Printable View
OK I just spent a lot of time reading all of this and I find one theory to be totally left out of the discussion. Why does time have to have a mono linear effect on the equation? If this variable is applied to some of Einstein’s work, then you will have some very interesting options.
Blacktooth - that sure looks like cold fusion. Its fraud (or simply delusion).
"Why does time have to have a mono linear effect on the equation? If this variable is applied to some of Einstein’s work, then you will have some very interesting options."
Huh? Please explain, Thermo...
We should know in a month or so once the experiments are validated russ (even Nature is reviewing it). I'm not holding my breath, but the idea of using sonoluminescense (sp?) is pretty slick. It pertained to the conversation and is big news in that community now. I had to share it here.
Isn't time only linear in the same point of reference? Ie, my time isn't the same as the time of that of the astronauts aboard the space shuttle. Which is what brought about spacetime, because time and space are linked. Light, having no mass, doesn't play with the same set of rules though.
Take Einstein’s work and replace the time constant with a variable value.Quote:
Originally posted by russ_watters
Blacktooth - that sure looks like cold fusion. Its fraud (or simply delusion).
"Why does time have to have a mono linear effect on the equation? If this variable is applied to some of Einstein’s work, then you will have some very interesting options."
Huh? Please explain, Thermo...
"Isn't time only linear in the same point of reference? Ie, my time isn't the same as the time of that of the astronauts aboard the space shuttle. Which is what brought about spacetime, because time and space are linked. Light, having no mass, doesn't play with the same set of rules though."
The first part of the first sentence is wrong, the rest is correct. Time is ALWAYS linear by definition because it is one dimentional - like a line. But everyone has their own uniqe timeline which varies according to their speed - so thats where the point of reference comes in. Though actually the "point" is not physical, its the speed of light itself thats used as the frame of reference. And the fact that light doesn't play by the same rules is part of the explanation for the craziness of quantum mechanics - time doesn't really apply because light has no time - the rate of time passage in light is zero.
"Take Einstein’s work and replace the time constant with a variable value."
Huh? Are you being cryptic on purpose, Thermo? As far as I can tell you want to somehow do away with the idea of constant time....That is in fact the very thing that Special Relativity does - thats the theory in a nutshell and all resulting theories are based on this. So I still don't understand what you are getting at.
If we accept the theory that time will pass more slowly for a person traveling near the speed of light, then we have to accept that the rate of time can be altered. That gives us fast-observed time, slow observed time, and everything in-between. The fact that we observe/perceive the passage of time in the way that we do does not mean that it is the only way it passes. Now if we were to force a localized change in the rate of time by means other than velocity, what would the result be? I don’t know, I was just asking.
If someone could figure that out they would quickly become very popular. Gravity could hold a key there (gravity=acceleration). Maybe once more about the mechanics of gravity are understood something along those lines may be possible. Then again, acceleration negates the effects I think. The whole time passing differently in different circumstances stretches my reasoning. I understand the premises but the actuality is... mind-boggling. It has been proven though (planes carrying synhronized atomic clocks experiment).Quote:
Originally posted by Thermo
Now if we were to force a localized change in the rate of time by means other than velocity, what would the result be? I don’t know, I was just asking.
According to relativity itself, the only things that affect the rate of time are gravity and velocity.
So this is the answer to the original question, right? Because if you go .9999999 times the speed of light and the light from your headlights was going at the speed of light, the way you perceive time would make it look like that light was moving away from you at 1c, as opposed to .00000001c, right?Quote:
Originally posted by Sinnersis
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.
yep
Quote:
Originally posted by Talonator
So this is the answer to the original question, right? Because if you go .9999999 times the speed of light and the light from your headlights was going at the speed of light, the way you perceive time would make it look like that light was moving away from you at 1c, as opposed to .00000001c, right?
Firstly, I apologize if I offend you by posting OT in your fine forum here, but I don't know where else to make a fool out of myself. Reading through the posts has got me to wondering about something. I've considered this before, but never actually had the knowledge to answer it for myself. This is entirely from a theoretical standpoint.
Would it be possible to use high frequency electromagnetic waves to vibrate something to near light speed? If this happened, and time and space are truly relative, would time not stop for that matter at the speed of light?
If for some reason this were possible, the friction would probably generate enough heat to destroy the material before it even approached light speed, but what if the wavelength of the vibration were short enough to reduce the friction to a negligable factor?
A human would probably break down and mutate or soemthing, but maybe we could vibrate a clock? (an extremely sophisticated and durable one, at that)
Should I just shut up and go back to deciphering GEB?
Please bring me back to reality, why wouldn't this (theoretically, assuming we had the technology) not work?
Tekime, what you are suggesting sounds like an early particle accelerator design - I can't remember the name though. Essentially you have two hollow half-plates that alternate their magnetic polarity, accelerating a particle inside around in a spiral. It works, but it doesn't get particles as fast as newer accelerators.
