Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

The explanation that I like to believe about time is that no matter what happens, the combination of our speed through time and space always adds up to the speed of light. For example, if we are standing absolutely still, then we are traveling through time at lightspeed, but if we were to travel in a spaceship at lightspeed, time would seem to stop moving for us, as we would not move THROUGH it. Consequently, moving at 5 mph through space would make our time-speed lightspeed-5 mph.

I kindof half believe that, but my other theory is this: time is merely the connection that living things find between things that happen, and the pattern that they happen in. Time only exists because our physical bodies are prone to aging. Think about it: If people never grew, never DIED, why would we need to measure how long we have? So, time is just how we measure the things that happen naturally in the universe, ex.: The movement of galaxies and solar systems, the seasons, weather, etc.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

Quote (Spiffyness @ 13th June 2005 01:20)

Think about it: If people never grew, never DIED, why would we need to measure how long we have?

Well, for one, I sure as hell would want to know how many hours I have left at work before I can head home and relax a little.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

So exactly why would you have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to travel through time, for example, back to 1985? I have heard this stated many times but... why?
And I will admit now I can't grasp any of these advanced mathematics or formulas.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Because the sum of your movement through space and your movement through time ALWAYS equals the speed of light. So, if you're going FASTER than the speed of light, you'd have to go BACKWARDS through time to subtract from that amount and balance the equation. WAIT: Movement is still movement, no matter what direction, so going bacwards would still be moving through time. And since the sum can't be greater than the speed of light... you can't GO faster than the speed of light. It's impossible.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

All above theories will fail quite hard when (if) we find something that can exceed the speed of light.

The speed at which stupidity spreads in considerably large groups is quickly catching up to the speed of light, but isn't quite there yet.

One thing that irks me is how it's always been assumed light is THE big momma of speed. On what grounds is this statement made? I can't say I've read any research on this subject, but I hardly believe it would be simple speculation. And if it is? My god, science, are you ever na‹ve.

I must say, however, I'm quite certain revulsion spreads through a programmer faster than the speed of light when the word "COBOL" is spoken by anyone describing a project's specs. A bunch of whiney little photons have NOTHING on the terrifying sensation that builds up in you when you find out you're going to write stuff in COBOL. NOTHING.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

first off, to silverforks, i apologise and do excuse. i had the entire thread of garbage to peruse thru upon my return and i was admittedly only skimming thru each reply, picking out pieces that i thought deserved special attention.

however, let us refine "multiverse" (and indeed i consider the theory to be "invalid" science, but, as you say, that is completely a matter of (religious) opinion that has no place in this thread, so, paranthetically: the purpose of the theory is simply to attach inevitability to the big bang and remove us one or more steps from the Primal Cause, as though doing so avoids the question). i am quite certain either you have misunderstood what you have read on the subject, or you have read offbeat, non-kosher metaphysical ramblings from some wannabe, hawking-loving pseudophilosophe. the theories of "parallel universes" splitting off from our own (or, our own having split off from another) -- and i'm happy to see you don't expecially buy into them -- have to do with, by some method or another (either quantum fluctuations, or, more palatably, the epicentres of black holes), perpetuating new big bangs which create new universes. these new universes share *physical* features of our own; that is to say, for example, if it is indeed black holes which are new universes, one could argue that, evolutionarily, the daughter universes would be increasingly more prone to black hole formation. other things such as the cosmological constant, the speed of light, the strengths of the four forces (and perhaps extension of their fusion?), etc...all of these things would lead from their physical realisations in the motherverse. but the *eventual* features are obviously not duplicated, and there is no even remotely acceptable physical theory that would seek to say that they are. my eating an apple in this universe cannot by any function of reality translate to a parallel me eating a parallel apple in any daughterverse of our own, as fun as it would be for science fiction. and by the same token, it would be, from the physical constants of our universe, most probably impossible for space to tear *intra-universe.* the merging of differing physical constants and realities has disastrous consequenses that even the elegance of modern m-physics has not (yet? -- i highly doubt it) cleaned up.

