| Einstein's Theory of Relativity | |
|
CuZzA - Student  |
As most of you all know, Einstein's theory of Relativity is being tried out as the space shuttle took lift off in Calafornia this afternoon. If this is right, then it's possible (if we go the correct speed) to go back in time right? Imagine what you could do. Stop world wars, invent the handshake, be the first one to run up a wall or something lol so what do you guys think about it? I personally think its a great topic to talk about  _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world This post was edited by CuZzA on Apr 20 2004 06:59pm. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Precisely. To clarify, modern physics no longer uses the idea of "relativistic mass," the increasing mass as something accelerates. You'll still sometimes hear physics profs teaching beginning relativity speak of relativistic mass for the sake of simplicity, but modern physics defines mass as rest energy (matter being just another form of energy). For purposes of calculating things like inertia and momentum, God's accountants don't really distinguish between matter and any other form of energy, so as you accelerate, i.e. as your kinetic energy increases, to the universe this is no different than if your mass were increasing. BTW, at 3g it would take a little over 118 days to approach the speed of light. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student 
|
That's pretty much in the same area as mass. The more mass it gets from accelerating, the more energy needed to keep it accelerating. _______________ -BlueDragon |
|
JavaGuy - Student
|
You can't get to the speed of light, and it has to do with time dilation. I'll spare you the math (unless somebody really wants to see it!), but basically as you get closer and closer to the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to accelerate less and less. There is no limit to how much energy it takes to keep getting closer to light speed, so it can't be reached. If you were travelling somewhere that you want to go at close to the speed of light, though, you'd probably be going somewhere far enough away that you wouldn't mind taking a few months to accelerate (and later, to slow down again). _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student
|
Another problem I forget to mention is acceleration. The faster a spacecraft with a crew accelerates, the more g's that get pushed on to the crew (like those fighter pilots making a tight turn). Now getting to Lightspeed instantaneously would kill the kill the entire, leaving nothing but lots of pancakes (assuming that the spaceship actually can withstand that much force). If one was to get to lightspeed on a comfortable 3g's (lets ignore the mass gets more thing), it would take a couple months before reaching the speed of light!!! _______________ -BlueDragon This comment was edited by BlueDragon on Apr 21 2004 09:00pm. |
|
Lord Jaws - Student 
|
BleuDragon is roght, the faster u gow, the MORE mass you get, a groth till infinity, so that's impossible. _______________ One night, I was lying in my bed, looking up at the stars and I said to myself: "Where the h*** is my ceiling?! |
|
CuZzA - Student 
|
the faster you go, the more mass you lose _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student 
|
The only way you could see the past is by looking at the stars at night. They show the stars millions and millions of years ago, as light takes time to travel to earth, and the closest has it's light get to earth in about 3.4 light years. You can see the past, but not change it, at least of now. Also, it is basically impossible to reach the speed of light, as mass will grow exponentially when going faster and faster, reaching almost infinity, making it very hard to accelerate and requiring even more energy to move. Light is different in that it has no mass, so it can go at the speed of light with no changes in mass, since it has none. _______________ -BlueDragon This comment was edited by BlueDragon on Apr 21 2004 07:59pm. |
|
Lord Jaws - Student 
|
but traveling to the future is possible: Neil Armstrong. he did it, when thei flew(?) to the moon, whenm they retured, the atamclocks were not running the same, nut the one aboard the ship was running 6 seconds forward (right?). nou that is m000000. _______________ One night, I was lying in my bed, looking up at the stars and I said to myself: "Where the h*** is my ceiling?! |
|
Nero - Student 
|
the Idea imo is that when you're traveling faster than the speed of light you will [b]see[b] the ligt reflected by earth before you left... so basicly going back in time with the ability to change is not possible imo... now, a star is just in front of me. it will change, but it if the star fades it will take like a thousand years to show me because the ligt needs time. when I fly towards the planet, meaning I'm closing in I will see images more accurate to state of the star now, so basicly I'm 'traveling' trough time, so can I alter anything now? _______________ -Nero Quote: Curious, Smartass, what else? |