Hi russ_watters,Quote:
Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero Point Energy... The idea of harnessing this however is ludicrous since the quantity of energy is both balanced (protons/positron pairs, for example that destroy each other) and infinitessimal...
...Regardless, the whole zero point energy hoax is easy to recognize since it contains all the clear hallmarks of a hoax, ie non-repeatable, unpredictable tests making it impossible to disprove its existence (which is of course the basic premise of the scientific method)...
...The hoax is the part where people say they have already harnessed it (or think they can).
I thought of you when I was reading this article:
"MEG Scalar Energy Device Patented - Production Starts Next Year"
http://www.rense.com/general21/free.htm
An excertp from the article: ..."the MEG does not break the law of conservation of energy. It's just that the energy is conserved in the fourth dimension, time, and not our 3-space world."
More technical details can be found here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm
Excellent reading can also be found by exploring at this location: http://www.cheniere.org/foreward.htm
:cool:
Remote galaxies are moving away from Earth at high enough speeds that the very question you pose can be examined.
My take on it is this: Relativity is not violated becaused the light from the headlights moves at 1 x the speed of light-- always, regardless of the motion of the source. However, you wouldn't see the light because it would be hopelessly blue-shifted into the ultraviolet spectrum. Doppler effect, don't you know.
From my understanding, the time dialation is such that you can almost think of it as if everything works like normal but the time dialation will cause you to not ever exceed the speed of light.
So, to YOU, it will seem like you travel 10x the speed of light if you can go that fast, and you headlights will work as normal.
To the observer, you will never exceed the speed of light, and neither will your headlights but you will all be a mass of light that will sort itself out when you decelerate.
Hope this helps.
hehe, al bundy. Oh man, this is so funny.
"Production Starts Next Year"
It is ALWAYS next year. Never THIS year. Because thats how hoaxes work.
A quick skim of that site comes up with this little gem:
"the MEG does not break the law of conservation of energy. It's just that the energy is conserved in the fourth dimension, time, and not our 3-space world."
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of conservation of energy. Time IS included in the law. Its so obvious. How else can energy be stored without breaking the law every time you put batteries into your cd player?
Incidentally, the patent is viewable at www.uspto.gov -> #6362718
It states explicity in the patent that the output energy is greater than the input - ie. it breaks the 1st law of thermodynamics. So the question really is - what was the person who reviewed the application smoking when he read it? It is USPTO policy to not even review applications for perpetual motion machines - the office is swamped with bs as it is. My guess would be that once this error is found, the patent will be revoked. But we'll see. It is only 6 days old.
al, you gotta stop this. Funny as it is, its killing me every time I read it.
Yes - we shall see! Personally, and in spite of your skepticism, I hope it is indeed legitimate. It would represent a new, and monumental, stage of society. So let's hope you are wrong!Quote:
Originally posted by russ_watters
...It states explicity in the patent that the output energy is greater than the input - ie. it breaks the 1st law of thermodynamics. So the question really is - what was the person who reviewed the application smoking when he read it? It is USPTO policy to not even review applications for perpetual motion machines - the office is swamped with bs as it is. My guess would be that once this error is found, the patent will be revoked. But we'll see. It is only 6 days old...
:cool:
"There would be government laws to control time travel, he believes."
Yeah...those always work...
If time-travel does get invented in our future, wouldn't it probably have already been used to engineer the past and present that we experienced up until now?
Hmmmmm...
:cool:
Head....hurting.... :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by al bundy
If time-travel does get invented in our future, wouldn't it probably have already been used to engineer the past and present that we experienced up until now?
Hmmmmm...
:cool:
Geez... Here we go with the paradoxes.Quote:
Originally posted by al bundy
If time-travel does get invented in our future, wouldn't it probably have already been used to engineer the past and present that we experienced up until now?
Hmmmmm...
:cool:
IF and I mean IF time travel is possible it would bring great credibility to the possibility of multiple timelines coexisting in different dimensional planes because that would eliminate the paradoxes.
I don't understand how you can go to the future and see something and do something now to fix it, becasue if it really is the future, then wouldn't you have already gone to the future in the future you just traveled to (in the past of the future), and then the future would have no change becasue what you are going to do already happened?
I can't really comment on the issue as I don't know anything much about the subject, but if it works, then good for him. If he can prove that it works, then I'm sure any sane government would gladly donate a few trillion dollars to get a bigger version working.
Time travelling into future is very plausible, by Einstein's own Special Theory of Relativity.
All one needs to do is hop on a spaceship and travel at an enourmous speed away and come back. He/she onboard won't have grown as old as the people on Earth.
Of course, then you run into Einstein's famous Twins Paradox.. :eek:
you guys are taking this "highly" technical forum to the extreme! ;) :D