Ok, I somehow get it, but what still is not clear in my mind is what does a 1986 Ford Taurus have to do w/ anything? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.
------------------
My 2 rigs
Printable View
Ok, I somehow get it, but what still is not clear in my mind is what does a 1986 Ford Taurus have to do w/ anything? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.
------------------
My 2 rigs
Okay, I have a few points to make:
Firstly, as you speed up time for you slows down. As you aproach the speed of light this effect increases exponetially until you reach the speed of light where time stops. (Incidentally I do have the equation relating to this but I can't find it - I'll post it when I do). Hence it is possible to reach anywhere in the universe before you die if you travel fast enough.
Secondly, the experiments to prove that time slows down as you speed up where proved decades ago by placing one atomic clock on an aircraft and one on the ground. They both started off sincronised. When the plane landed back at the airbase the atomic clock from the aircraft was BEHIND the atomic clock on the ground.
Thirdly, it is impossible to go faster then light and this has been proved in particle physics labs by giving electrons (and other leptons / quarks) enough energy to go faster than light ,in particle accelerators. As these particles near the speed of light they start to increase in mass and turn into different fundamental particles and never reach the speed of light.
Fourthly, Althrough it is impossible to go faster than light it is possible to cheat, to make a craft seemingly go faster than light (Althrough it actually doesn't) by one of the following methods:
a.) If you fold space (effectively in half) between the origin and the destination a craft can cross light years (Or parsecs if you want) in seconds without actually moving.
b.) If you can alter the space around a craft in such a way that the speed of light within the "altered" space if higher than that within normal space you can then surpass the speed of light in the normal space by traveling within the altered area of space.
c.) Wormholes work well! However wormholes can span time as well as space which means you could arrive before you left if you weren't careful!!!
d.) Travel through subspace (Or is that hyperspace?) assuming it exsists.
Bare in mind that all the above are still theoretical. Hope this post is helpfull as opposed to confusing https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
------------------
Life is what happens while we're doing other things!
[This message has been edited by Sinnersis (edited January 14, 2002).]
Quantum mechanics and relativity have never been particularly complementary theories. In general Quantum mechanics holds for the small scale and Relativity for the large scale. (AFAIK multiple universes are an outgrowth of QM) If there has been recent work that conclusively unifies the two then I would love to hear more about it.Quote:
Originally posted by ilkpc's:
present theoretical physics supports 1. substanially different particle make-up/behavior from your discussion; 2. multiverse probable existance; 3. c now recognized as having varying value under different conditions; 4. frame of reference of observer must be clearly defined
the light "beam" reference must take into account multiple simultaneous observers ... to be valid today ... cheers
Are there any conditions you had in mind? C has long been calculated as 1/ (permittivity * permeability)^2. Thus c in any medium will be different then c in a vacuum. Is this what you had in mind or were you referring to something else?
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
1986 Ford Tauruses can travel at the speed of light.Quote:
Originally posted by mrspm2003:
Ok, I somehow get it, but what still is not clear in my mind is what does a 1986 Ford Taurus have to do w/ anything? Sorry for my lack of knowledge.
I believe that they have an extremely accurate clock in the International Space Station. Strangely enough, it is slower than a clock here on earth. The clocks were both set on earth at exactly the same time.Quote:
Originally posted by dudephil:
What experiments? You are getting too far away from logic and too close to scientific reasoning. There is a fine line between those. There is no way 2 people are born at the same time then find each other,lets say 50 years later,(no matter what) and are not the same age. It might be scientifically possible(in theory), but not PHYSICALLY possible. (Common sense)
If you think that the Twins Paradox is strange, you should see some of the other ideas in quantum physics: spin, imaginary time, chaos theory, and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which dictates that there will be energy in a perfect vacuum, and leads to the theory of multiple universes.
How about that answer then, Moridin?
------------------
*Creative Statement*
Many physicists seem to think we are getting closer, but the two theories still haven't been completely connected to the best of my knowledge. A really great book on the subject is The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. I noticed after I read it last year that it became a Pulitzer nominee, so apparently many people in addition to myself liked it.Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin:
Quantum mechanics and relativity have never been particularly complementary theories. In general Quantum mechanics holds for the small scale and Relativity for the large scale. (AFAIK multiple universes are an outgrowth of QM) If there has been recent work that conclusively unifies the two then I would love to hear more about it.
