ADL Colin

And 12 Clicks .. why are you fucking around like this? Good ice cream, huh? ;-)

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

12clicks

Einstein could be wrong on this point as well.
We just know of nothing faster than light.

Or perhaps we do. If a black hole sucks in light, isn't the gravitational pull of a black hole *faster* than the speed of light?

__________________

12clicks

well its the next day so I'd say the finish, like a good wine, is long.

__________________

ADL Colin

Sure, he could be wrong - from a certain point of view. Our physical theories of today are approximate anyway. Newton's theories were approximate. They worked perfectly for nearly everything anyone observed for hundreds of years. Einstein's equations though better aren't perfect either. They don't work perfectly well with quantum mechanics. Even the correction to the theoretical prediction for the perihelion of mercury is still not perfect and that was one of the crowning achievements of Einstein's theories.

However in regards to the initial statement that "the theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time", I don't think can be attributed to Einstein nor to his equations.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

12clicks

yeah, I clarified that in page 2 (I think it was)
He does say that time slows @ speed. We're debating that.

__________________

ADL Colin

If a "light particle" (photon) is in a black hole it cannot escape because the black hole is so massive that the light particle doesn't have enough energy to escape. It is the black hole's mass bending space and time that prevents the particle from escaping.

Despite the fact that no one has even been to a black hole it is intuitive in a sense. Celestial bodies have escape velocities which depend on the mass of the body. You have to be able to go a certain speed to leave the earth (without constant propulsion).

The next step is wondering if a body can be so massive that not even light could escape. The answer to that question has been called a "black hole". The French mathematician/astronomer Pierre Laplace actually thought of this in the late 1700s. I think there is an appendix in Hawking's first book with Laplace's conjecture for you Hawking fans. I don't have a copy.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

I think you're bullshitting everyone. ;-)

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

dantheman

I think the ice cream was laced

__________________
M3server.com
VPS>Get your 2nd month free
Ded>$100 off your 2nd month
since 1996
icq-25135623
dannyh at~m3server DOT com

12clicks

so in other words, the black hole's gravitational pull is *faster* than light.

And hey, I'm not bullshitting anyone

__________________

12clicks

funny you should say that.
The tamper resistant seal *was* missing.

__________________

buddyjuf

its all relative!
you people saying 1 minute is 1 minute arent thinking of relativity

what your saying only applies for "earth" time, and not about speed!

the fact is
if 1 person spends his life sitting down
and the other person spends all his life sprinting

when both of them die, the watch of the person who was sprinting all his life could be a few seconds earlier


and about that 8 minute- 7 minute thing
if you save 1 minute on a specific distance, that means that you were going @ (lets say) 10km/hour more
that is NOTHING compared to the speed of light so you wont even see a difference!

but theoretically, you went a few billiseconds into the future

ADL Colin

12 Clicks,

Don't you know ... 50 GFY posters can't be wrong!

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

If you drive your car into the "Like Whoa" building your car stops but not because the building was going faster.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

12clicks

Don't you know...12clicks is never wrong!

__________________

buddyjuf

*cough* *cough*

12clicks

If you drive your car away from the "like whoa" building but nick is sucking thru a straw so hard that your car gets sucked into the building, his sucking is *faster* than your car.

__________________

Serge_Oprano

oh, you poor dear!
;-)))

ADL Colin

Are you playing by jungle rules, today? ;-)

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

LeeNoga

- Does this class count for college credit?

12clicks

No, time is NOT relative. that's what Einstein got wrong. a minute is a minute no matter where it is measured.
go back to my 2 planets example. if they are formed the same day and they've been traveling for 1 million years but at different rates, are they both not 1 million years old?

__________________

buddyjuf

if your in astrophysics and in a debate, you can use the arguments presented above

ADL Colin

12 Clicks,

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

12clicks

No, I'm just living in a state of rightness.

__________________

buddyjuf

yes, 1 million years old EARTH time
but if the clock was on the planets themselves
they would NOT be 1 million years old

we keep arguying the same thing

ADL Colin

Where's the clock?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Wizzo

Reminds me of a high school debate club... Good times!

However, you said:

If you switch Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" ice cream a with pile of shit , you would doubt that 12clicks would be enjoying a bowl of it... Which comparing light to sound, it doing the same thing...


But I do realize some on GFY might not know the difference...

__________________
Looking for Opportunity!

ADL Colin

Should have turned left at the stop sign. Now you are in a state of denial.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

12clicks

because you won't listen.

time marches on. your argument would mean that at a certain speed, there would be no aging. this is not true.
There is not now nor will there ever be a celestrial body that is moving so fast that it doesn't age.

time is a constant, it is not relative to anything.

__________________

12clicks

The clock is not relevant. does time not march on if there is no clock?

__________________

buddyjuf

you keep thinking that there is only 1 time!
the time on your watch!

this is not true

ADL Colin

Fine. By what method do YOU propose to measure the rate of expiration of time to verify your claim that they are both "1 million years old"?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

12clicks

Not true wizzy. I used sound and light as an example of us seeing things as they pertain to us.
Time happends wether we see it, measure it, or not.
we measure the speed of lite by eye and sound by ear, neither is relevant to time.