|
JavaGuy - Student 
|
Actually, causal "loops" are quite possible in General Relativity. Moreover, the basic premises of relativity have been verified time and again, though a new experiment to test them is always cool to see. The "wierd" results of GR (and Special Relativity too) follow inevitably from these premises. But you'll never be able to "see" any contradiction due to relativity because you can only observe your own inertial frame of reference. The Paradox of the Twins was a famous example of this: One twin gets in a rocket and travels at almost the speed of light away from Earth for years, while her sister stays home. Because of time dilation the traveling twin ages only a little while the Earthbound twin grows old. Here's the contradiction: In the traveling twin's IFR, she is the one standing still while the Earth moves away from her at great speed (remember there's no such thing as absolute position in relativity). So in her "world" she is the one who grows old while her Earthbound twin stays young. So when she returns, which will be old and which young? The answer is that if she returns, she will experience acceleration and change her IFR. Upon her return she will be in the same inertial frame of reference as her Earthbound sister, and so both of them will observe that the Earthbound twin grew old while the traveling one stayed young. No contradiction. But what if she doesn't return home? What if she continues traveling away from Earth at great speed indefinitely? In that case, it will actually be true that in her frame of reference she grows old faster, while in her sister's frame of reference the other twin grows old faster. Contradictory? Not at all. The whole premise of relativity is that observers in different inertial frames of reference (meaning that one observer is moving relative to the other) will observe different things. So something radically different will happen in one twin's "world" than in the other's. But you'll never "see" the contradiction because if she returns home she changes her frame of reference. Relativity is full of stuff like this, where event A happens first for one observer but event B happens first for another. Beginners often think that it only appears one happened first, that there's a "right" answer, but in fact the only thing that's constant is the speed of light (same for every observer in every frame of reference). So for one observer event A really does happen first, and event B happens first for another. But for observers in the same frame of reference results will always be consistent, and you'll never find a way to get two observers together to see someting "wrong." Incidentally, the twins experiment has been done on a small scale, with two extremely accurate atomic clocks perfectly synchronized. One was flown around the world while the other stayed home. When the travelling clock returned, it was a tiny bit "younger" than its twin, as predicted. This has nothing to do with the workings of the clock; time actually passed more slowly for it. Moreover, the difference was exactly in line with what was predicted by the time dilation formula. Great topic. _______________ My signature is only one line. You're welcome. |
|
Gradius - Ex-Student 
|
ROFL Steinin that's a good question. BlueDragon, I couldn't exactly comprehend EVERYTHING you said but I think I got the jist of it. Are you refering to a theory such as in the movie TimeCop 2? That's what it sounded like to me but I'm not sure. Anyways what you wee explaining has to do with the temporal paradox. To put what you said in real english. Bob goes back in time to stop his father from being murdered (when Bob was a child). If he failed, time would not have changed. Bob was ment to go back in time and not succeed. At the time of Bob's father's murder, Bob was just a child but the future Bob was also in that same time, just not around to stop anything from happening. No change whatsoever. If Bob succeeded however, and this is where my theory and many others conflict, a new reality or temporal paradox would be created overwriting the furture, but can be changed back and forth continuously. What I believe though is that Bob could never stop his father from being murdered, because he created the time machine for that reason alone. If indeed he did stop it from happening, he never would have created the machine in the future, and never went back to stop the murder, therefor never saving his father. I believe time was "created" this way to have a sort of "failsafe" system to prevent us from changing the past. _______________ - Proud padawan of Kueller. - We really are at the beginning of it all. The trick, of course, is to make sure we never find the end. - Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything - <gen-e-sis-happy> Liek, you can train, liek, a n00b, but he'll just be a trained n00b... --> Wise words! - "daer SOE me likes your a company i am having your some money for letting me do stuff cos mes the best amd i do it all meself" - Slider |