That should be expected. As someone noted earlier, time slows down as speed increases. Speeds on earth are not enough to make much difference, but in space it can at least reach measureable amounts. Although probably still small since they are still nowhere near light speed.Quote:
Originally posted by elimc:
I believe that they have an extremely accurate clock in the International Space Station. Strangely enough, it is slower than a clock here on earth. The clocks were both set on earth at exactly the same time.
another fun fact to remember. As your speed increases, you will experience a distortion of distance.
in other words:
The faster you go the shorter the path you take.
If I traveled past the solar system traveling at 75% of the speed of light then the size of the solar system (relative to me) would only be 25% of its original size.
This is another interesting effect of high speeds. So if you are traveling near the speed of light. you have less distance to pass than a person moving slower.
[email protected]
This could also be in partial effect of the lack in the strength of the earths gravitational pull. Gravity has been proven to have an effect on the way time is percieved as well using cesium clocks. Two clocks were synced and one was placed on top of a water tower while the other one was placed at the bottom of the tower. They left the clocks for a few years and then when they checked them the one at the higher altitude was slightly lagging behind the other one.Quote:
Originally posted by elimc:
I believe that they have an extremely accurate clock in the International Space Station. Strangely enough, it is slower than a clock here on earth. The clocks were both set on earth at exactly the same time.
------------------
I figured it was time to change my sig.
I asked my uncle about light-speed, and breaking it (he's a science teacher), and he said we could never break it, because objects have mass, light, however, does not have mass. Therefore, it can travel at it's speed. But then again, if you got the object to move that fast, would you even need headlights, technology-wise?
Zieg
Most of quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive. There are a great couple of books called "Schroedinger's Kittens," though I can't remember who wrote them, which eplain many of them.Quote:
Originally posted by dudephil:
What experiments? You are getting too far away from logic and too close to scientific reasoning. There is a fine line between those. There is no way 2 people are born at the same time then find each other,lets say 50 years later,(no matter what) and are not the same age. It might be scientifically possible(in theory), but not PHYSICALLY possible. (Common sense)Quote:
Originally posted by elimc:
Edit
Two young twins are separated at birth. One is sent the speed of light to another galaxy and back. When the twin arrives back to earth his brother has aged into an old man.
Pretty weird, but a couple of experiments have confirmed it.
Though they don't make sense logically, as the author put it - quantum mechanics is the most thoroughly tested scientific theory in history. And most of our modern technology depends on it - including computers, lasers, telecommunications, etc.
Here is another twister for you:
If you shine a light on a slit in a piece of paper, it creates a single stripe of light on the wall beyond it. If you use two slits, you may expect to get two identical shadows, but instead you get a pattern of lines of different brightnesses. This is due to interference between the light waves (interference patterns).
But that ain't the half of it. If you send photons ("particles" of light) one at a time, you still get the pattern. So the photons have to go through BOTH SLITS AT THE SAME TIME.
But that still ain't the half of it. If you close one of the slits AFTER THE LIGHT PHOTON HAS GONE THROUGH IT, you get one single line. So that means that the photon "knows" ahead of time that the hole is going to be closed!
Bear in mind that this HAS BEEN TESTED. One theory on why this happens is that since light travels at the speed of light (duh) time is stopped for it - so each photon makes no distinction between the "time" it was emitted and the "time" it hits something.
Freaky, huh.
observer phenomenon at near c & underlying nuclear structures are only aspects of resonance/energy transfers, within the fundamental mechanism of the universe ... & these are somewhat beyond a brief post to this thread ...
"quantum mechanics are counter-intuitive..." - absolutely correct ...
"wormholes" - multidimensional/intramultidimensional boundary phenomenon - this is only 1 of various aspects - simply stated, this is where/when the mechanism of the universe "balances the ledger books" ...
