 10 grams, so the total energy is about 70.7 x 10 x ( 30,000,000,000)^2 = 6.4 x 10^23 ergs. I think this is equal in energy to a few dozen good-sized hydrogen bombs. It makes a mess on the surface, but has no effect on the orbit of the earth.
Please, do not attempt this experiment yourself. Consult professionals first!!

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Much like someone mentioned assymptodes before, increases in energy and mass as you approach c would approach infinity. Therefore objects cannot exceed the speed of light using conventional means.

That person would be me. Damn I'm good, I though of the asymptote thing in my 20 seconds of thinking (while I typed actually). wow. I should go for a PhD in physics.

quote:

Originally posted by Turbonium That person would be me. Damn I'm good, I though of the asymptote thing in my 20 seconds of thinking (while I typed actually). wow. I should go for a PhD in physics.

i bet you'd do well in electricity & magnetism

lets say you managed to travel into the past,
the mere fact that your there means you changed something in the world, thats 100% certain.
now lets supposed one of the actions you made there caused the younger you (the one that was there before you discovered timetravel) die.
btw, the further you go into the past increases the probability for something like that to occur.

i think you can draw your own conclusions now, cant ya?

cuervo79 has mentioned a question: "what if you were meant to go back in time",,,, well then... that isnt a legitimate question. coz most probably, as both you and i have mentioned, you would cause your own death, and then this whole "episode" wouldnt have occured at all,, and if thats so, then you have just eliminated our entire universe by that action.

in response to whiskers': "that is one of them time paradoxes that we can't answer until we try them out.
why do you people always need to have everything explained to you? i repeat, even the most genius physicists can't prove this stuff. so you can believe it or not, but don't dismiss it just because you don't have proof."

well,, to start with,,, im not dismissing it completely (because of the massive lack of knowledge and/or perceptive abilities we have as humans in the year 2003), im just dismissing it for the time being,

philosophically speaking, time travel cannot/have not/is not/will not exist in our universe based on the mere fact that this universe does exist (time travel will 100% guaranteed change something in our universe, and such a change will eliminate our universe and everything that occured/occurs/will occur in it)

regarding the john titor part: what proof do we have that he actually made those predictions prior to those events hapenning?

oh!!! how could i forgotten this?!
you are all talking about time travel in refference to the speed of light, but wouldnt that just be "viewing" the past/future?
why arent you discussing time travel in refference to the speed of sound then?
just imagine, walking around in the world with an auditory time lapse of about 2 minutes,, damn,, that would be hell'a confusing., wouldnt it?

and finally, to partially discredit what i just said, have a look to my sig,, coz im still supporting that quote of mine by all means

if any of you saw the movie "time machine", which is decent up to the "what if" moment (and has one of the BEST CGI skits), it talks about a time paradox and the change of the space continuum.


alex's gf is killed, so he is motivated to finish his time machine project to go back and save her from her murderer, but after he does so, she gets killed by a horse, and then in other numerous ways.

basically, if she wasn't killed, alex wouldn't build the time machine and he wouldn't go back to save her... so in theory, she'd be dead, and alex WOULD be motivated to build the machine and save her, but then that means he doesn't build the machine... get what i'm saying?

Time travel to the future IS possible. Although it is not so much jumping into the future at a different part of the time continueum, as it is journeying through time albeit at different relative rates. By approaching the speed of light, time is still passing by, however, the time relative to you is different than the time that is relative to everyone else. Time dilation has been proven.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Time travel to the future IS possible. Although it is not so much jumping into the future at a different part of the time continueum, as it is journeying through time albeit at different relative rates. By approaching the speed of light, time is still passing by, however, the time relative to you is different than the time that is relative to everyone else. Time dilation has been proven.

Yes, it has been proven, but in what circumstances? It's like the laws of mechanics - they don't apply at the quantum level. You have to use quantum physics.

I still think, as a whole, the world doesn't know jack shit about physics. Let me rephrase that. I KNOW that we don't know jack shit about physics. Yes, we come up with great theories, but we are limited to theories only, as we lack, for the most part, the technologies and resources to test them.

Think about what we knew a couple hundred years ago. Pretty much nothing (relative to now). We're barely scraping the surface of it all as it stands. This is why I sometimes wish I was born in the year 20,000 or something. I can't even begin to fathom what the world will be like then.

quote:

Originally posted by Turbonium Yes, it has been proven, but in what circumstances? It's like the laws of mechanics - they don't apply at the quantum level. You have to use quantum physics. I still think, as a whole, the world doesn't know jack shit about physics. Let me rephrase that. I KNOW that we don't know jack shit about physics. Yes, we come up with great theories, but we are limited to theories only, as we lack, for the most part, the technologies and resources to test them. Think about what we knew a couple hundred years ago. Pretty much nothing (relative to now). We're barely scraping the surface of it all as it stands. This is why I sometimes wish I was born in the year 20,000 or something. I can't even begin to fathom what the world will be like then.