|
CuZzA - Student
|
Quote: And if it where possible: Where are the people from the future to stop things like WW 2. and stuff. omfg!! what a great comment. if it where possible to go back in time, then the future would be going back in time to come here to make things happen then the future future would go back in time to the futurex1 to make the people in futurex1 to go back into the present, and so on and so forth omg, nice comment bro  _______________ - Even if Carlsberg made "w*nkers", Christiano Ronaldo would still be the biggest "w*nker" in the world |
|
Lord Jaws - Student
|
I don't think Time Travel is possible, and I agree with BleuDragon, you will get a infinite loop in history, so Time itself will stop, what is inpossible. And if it where possible: Where are the people from the future to stop things like WW 2. and stuff. Edit: But hoe do you think about traveling to the future. That's a whole other thing. Mmmm??? _______________ One night, I was lying in my bed, looking up at the stars and I said to myself: "Where the h*** is my ceiling?! This comment was edited by Lord Jaws on Apr 21 2004 11:19am. |
|
Steinin - Student 
|
Think about this: If you were travelling the speed of light with a vehicle. What would happen when you turn on the frontal lights. _______________ 362 Ohi on! |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student
|
a problem with suspending time is that you move very, very slowly, so, it's not worth it. It could work, but as you said, requires tremendous amounts of energy, similar to a black hole's. Edit: Well, it is a theory. no one has actual proof if time travel to the past is possible. I assumed that if time travel were possible, history could be changed. I'm sure just appearing for a split seconds would change history by you just being there. I just get carried away by Time Travel, even if it's not possible Another Edit: The space shuttle is not going up to experiment with the Theory of Relativity. A Delta II Rocket is launching a Gravity Probe to experiment, which is unmanned. More info here: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/apr/HQ_04057_gpb_launched.html _______________ -BlueDragon This comment was edited by BlueDragon on Apr 21 2004 02:07am. |
|
3th - Retired 
|
you might have to think about the laws of time just like the laws of gravity. you may want to change gravity, but no matter how much you might want to will yourself up into the air, it just ain't gonna happen so although time travel may be possible, changing time could very much be the same kinda deal. _______________ this is the internet, be serious damn it! |
|
Tallepyon - Student 
|
i am pretty sure you cant go back in time but just suspend time and dont age at all. Also to accomplish this u need so much energy that is practically impossible. |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student
|
My theory on time traveling to the past and changing stuff is different. Here's Scenario 1: First of all, We will have four Timelines: A, B, C, and D. Let's say in timeline A, Bob-A (Bob from timeline A) creates a time machine to go back in time for the fun, around the time his parents meet. Bob-A accidently stops his mother from meeting his father and they don't marry, which in turn creates timeline B. This creates a infinite loop of timeline switching. For example, in the timeline A, Bob is born, creates a time machine, goes back in time, and stops his parents from meeting. Then in timeline B, Bob is not born, doesn't create a time machine, and in result, his parents meet in the past. Then it goes back to timeline A, where Bob is born, creates a time machine, and so on, hence Infinite Loop. The timelines would alternate A, B, A, B, A, and so forth for eternity. Scenario 2: (assume timeline B was never created) However, If instead, Bob-A does succeed in getting my parents back before Bob is erased from not being born, then Bob creates timeline B from that point in which Bob-A comes to timeline B, prevents his parents from meeting, succeeds in getting them together before being erase, goes back to the future, Bob-B is born, creates a time machine, and goes back in time, and Bob-A returns in this new present timeline. Bob-A still has all the memories he had in the original up to the point of going back in time. Bob-A notices differences in the family, due to his inteference, which is also why Timeline B is created. Bob-B goes back in time and finds Bob-A. At this point, Timeline C is created, and when Bob-B does his stuff and goes back home to a new Timeline C. The Bob-A he meets in this timeline also comes here, as no other changes were made, considering Bob-B wants to make sure his parents get together. Now in this timeline, Bob-C is born, creates a