also allow me to say that i don't think you're especially well-versed in the physics (of course, i don't mean it insultingly). wormholes -- or, more specifically, the tears in spacetime that can cause them-- many physicists (and i would fall in this camp) don't actually believe it is very possible for them to happen in the extended three dimensions anymore. there are various reasonings to explain their impossibility (one you may be familiar with is the lack of any way to realise and maintain the large conformations of exotic energy fields necessary for the creation of wormholes), but my personal favourite is the elegant string physics explanation, which i would be happy to dynamically explain to you in chat or on im so as to answer questions as we go along. the gist is that the disastrous tears in space could not be wrapped by a string world-sheet large enough for the three extended dimensions. finally, it was not einstein's research that discovered the principle of invariance -- a principle which we know with complete certainty as true (thus, "principle" and not "theory"). and while we know now that God does play dice with the universe, there is nothing quantum mechanics proves that "refutes" the "speculations" of einstein's theory of gravity. it's just that, pre-string, we were unable to fit quantum mechanics together with general relativity cleanly. also note that m-theory has systematically done away with the violent sub-planck undulations that are a key ingredient in many pop-science quantum-based theories,

simply put, time travel is a product of science fiction, and any attempt to fit time travel in the framework of physical laws is ultimately met with complete failure. why is it that no one asks that if time travel were possible, we haven't met anyone from a future time? is the river *really* frozen?

to silverlance -- ugh, for the love of God, please stay in programming threads. don't you feel shady throwing condescending phrases like "for the sake of [simplicity]" into a discussion of something you know you don't understand even at the most fundamental level? you remind me of the guy who writes 8-bit theatre...tossing around "planck time" and "planck length" and so forth to sound like an educated physicist. as early as 1908, ONE HUNDRED Y EARS AGO, einstein's experiment which discovered the photoelectric effect all but entirely validated planck's theory (which, as you obviously don't know, only postulated *energy* quanta), and ALL QUANTUM THEORIES are based on the all-but-truth of the absolute discreteness of nature. hardly one would take a physicist seriously nowadays if his "opinion" was that planck's theory and quantum theories are "not valid." it is planck's constant, again discovered with the photoelectric effect, that determines the quanta of measurement that, *most importantly* along with heisenberg (the uncertainty of knowledge between the position and momentum of a particle), set the stage for quantum fluctuations (but, of course, string physics have so beautifully and cleanly dealt with sub-planck distance scale).

to be basic, the plank time is an *extrapolation from* c and the planck length. so it is absurd to say that light might move at 1 planck length to 2 planck times.

Quote (Silverlance @ 13th June 2005 11:44)

All above theories will fail quite hard when (if) we find something that can exceed the speed of light.

The speed at which stupidity spreads in considerably large groups is quickly catching up to the speed of light, but isn't quite there yet.

One thing that irks me is how it's always been assumed light is THE big momma of speed. On what grounds is this statement made? I can't say I've read any research on this subject, but I hardly believe it would be simple speculation. And if it is? My god, science, are you ever na‹ve.

I must say, however, I'm quite certain revulsion spreads through a programmer faster than the speed of light when the word "COBOL" is spoken by anyone describing a project's specs. A bunch of whiney little photons have NOTHING on the terrifying sensation that builds up in you when you find out you're going to write stuff in COBOL. NOTHING.

Yeah, I agree with ya there, but I don't think anyone will ever find out how the space-time continuem REALLY works, so any theory is really just as good as any other. But yeah, I'd laugh my head off if they discovered something going faster than light, in the same way that I'd laugh my head off if someone discovered that Earth really WAS the center of the universe. Now THAT'D be somethin'...