"folding dimension" - dimensional planes are quasi-stable tight complex curves - CAN NOT fold - however, by altering frame-of-reference of observer, relative to "plane defining points" one can greatly reduce apparent distance between any 2 points - simple geometric constructs can not adequately represent this, accurately ...
"mass" - quasi-stable short term aspect of fundamental resonance/energy transfer/expression - what you refer to as "mass" merely reflects present brief resonance expression, on planet earth, now ...
"speed of light" - c is not constant, nor is it a Constant Value - it is simply one of the measures of "the ledgerbooks" ...
and finally, "well ordered states" are fundamentally rare & various aspects of entropy virtually dominate the universe ... you, your perception of "the world" & the sol/earth solar system do not represent the state/condition of the universe ... you, the observer, posting in this thread, have the most limited/distorted perception imagineable of space/time ... pls note that this only refers to your frame-of-reference ...
"as you approach the speed of light, mass becomes greater" - not really ...
"as you approach the speed of light, distances become shorter" - there are many aspects of "near c velocity" ... remember that the shortest distance between 2 defining points is a complex curve, because more then 3 dimensional planes will always be involved ...
1st, isolated individual aspects of the fundamental mechanism of the universe, simply can not be discussed/represented out of the totality of context, ...
2nd, secondary school physics classes must place greater emphasis on the aspects of uncertainty & resonance/energy transfer, & less emphasis on simplified structures ...
but keep questioning ...
[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 15, 2002).]
Maybe I just didn't understand your explanation, but as afar as I know, these are both wrong - they are inherrent to relativity.Quote:
Originally posted by ilkpc's:
[B"speed of light" - c is not constant, nor is it a Constant Value - it is simply one of the measures of "the ledgerbooks" ...
"as you approach the speed of light, distances become shorter" - there are many aspects of "near c velocity" ... remember that the shortest distance between 2 defining points is a complex curve, because more then 3 dimensional planes will always be involved ...
[/B]
The speed of light *IS* a constant in a vacuum and all observers will measure it to be constant regarless of their inertial frame of reference. I believe that is the essential premise of special relativity.
Your second statement there follows the first by implication. One major implication of relativity is that time is not constant. Since d=s*t, distance is therefore not a constant. Keeping in mind of course that ther are only 4 dimentions that we deal with in this equation - you can't apply distance to the 5th dimention (whatever it is) just like you can't apply distance to the 4th (time).
my apologies ... brevity often leads to inaccuracies ...
"vacuum" - an entirely human invention w/o meaning - the complete absence of resonance &/or resonance manifested as "matter" does not occur anywhere within the universe ... the value of c has been diminishing since the instant this universe, in which we find ourselves, came into existance; further c is a secondary aspect & interacts w/ gravity waves ... therefore c is not a constant value ...
the fundamentals underlying gravity phenomenon are genuine fundamentals of the mechanism of the universe ... it is exceeding important to focus research resources on developing comprehension of all aspects of gravity ... we will never understand the universe, unless we comprehend gravity ... & i am not refering to "why you don't fly off into space", rather the mechanism of gravity on all levels ... there are complex interactions ...
it is past time to allow albert einstein to rest in peace ... his consuming quest for grande unification, during his lifetime, distorted his perspective ... there are serious conflicts within relativistic mechanics & flaws within general relativity ... i attribute these to peer ignorance, early in the last century, resulting in isolation of einstein by many of the scientific community, who could have supported & furthered his work, but who did not ... his obsession w/ grande unification, during later years, is another matter altogether ... he did not advance w/ his peers & ended his days, again, largely isolated ...
we have differing perspectives ... several (journal) drafts, presently undergoing peer review, will very probably enlarge on the dissenting view that the value(s) of c vary ... there has also been some headway in measurement of gravity waves ... perhaps looking into thermodynamics applied to relativistic mechanics, w/ help abit ...
i respect your opinions, but i will remain w/ my own opinions ...
good luck
You have to use the right tool for the job, no matter what you are doing. In some areas Newtonian physics still reigns supreme. In others Maxwell’s wave equations are the way to go. Even though both of these have been superseded by newer theories and ideas there usefulness remains unquestioned.Quote:
Originally posted by ilkpc's:
my apologies ... brevity often leads to inaccuracies ...
