Time Travel

[LordSlippy]

yes i get what your saying..1st ill explain the telescope one......

you have to be a "TINY BIT" past the speed of light..meaning around a centimeter..and the telescope "attracts" light rays and 1centimeter is enough for it to attract..

GRAVITIONAL PULL ...ok this is very hard to explain ...but ill try.....in every galaxy there is an "emptiness" around the edge of the galaxy..and it probably x2 as big as the place inside it...and if you go to the edge...and you fly around in a cricle at the speed of light.... then according to the date "IE january 13 2009" you must fly to a certain point that is like a "graph" for the glaxy..and somewhere on that graph is earth..then you go to that certain point...then once you reach that point...there is a "time calander" and as soon as you get to the gravitional point you out speed the speed of light..and then it FREEZES IT...then you move in closer to earth..and if your a scientist..you will need a graph of the glaxay..amd eventually you'll reach the point on the graph that is 100 mil years ago..and since time is frozen...you must not move..because if you move it will "teleport" to the time before you launched your ship.....and..the time when you get to the gravitional point of 1,000 years would probably be around a month traveling (not at the speed of light) then once the speed of light touches you again...then you speed up and catch up with it..


im very sry that this was vary poorly organized...but like i said..i cant explain it perfectly...u shud ask meh grandpa he has been a rocket cientist for 50 years

 

[MacMan]

A slingshot around a galaxy wouldn't get you anywhere near the speed of light. The gravitational forces within the galaxy are so sparse that their combined effect is little to null. It takes more than a rockect to move 180,000 miles per second.
You cannot reach the speed of light because: a) mass increases as speed reaches c, thus an infinite amount of energy (from a universe consisting on finite energy) would be needed to accelerate to c. b) as an object approaches c, its length (in the direction it is going) decreases, so an object at c would be flattened entirely.

 

[Shizo]

Originally posted by MacMan

You cannot reach the speed of light because: a) mass increases as speed reaches c, thus an infinite amount of energy (from a universe consisting on finite energy) would be needed to accelerate to c. b) as an object approaches c, its length (in the direction it is going) decreases, so an object at c would be flattened entirely.

what do you mean when you stated "mass increases as speed reaches c?"

 

[LordSlippy]

AND, im extremely sry, but i forgot to mention that the spaceship would have to weigh absolutely nothing.....OR if it ways something..it wud have to convert pressure heat into power.....and there r millions of tons of pressure.....so it would EVENTUALLY make you go that fast.....

 

[FakeNameHere]

do you know how long it would take to reach the lightspeed? we have an old sattalite that is slingshotted from mars i think. that was 20-30 years ago, i forgot. the momemtum and the acceleration is very high. and now, it would take millions of years before that thing can reach lightspeed.

 

[Mr. Zeil]

Listen to MacMan, he knows what he's talking about; he's been in many debates on time travel. (Yes this is Drakain, I'm only here because TT intrests me, this thread has a lot of confusion in it, and TSP is down).

Onto the debate!

TT already happes, electrons can and do move both ways in time.
Accoring to S. Hawking. only small particles such as the former can do so, however that has caused debate.
Yes these thigns do go more indepth but I really don't want to go in depth and more accurate.

As MacMan said you can't do it conventionaly... oh wait I just remembered somthing, macman you might find this intresting:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/lightstop_010119.html
Anyways...

just do as I say and listen to macman.

 

[MacMan]

Don't get sucked into battleforums drak
Sexxxy article by the way. I was gonna say they must have absorbed the light, but they had the lasers, very cool.
I remember something I had seen on that last thing they mentioned, how light going faster than c (the speed of light, Shizo) was debatably going back in time. I found it interesting because although it is traveling in inverse time, it still appeared normal from outside observers, nothing freaky.

Sippy, you keep saying "if we had a ___, we could ___," but for a topic like this, to me all you are saying is 'if pigs fly, then we can ___." Like I said before, when you bend all laws of the universe, you can do allot more things.

I'll be off at a physics lecture tuesday, so I hope to bring back some more interesting topics.

 

[Tupeq]

I kinda feel like lord slippy is lost...an emptiness? uhh...isn't that like...the vacume of space? and a weightless spacecraft? If you had a weightless spacecraft traveling around in circles, not only would you need force to make the spacecraft to go forwards, but since you don't have any gravitiational pull (hence 'weightless') you'd have to have force to exert force to the center of your 'circle' that's immatating an orbit...which is lunatic cause you would need an infinate ammount of fule to immitate the orbit-like path. and Maybe you mean massless...w/o mass...which would be impossable...soo...uhh..... and if you move the you'll get warped wtf what would an exertion of force from muscles have anything to do with it, things inside our bodies are moving around none-stop around the clock.
And also Macman I don't understand how the mass of accelerating matter is changing mass wtf, do you mean momentem or something? could you explain.
and LordSlippy why do you call it gravitational pull, 'cause isn't gravitational pull is the attraction between matter
and can you get pressure heat w/o friction? <-- i just need a yes or no for that one i don't need an explination

 

[MacMan]

It's complicated, it involves momentum conservation and time dialation. If you really need me to explain it I can.

 

[Raven]

shoot, its why we're here.

 

[Tupeq]

As a matter of fact I'm very interested in scientific topics like this. I would love for you to explain. And also how we would get thinner at lightspeed

 

[Swooper]

Time travel is theoretically possible, its just that we have no real way of doing it. Its a fact that time and space are connected (the time-space continuum). Its very interesting, try reading "A Brief History of Time" or "The Universe in a Nutshell" if your interested, though alot of it required knowlage of collage + level physiscs and calc which Im not very familiar with. Still, I understand the basic idea. Basically, to travel through time you would have to make a rift in the time-space continuum. The lightspeed stuff wouldn't allow you to travel anywhere in time, but it would make it so if you were away for many years at that speed you might come back to find your grandchildren your age. The only think we know of that created a definate rift in space and time is a black hole (for thoes of you who dont know what a black whole is, its simply a collapsed star with a density so great that its gravitational pull is to large for light to escape it). It also makes a small rift in space, however, we are talking nanometers in diamiter. So theres no way to ever go through one, since we cant get to a black whole and even if we could we would be compressed into about 1/1000 the size of a grain of sand. And even if we could manage to make a ship that wouldnt get crushed, we could never get through that rift. So unless we find some other way to create a rift, Time travels pretty much impossible.

 

[Tupeq]

This sounds more like a halt in the immune system to me. And if I remember I saw this thing on Bill nye the science guy (lol, i loved him) that if a man was to travel in space for like 20 years, he'll come back and appear not to have aged as much as his budds at his age. I forget why this happened.

Also your rift in space, I've heard about it. The 'black' in 'blackhole' is from light, but the 'hole' part is that black wholes supposedly create a whole in the fabric of space and outside of the fabric of space is hyper space, are we talking about the same thing here? could someone go deeper into this rift cause i see black wholes as being these little grains of sand that is super-dence that the gravitational pull is insane, and the event horrizon is a sphere, and everything around it (beyond the static limit) is just as normal...

ahh, from howstuffworks.com
This object is now a black hole and literally disappears from view. Because the core's gravity is so strong, the core sinks through the fabric of space-time, creating a hole in space-time -- this is why the object is called a black hole.
How Space-time works
the above was from:
How Black Holes Work

 

[MacMan]

Black holes are really called GEDs, they got the name 'black hole' from a sci-fi writer and the name stuck.
For the rift that black hole make, well, at the end of a black hole is a singularity, which stretches space-time infinitely, so it kinda make a hole in space-time, kinda.
Going out into space and coming back later to find your friends aged more than you did is called the Twins Paradox, it just says the faster you are to the speed of light, the slower time is for you, so the slower you age.
OK momentum... momentum is the mass time velocity of a moving object, and it always has direction. If you are on an ice skating rink, in a friction less world, and you throw a ball, you will move in the opposite direction of the ball, and the sum of your momentum + the ball's will always = 0. Momentum is how rockets work in space, they don't need air to push against, they just use momentum. If you were in a rocket, going the same speed as another rocket coming directly at you, you would see the rocket coming faster than it really is (time dilation), but the laws of momentum say that 2 objects colliding at the same speed in opposite directions will bounce away with equal speeds. But because of time dilation and seeing the approaching rocket faster than it really is, there is a contradiction: the other rocket is not going the same speed, even though when viewed from an outside observer it is (kinda). Now if mass were to increase with speed, the time dilation which causes the rocket to appear going faster would be fixed, and the equation for both rockets' momentum (mass*velocity) would work out.
Objects shrink at/near light speed because in relativity, every frame of the universe views every other frame of the universe as shrunken when not in total rest. Because the speed of light is constant, if any moving object, say a rocket, moving 180,000 miles/second, were to see a beam of light next to it (186,000m/s), the speed of the light observed would be 186,000-180,000=only 6,000 miles per second. If the rocket were pinched, any form of measurement would be shrunken to the correct proportion to ensure that beam of light still appears 186,000m/s.

 

[Raven]

Originally posted by MacMan
Objects shrink at/near light speed because in relativity, every frame of the universe views every other frame of the universe as shrunken when not in total rest. Because the speed of light is constant, if any moving object, say a rocket, moving 180,000 miles/second, were to see a beam of light next to it (186,000m/s), the speed of the light observed would be 186,000-180,000=only 6,000 miles per second. If the rocket were pinched, any form of measurement would be shrunken to the correct proportion to ensure that beam of light still appears 186,000m/s.

ive never heard of this beofre and dont really understand it, could u try to explain it to me in lamens terms?

That whole aging slower the faster you go thing is becasue time is relative rather than a constant. its one of those natural laws of the universe things. damn their stoopid, so god damn fundamental and final.

 

[Tupeq]

you say at the end of the black whole is the singularity (the dust sized super dense former star), but wouldn't it be in the center of the blackhole, not the 'end' cause wouldn't it be a sphere

EDIT: and you said: the laws of momentum say that 2 objects colliding at the same speed in opposite directions will bounce away with equal speeds" but did you mean to say: the laws of momentum say that 2 objects colliding with the same momentum in opposite directions will bounce away with equal speeds?

Edit: In your explination of the time dialation thing the given is that two rockets were heading towards each other at the same speed; but relative to a person inside ship A, ship B goes as fast as the speed of Ship A + Ship B, even though relative to a fixed point outside the ships they're going the exact same speed. Later in the explination you say that the ships aren't actually going the same speed...but wtf that was a given fact earlier in your explination, it's either they are or aren't. explain...

 

[Tupeq]

I'm having trouble understanding that shrinking theory thing. You say all this would happen just so that beams of light would "appear" to be the same speed, but what would appearences have anything to do with phisically distorting objects just so they 'appear' right? What force would squeeze the rocket? When not accelerating, and in constant motion (termanal velocity would be infident, without friction). I wouldn't be suprised that this is one of those things kid'll say in 100-200 years in the future: I can't believe we used to think about it, that's so stupid! Just like how we used to think only gay people could get aids.
But then again this makes you think, the velocity of something phisically distorting something, that twins paralox, does a similar thing, hasn't the Twins Paralox been proven to be true? Do you know how that works?

 

[MacMan]

There is no center to a blackhole, it is a rip in a 4 dimensional plane, so any 3 dimensional diagram for a blackhole would be incorrect, but at the end of it there is a singularity (where two parallel lines representing the black hole's sides cross).
For your first edit, the words are interchangeble in that instance.
For your second edit, for people inside the ships, they are going the same speed, for someone millions of lightyears behind one of the ships, they see it going very slowly, getting slower and slower (as light reaches them, because the ship is moving away, it takes longer.). Relativity is set up so that the ships can remain at a set speed from viewed anywhere, so the person watching a ship from behind would really be seeing the ship shrink in the opposite direction it's going in.
The importance of having light apear the same speed is the underlying basis of all relativity. Light speed is the constant of the universe, so no matter what you are doing, you will ALWAYS see light going light speed (although light can go faster/slower than light.). As with the rockets, when you are viewing light at only thousands of miles per seconds, you are breaking the laws of relativity. Objects aren't physically distorted, they remain exacty the same, only thinner in space time, no force acts upon them. The twins paradox has been given strong evidence to support it, and it works with everything I've explained to you. One twin stays on earth, the other stays on a lightspeed rocket, one year later the twin on earth is 1 year older, the one in the rocket might be only nano-seconds older, because time slows for you the closer you are to the speed of light.

 

[Raven]

yeah but why does the rocket thin out?

 

[MacMan]

Because if the rocket didn't shrink, it would see light next to it going very slowly. Because it does, no matter how fast it goes the light it sees will remain constant. The speed of the rocket inside is the same, and so is the shape and size, it's shrunk in the 4th dimension (or so I believe). Ever heard of Zeno's Paradox?