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

Quote (Spiffyness @ 13th June 2005 16:56)

Yeah, I agree with ya there, but I don't think anyone will ever find out how the space-time continuem REALLY works, so any theory is really just as good as any other. But yeah, I'd laugh my head off if they discovered something going faster than light, in the same way that I'd laugh my head off if someone discovered that Earth really WAS the center of the universe. Now THAT'D be somethin'...

I'd love to see what kind of messed up penta-dimensional rotation would have to be applied to a planet for it to circle another celestial body while being the cetner of everything, but then again, theories ARE theories.

For all we know, the entire universe could be rotating around the Earth, and not the other way around. We could be completely wrong in our assumptions. Which would be neat!

'Course, it might be more important to solve more pressing mysteries first. Like why a toast always lands on the buttered side. But then again, such mysteries will probably never be resolved...

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Logic would state that, during this day of almost endless headaches, staring at a bright computer screen is about the stupidest thing I can do...

No prob, goz. I probably wouldn't have brought it up like that had I been in a better mood at the time.

One thing I'll admit is my sources tend to be, overall, a slew of likely outdated - and somewhat vague, to boot - books that are probably three or more times my age. No doubt there're several inaccuracies within the texts by now. Yeah, I developed a sorta late interest. Chemistry's always been more down my alley.

As for this string explaination (which I've only read brief bits 'n' pieces on before), I guess I never paid it heed like a should have and as such would like to hear more about that. I don't go to chat often 'cause my money-grubbing IRC client holds a virtual gun to my head every 30 minutes just to remind me of the horrors of shareware begging. You could PM if ya want.

Quote (gozaru~)

why is it that no one asks that if time travel were possible, we haven't met anyone from a future time? is the river *really* frozen?

Sounds a bit like what Hawking said regarding the same topic: We have not been invaded by hordes of tourists from the future.

I suppose that'd sure beat being invaded by hordes of cavemen from the past. Cavemen wearing Green Bay Cheeseheads. That way you'll know they're tourists.

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Quote (Silverlance @ 13th June 2005 17:39)

For all we know, the entire universe could be rotating around the Earth, and not the other way around. We could be completely wrong in our assumptions. Which would be neat!

Congratulation...you just made baby Copernicus cry. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get him back to bed?

I dont' believe in the possibility of Time Travel for a variety of reasons already stated. At least not the possiblity of going back in time. All this talk about light speed has made me remember how fascinating light is. Someone make a thread about light as part of this Summer Science Series we seem to be constructing. Also:
I think I wanna show ya...






My Jungle Love!
Ooo-Eee-Ooo-Eee-Ooo

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Quote (Spiffyness @ 13th June 2005 14:37)

Because the sum of your movement through space and your movement through time ALWAYS equals the speed of light. So, if you're going FASTER than the speed of light, you'd have to go BACKWARDS through time to subtract from that amount and balance the equation. WAIT: Movement is still movement, no matter what direction, so going bacwards would still be moving through time. And since the sum can't be greater than the speed of light... you can't GO faster than the speed of light. It's impossible.

Thanks for the answer dude. I think I just about understand now, lol.
So if it is indeed impossible to go back in time by going faster than light (I'd have to agree on that), then perhaps gravity could be used instead? After all, it's both gravity and speed which affects time.

A black hole has an extreme amount of gravity right? And by being near it, time slows down a lot, just like travelling really fast. So maybe if you could get even more gravity, you could reverse time this way?



--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Hmmm... I never really thought about that! I think you could STOP time, but I don't know about going backwards. Heck, I don't know enough about black holes to know that answer.

Yay for the Earth being the center of the universe w00t!

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

Quote (The Ancient @ 14th June 2005 09:05)

Quote (Silverlance @ 13th June 2005 17:39)

For all we know, the entire universe could be rotating around the Earth, and not the other way around. We could be completely wrong in our assumptions. Which would be neat! 

Congratulation...you just made baby Copernicus cry. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get him back to bed?









My Jungle Love!
Ooo-Eee-Ooo-Eee-Ooo

If it'll help hush him up, I hardly believe science is going backwards and coming up with false theories after having already considered more realistic possibilities.

But this IS a thread about thoughts and theories, and because of contractions many of them must be logically false. We're not proving anything or solving mysteries here, so why not have fun with outdated stuff?

Still, when you think about it, we really wouldn't see a difference if EVERYTHING moved around Earth and all form of attraction were centered on it. It would simply give the illusion that the earth itself is moving, and we'd never be any the wiser. Other than the fact this would be one hell of a stretch.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

That's what I've been saying. It'd be hilarious if, in a hundred years or something, space travel gets advance enough for us to realize that the really ancient people were RIGHT, and the universe DOES revolve around the Earth, but they revolve in galaxies and stuff, so from Earth, we're tricked into thinking what we do now. I'd laugh for hours and hours and hours.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

It would indeed be funny. But if the Big Bang Theory is true, then at this point in time, I would imgine the universe would be like a ring doughnut (as in it's shape), thus nothing (or a vacuum if you prefer) would be in the middle.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Well, a vacuum is something that pulls other things to it (due to a lack of matter occupying a certain space) so neighbouring stars and all would be pulled back to fill the void. Vacuums are pretty unstable things and don't just float about if there's matter to fill the gap nearby.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (fatman @ 14th June 2005 09:46)

So if it is indeed impossible to go back in time by going faster than light (I'd have to agree on that), then perhaps gravity could be used instead? After all, it's both gravity and speed which affects time.

A black hole has an extreme amount of gravity right? And by being near it, time slows down a lot, just like travelling really fast. So maybe if you could get even more gravity, you could reverse time this way?

gravity's effect on time is that of a lorentz contration. a gravitational or accelerational forcfield can theoretically be so powerful that the experience of time can be reduced to zero, but of course not reserved. what would the meaning of that be, anyway? consider a one-dimension (a line). if we move forward on the line , say, from a to b: _a_______b_, then we move backwards on that line, eventually we have to pass a again. of course, we already know what was going on at (xa,ya,za,ta). thus, we would be stuck in a perpetual timeloop.

Quote

Still, when you think about it, we really wouldn't see a difference if EVERYTHING moved around Earth and all form of attraction were centered on it. It would simply give the illusion that the earth itself is moving, and we'd never be any the wiser. Other than the fact this would be one hell of a stretch.

didn't i say "stay in programming threads?" of course we would see a dffierence, a damn big one. it's either that or every tested law of physics that happen to work for all other experimental cases have just decieved us on the oh-so-sublte matters of the motion of the heavenly bodies. not to mention it would make, for one, relativity wrong.

Moderator Edit

I don't care if you're right or not, and I don't care to find out. But if you keep telling people where they can and can not post, I'll tell you where you can't post: CoN. -R51

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 15th June 2005 10:30

Nope, I'm convinced. The universe revolves around the sun XD.

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-

Quote (Spiffyness @ 14th June 2005 23:53)

Nope, I'm convinced. The universe revolves around the sun XD.

Ever considered it could revolve around a completely unsignificant particle? For all we know, the universe could be centered on what's basically a tiny speck, the remains of the matter expelled by the big bang. That'd be somewhat of a bummer. No flashy quasar, superheated gas clouds, or supermassive black holes, just a lone particle of dust in a void that seems to go on and on forever.

But then you'd get to the end and a gorilla starts to throw barrels at you. And that's how you play the game.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

You know what? You're right. I think the universe revolves around a can of Dr. Pepper. Yup, that's right. More specifically, I believe that a stray can of Dr. Pepper (from a spaceship, presumably) COLLIDED with this particle that the universe revolves around, and the gravity kept it there. Thus... "Be you, do what you do, that's Dr. Pepper"

--------------------

The island bathes in the sun's bright rays
Distant hills wear a shroud of grey
A lonely breeze whispers in the trees
Sole witness to history

ICO-You were there-