"vacuum" - an entirely human invention w/o meaning - the complete absence of resonance &/or resonance manifested as "matter" does not occur anywhere within the universe ... the value of c has been diminishing since the instant this universe, in which we find ourselves, came into existance; further c is a secondary aspect & interacts w/ gravity waves ... therefore c is not a constant value ...
the fundamentals underlying gravity phenomenon are genuine fundamentals of the mechanism of the universe ... it is exceeding important to focus research resources on developing comprehension of all aspects of gravity ... we will never understand the universe, unless we comprehend gravity ... & i am not refering to "why you don't fly off into space", rather the mechanism of gravity on all levels ... there are complex interactions ...
it is past time to allow albert einstein to rest in peace ... his consuming quest for grande unification, during his lifetime, distorted his perspective ... there are serious conflicts within relativistic mechanics & flaws within general relativity ... i attribute these to peer ignorance, early in the last century, resulting in isolation of einstein by many of the scientific community, who could have supported & furthered his work, but who did not ... his obsession w/ grande unification, during later years, is another matter altogether ... he did not advance w/ his peers & ended his days, again, largely isolated ...
we have differing perspectives ... several (journal) drafts, presently undergoing peer review, will very probably enlarge on the dissenting view that the value(s) of c vary ... there has also been some headway in measurement of gravity waves ... perhaps looking into thermodynamics applied to relativistic mechanics, w/ help abit ...
i respect your opinions, but i will remain w/ my own opinions ...
good luck
The same is true for relativity. Despite it’s shortcomings, my knowledge it is generally accepted to be the best way to solve problems on a very large scale. Quantum mechanics is clearly dominant at the very small scale, but unless a lot has changed in the last 7 or 8 years it is like trying to fit square pegs in round holes when applied to the very large scale. To me this makes Relativity the obvious choice to answer the types of questions being discussed here, whatever it’s shortcomings.
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
This is what I was getting at with my earlier question. Since distances shrink as you approach the speed of light you should in fact be able to get to a very distant point within your lifetime if you were traveling a significant fraction of the speed of light. Due to the effects of time dilation, the trip would seem much longer to other observers, but would seem fairly short to you.Quote:
Originally posted by jam544:
another fun fact to remember. As your speed increases, you will experience a distortion of distance.
in other words:
The faster you go the shorter the path you take.
If I traveled past the solar system traveling at 75% of the speed of light then the size of the solar system (relative to me) would only be 25% of its original size.
This is another interesting effect of high speeds. So if you are traveling near the speed of light. you have less distance to pass than a person moving slower.
[email protected]
------------------
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts.
Maybe you could ask yourself (the other you who arrived) how the trip was BEFORE starting. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Sinnersis:
c.) Wormholes work well! However wormholes can span time as well as space which means you could arrive before you left if you weren't careful!!!
These are the sort of absurdities we run into when time travel is "emulated" in our brains.
how is it possible to make ref to "vacuum" while ignoring zero point energy theory ...
it simply is not possible to compartmentise & create separate issues of discussion ... it all comes down to uncertainty & resonance/energy transforms ... surely it is apparent that c is merely a manifestation of quantum mechanics, & c is a secondary aspect ...
it fact very large scale phenomenon & very small scale phenomenon are merely different aspects of the same underlying fundamentals & are both entirely interdependent/codependent secondary aspects ... it is your changing frame-of-reference, nothing more ...
there is finally awareness that cosmology, theoretical physics & theoretical mathematics are converging, & MUST converge & be persued as a totality in order to achieve understanding of the mechanism of the universe ... it really is all the same thing ...
pls keep in mind that earlier research scientists, you have referenced, by their own admission, carried enormous religious baggage into their disciplines, greatly limiting their perspectives ... & i included einstein in this group ... heisenberg had greater clarity of mind ...
[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 16, 2002).]
Exactly. Well put my friend.Quote:
Originally posted by Rado:
Maybe you could ask yourself (the other you who arrived) how the trip was BEFORE starting. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif
These are the sort of absurdities we run into when time travel is "emulated" in our brains.