time machine, and goes back, meeting the other Bob's and creating Timeline D, and Bob D is born, and so forth, meaning lots of timelines. The the original Bob-A may go back in time again, but he will never meet each of these timeline incarnations, since time traveling automatically creates new timelines, as the space time continium changes due to this extreme force that changes history. That is my theory. To put it in English, One can change the past and come home to a totally new home. Isn't Time Travel confusing? Edit: Yes Ploo Koon, if one were to go really, really, really fast, the clock onboard would show a earlier time than one from someone not going really, really, really fast. _______________ -BlueDragon This comment was edited by BlueDragon on Apr 21 2004 01:34am. |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
his theory is the faster you go the slower time goes _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Gradius - Ex-Student 
|
This is my theory of time travel. You CANNOT change the past, and this is why. Lets say my girlfriend was murdered and I created a time machine to go back in time and stop it from happening, I could not because the whole reason I built the time machine was to save her. If I succeeded, that would mean I never created the time machine in the first place and never went back in time, so I could never save her. This would be the same with all things. Everything you do or say effects someone or something else, which continues on like a chain reaction. Another example, let's say we stopped Hitler before WWII ever started. This means that millions and millions of families would never had been effected by it; however, it would also mean that all of that patriotism we earned during that war, and a lot of what makes us who we are would no longer be there. And through that a chain reaction would have started that would make it so that we never went back in time to stop Hitler, therefor never saving all of those families and stopping the war. There is of course that whole temporal paradox theory, where if someone actually did stop Hitler then the world would continue on as if he never started WWII. But I don't believe in that, I believe that once the past is written it can never be unwritten, but perhaps modifyed to a point. If I lost any of you during your reading this, I'm sorry. When I get into deep discussions like this my mind tends to go in more than one direction and I start blending those thoughts together. But anyways, that's what I think. _______________ - Proud padawan of Kueller. - We really are at the beginning of it all. The trick, of course, is to make sure we never find the end. - Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything - <gen-e-sis-happy> Liek, you can train, liek, a n00b, but he'll just be a trained n00b... --> Wise words! - "daer SOE me likes your a company i am having your some money for letting me do stuff cos mes the best amd i do it all meself" - Slider |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student
|
No, I'm talking about going to Alpha Centaur, which is 3.4 light years away, at the speed of light, which would take 3.4 years, obviously. If it were say a trip to the moon at the speed of light, then it would take a few seconds, but a couple minutes back on earth. If we traveled to Alpha Centaur at about 107.2 million times the speed of light (3.4 years is 107,222,400 seconds) , then yes, it would take a couple of seconds for the travelers and some number of years to the people not traveling. _______________ -BlueDragon This comment was edited by BlueDragon on Apr 20 2004 11:34pm. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
No it would be years to us. But to the travelers it would seem almost instant _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
BlueDragon - Ex-Student
|
It may be mere years, to the traveler(Alpha Centuari is 3.4 light years awaybut it is longer for those people back home, like a couple decades. That is why Lucas invented the Hyper Drive for Star Wars (I think) so no time discrepencies (sp?) are present in the trilogy. _______________ -BlueDragon This comment was edited by BlueDragon on Apr 20 2004 11:10pm. |
|
Steinin - Student
|
If so then we would be in the Alpha Centauri System in mere seconds. Instead of the years I've been fearing for. _______________ 362 Ohi on! |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
I'm pretty sure Einstein's theory only allows you to move forward in time, not backwards. When you travel at the speed of light your time slows down but everything around you proceeds normally. So you think you've been moving for 5 minutes but you've actually been going for 500 years and are 500 light years away. This isn't exact or anything but I think that's how it works. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. This comment was edited by Buzz on Apr 20 2004 10:36pm. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |