|
Time Travel (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Cuervo79 |
| I spent reading this stuff for about one and a half to two hours, there is also another flaw that I was thinking, on the first web page it says that he was trained to keep the windows closed because of the high heat it produced, wouldn't the laser beam reflect from the window if it was closed? very interesting articles and all but it sounded like a book collection in spanish called the "troy Horse" talks about time travel in the seventies if I remember correctly, it is written by a mexican reporter who got the info from a retired us soldier that was living in mexico (wich in the first book he tells how he got the "journal" from this soldier (which was written in some kind of scroll), it describes the project as documenting jesus's life... |
|
|
| whiskers |
and still, there's a grain of truth in his stories.
but man, how delusional must you be to come up with such an elaborate story! |
|
|
| 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 :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
i don't see how we wouldn't be able to slow down though.
imo, we wouldn't be able to reach the speed of light at all, just come really close to it. we wouldn't reach it because, as you say, our time relative to 'their' time would be zero and our speed would be undefined...
but hey, what do i know, i'm not a physics major and i can't provide you with formulas to prove this stuff :-/ |
Here I can provide you with the formulae ... it's relatively (no pun intended) simple: e=mc^2
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. |
|
|
| Mike_B |
k well, i saw this one a while back and i did a little investigating. k the news paper that wrote this is call Weekly World News as you can see on the bottom of the article. well just check out their webpage and you'll have your anwser :P
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/ |
|
|
| cviper |
| 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. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| 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 |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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 |
|
|
| Switch |
lol when i clicked that link i got a popup with the text "lose weight" :D
i wouldn't wanna travel at the speed of light right now :) |
|
|
|
|