------------------
Enjoy life. There's plenty of time to be dead.
"Live as if your were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever."
-Mahatma Gandhi
This may be a simple problem but it has been bugging me. If you make a car that can travel at .9999999999999 the speed of light (which 1986 Ford Tauruses can do) and you turn on your headlights, will you be able to see the headlights in front of you?
----------------------------------------
The light reflected back to you would most likely not lie within the visible spectrum due to doppler effect. So you would most likely not see it.
------------------
Dual 850MHz Pentium 3's
512MB ECC SDRAM
Abit VP6 (YT Flash)
28GB Seagate 7200RPM UDMA/66
4.3GB IDE Removable IBM Drive
Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI HBA
DDS3 External Backup Device with OBDR
10,000RPM 9.1GB SCSI Ultra2
Asus V8200 Deluxe GF3
Sony 40x24x10 IDE Burner
Pioneer 6x IDE DVD-ROM
SBLive! Value
MGE 800VA UPS
Dedicated to crunching SETI
the effect(s)/interaction of "exaggerated light beams" will be observable perpendicular to body vector ... near limit doppler shifts - you have not considered spectral shift(s)/distortion(s) due to irregular pulsed output of sae bulbs ...
[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 16, 2002).]
moridin/jam544/(quote)[email protected] ...
"...traveling @ 75% c results in observable solar (planetary) system being 25% smaller..." - hyperbolic functions are involved in this expression, not linear expressions - near c effects only have significant impact AT NEAR C Velocity - "75%" is not considered "close" & there are SERIOUS consequences closely approaching any planetary system at near c velocity, on both planetary bodies & the star(s) ...
[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 16, 2002).]
im talking about the light from the headlights, not from anything else.
------------------
Dual 850MHz Pentium 3's
512MB ECC SDRAM
Abit VP6 (YT Flash)
28GB Seagate 7200RPM UDMA/66
4.3GB IDE Removable IBM Drive
Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI HBA
DDS3 External Backup Device with OBDR
10,000RPM 9.1GB SCSI Ultra2
Asus V8200 Deluxe GF3
Sony 40x24x10 IDE Burner
Pioneer 6x IDE DVD-ROM
SBLive! Value
MGE 800VA UPS
Dedicated to crunching SETI
yes ... the headlamp output is inherently divergent, unless your ford taurus has the optional infinitely coherent headlamps ... then doppler shift backscattering becomes problematic ... of course the "driver's" field-of-vision correspondingly narrows w/ near c & @ c converges to a single point ... what is perpendicular to the body vector? ...
in other words, what is the observer, inside the ford taurus, actually observing? ... or is the relevent/relative frame-of-reference also an option in this ford taurus ...
the "driver" (observer) will continue to observe visible spectral light, albiet of an increasingly greatly distorted composition (exaggerated curved beams, spectral diffraction, etc.) ... the observer outside the ford taurus, nearby, will observe an entirely different light emission, very likely outside the range of normal human vision, but nevertheless observable ...
yes, there will be different observable near c doppler shifts apparent to both the "driver" within the taurus & to the outside, nearby, observer - both will be different near c distorted doppler spectral shifts - & of course there will be near c time perception distortions ...
perhaps it's time to bury this dead horse ...
[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 16, 2002).]
I'm going to throw this book reference in, just in case anybody is interested in a good read on these subjects:
"Mathematical Invalidity of Relativity (both Special and General)", by Cameron Y. Rebigsol, Vantage Press Inc., NY, 1996.
It proves (in only 91 pages) how these old theories are not only full of problems conceptually, but also suffer catastrophic and irreparable failures within their own mathematical structures, fundamentally. These theories just can't work as they are currently conceived and understood.
Don't believe it? Just check out the book for yourself. Kinda heavy reading, so reserve some "quality" reading time. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
I do not believe science is right https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
I took a history of science class and it makes you think about everything that we "known"
I just like the fact that "science" defines light in two ways to conform to popular theories.
What is it? waves? or packets?
What kind of light are talking about
------------------
Overclocking plan, to equal the power of IBM's ASIC White supercomputer, 13TeraFlops/s
Pspice just doesn't work!