What do you mean under what circumstances? The effects of time dilation have been proven on the physical level as much as gravity has. They put 4 cessium beam atomic clocks on 2 planes and measured the time differences when they landed. Additionally, they've measured time dilation as they've occurred on human astronauts in space.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What do you mean under what circumstances? The effects of time dilation have been proven on the physical level as much as gravity has. They put 4 cessium beam atomic clocks on 2 planes and measured the time differences when they landed. Additionally, they've measured time dilation as they've occurred on human astronauts in space.

How fast do planes go? Not that fast.

quote:

Originally posted by Turbonium How fast do planes go? Not that fast.

Well that's why the time dilation was measured in nano-seconds. Then they did corresponding studies on time dilation as exhibited by space shuttles which had much larger speeds. Therefore the time dilation can then be extrapolated to what would occur if one were travelling close to the speed of light. But the point is, is that time dilation has been observed even at the relatively minute speeds that airplanes travel.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well that's why the time dilation was measured in nano-seconds. Then they did corresponding studies on time dilation as exhibited by space shuttles which had much larger speeds. Therefore the time dilation can then be extrapolated to what would occur if one were travelling close to the speed of light. But the point is, is that time dilation has been observed even at the relatively minute speeds that airplanes travel.

Yea I know what you're saying, but what if it all goes out of whack/different at near light speeds? Or something, forget it, maybe I'm not making sense.

why is nobody reffering to my post?
as if it was off-topic or something,,,,
i just wanted to know if i made any sense to you folks

quote:

Originally posted by whiskers if any of you saw the movie "time machine", which is decent up to the "what if" moment (and has one of the BEST CGI skits), it talks about a time paradox and the change of the space continuum. alex's gf is killed, so he is motivated to finish his time machine project to go back and save her from her murderer, but after he does so, she gets killed by a horse, and then in other numerous ways. basically, if she wasn't killed, alex wouldn't build the time machine and he wouldn't go back to save her... so in theory, she'd be dead, and alex WOULD be motivated to build the machine and save her, but then that means he doesn't build the machine... get what i'm saying?

Afermative

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T lets say you managed to travel into the past, the mere fact that your there means you changed something in the world, thats 100% certain. now lets supposed one of the actions you made there caused the younger you (the one that was there before you discovered timetravel) die. btw, the further you go into the past increases the probability for something like that to occur. i think you can draw your own conclusions now, cant ya? cuervo79 has mentioned a question: "what if you were meant to go back in time",,,, well then... that isnt a legitimate question. coz most probably, as both you and i have mentioned, you would cause your own death, and then this whole "episode" wouldnt have occured at all,, and if thats so, then you have just eliminated our entire universe by that action. in response to whiskers': "that is one of them time paradoxes that we can't answer until we try them out. why do you people always need to have everything explained to you? i repeat, even the most genius physicists can't prove this stuff. so you can believe it or not, but don't dismiss it just because you don't have proof." well,, to start with,,, im not dismissing it completely (because of the massive lack of knowledge and/or perceptive abilities we have as humans in the year 2003), im just dismissing it for the time being, philosophically speaking, time travel cannot/have not/is not/will not exist in our universe based on the mere fact that this universe does exist (time travel will 100% guaranteed change something in our universe, and such a change will eliminate our universe and everything that occured/occurs/will occur in it) regarding the john titor part: what proof do we have that he actually made those predictions prior to those events hapenning? oh!!! how could i forgotten this?! you are all talking about time travel in refference to the speed of light, but wouldnt that just be "viewing" the past/future? why arent you discussing time travel in refference to the speed of sound then? just imagine, walking around in the world with an auditory time lapse of about 2 minutes,, damn,, that would be hell'a confusing., wouldnt it? and finally, to partially discredit what i just said, have a look to my sig,, coz im still supporting that quote of mine by all means

Blah, Happy now?

very much so, thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T why is nobody reffering to my post? as if it was off-topic or something,,,, i just wanted to know if i made any sense to you folks

attention whore


and whoever posted about the theory where we already invented the time machine, but people from the future came and removed all traces of it... (couldn't find the exact post) we'll have to dismiss that conspiracy, because it poses a paradox. if you remove traces of the time machine in the past, then how would you go back from the future to remove them?



one more thing about time travel & "back to the future" - remember all those photos changing and m.j. fox disappearing and shit? that's not really possible. think in terms of conservation of energy. i kinda don't have time to explain it, but it seems to work.

E=mc^2


time dilation sucks.


if you're moving in a train at c and throw a ball up at speed v, doesn't the ball also have a horizontal velocity component?


don't forget the lorentz factor equation, 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

thus, if you reach speed very close to c, the time in your reference frame will barely move and you'll have an immense amount of mass, and you'll also be shrunk in the direction of your movement to about several molecules.

I take it you're taking physics right now...

quote:

Originally posted by Turbonium I take it you're taking physics right now...

HEEE, nah, all my previous arguments about relativity were based on what i read when i was 10, but today in astronomy we went over relativity and if tehre's one thing that course is useful for, it's the fact that i had a chance to read over the explanation of einstein's theory in the book

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