__________________

buddyjuf

thats where your wrong! Its ALL ABOUT WHERE THE CLOCK IS!

because time passes DIFFERENTLY depending on what speed you go at.

the reason that you are debating this, is because you refuse to accept the theory

buddyjuf

and remember, I say everything as if the theory is true (wich it should be)

and you say everything as if the theory didnt exit!

of course we will ALWAYS disagree

12clicks

There *is* only one time but not the one on your watch.

__________________

Matt 26z

Then write a book to back it up. Surely proving Hawkings wrong in any area would be nothing less than groundbreaking work.

buddyjuf

12clicks

we know when the planets were born, everything else is equal in time after that.
you don't need to measure one against the other just use the "="

__________________

12clicks

I prefer to be groundbreaking on the internet.
the pay is better.

__________________

buddyjuf

also

12clicks

This is unproven theory. It *might* have been proven that time measurement can be affected by speed but not time.

__________________

buddyjuf

everybody shut up,
Im gonna go take a shower now
well continue when I get back

NOT A REPLY UNTIL THEN!

edit: why the fuck did I quote 12clicks on this one

Lane

i didnt read the whole thread but here is my contribution. i've studied the relativity theory (with the equations and everything) at school a few times.


here are some facts:

- nothing can travel at or faster than lightspeed
- the closer an object gets to the lightspeed, the heavier the mass becomes. thats why it takes more and more energy to accelerate the mass at higher speeds. this mass asymptotically reaches infinity at lightspeed, thats why its not possible to reach that speed.
- you don't jump in time, your time line just expands. if you are travelling fast enough to expand time twice, then one day for you will be 2 days for a static object. so its like travelling one day into the future but it takes one day to make this trip.


This is already being applied to small objects in huge accelerators in labs underground. For example the scientists want to analyze a radioactive molecule that breaks apart in 1 millisecond. But this time period is too short to get the neccessary data. So they create this molecule and accelerate it to very close to the lightspeed in the lab. So the millisecond for the particle actually becomes a minute long for the scientists observing the particle, so it is long enough for them to get the data they need. In other words, the particle travels in time 1 minute into the future, within its 1 millisecond lifespan. Or the particle got 1 millisecond older but the rest of the world got 1 minute older, etc..
They can never get the particles to the lightspeed itself because its not possible as it gets heavier and heavier.

Now this experiment is being done at several labs around the world and Einsteins theory holds. I dunno how you can debunk it when it works in practise.


As far as going faster than lightspeed, it is not possible. But according to some theories it is possible to reach a destination quicker than light by taking some sort of "shortcut" because the lightbeam doesn't neccessarily take the shortest path. But this doesnt mean you are travelling faster than lightspeed.

__________________

nazgul

so in other words, the black hole's gravitational pull is *faster* than light.

And hey, I'm not bullshitting anyone


ht.

12Clicks.... interesting point here......

If you think about it, motion causes gravity. The early rotates on its axis, causing a gravitational pull = to 9.8 meters / second sqaured.

Any object which travels faster than that rate, + a little lift flys. Gravity pulls on the object until the speed of that object is less than 9.8 m / s squared at which point it hits the earth.

Think of throwing a baseballl, when you first throw it, it fly's but then as it slows, it falls to the earth. The path of a base ball is curved arch.

Now apply that to light. In order for light to bend or be affeted by gravity, the gravitational pull would have to be stronger than the speed of light. Otherwise, light would not be affected by the pull much like a baseball is not affected by gravity when its intial veolicty is greater than 9.8 meters / second sqaured.

To me this means like 12 clicks said that the black whole must be traveling faster than the speed of light in order to generate enough gravity to bend light. The fact that matter becomes infinelty massive as it reaches the speed of light would then also explain the mass of a black whole.

However, if this is all true, then we should be able to time travel through black wholes.


Interesting thought 12 clicks.... going to read about today

buddyjuf

very good

Lane

Regarding black holes, I'm not sure how much has been discovered lately, but... I can see some of you are thinking with using Newtons equations. What Einstein did was to prove that Newtons equations do not hold since time is relative. But we still use them since they are almost perfectly accurate in our world with very slow speeds (compared to light).

First they said that gravity is an acceleration, not a force. Regardless of the size of the object, it will accelerate at the same speed. (eg. 9.8 m2/sec on earth). This is when the mass of the falling object is not significantly big compared to the big mass (planet) creating the gravitational field. When the falling object actually is big enough, the acceleration changes as well (i believe it gets smaller).

So when something is falling into a blackhole, it gets very close to the lightspeed and its mass increases tremendously, creating a big gravitational force in itself. This causes the atoms to collapse. The protons and electrons bind and form neutrons. Now the object is only made of neutrons, so its pure matter with no spaces, since no electric force exists within itself. The center of the blackhole is made of same type of object. When this falling object gets so heavy and since the time is also expanding, the acceleration actually drops, and i believe thats why it probably doesnt reach lightspeed. (since acceleration is relative with time).
I'm not 100% sure of all that, but nobody actually knows what exactly happens withing the black holes. And nobody will ever be able to observe it either, its always gonna stay as a mystery within theories and equations.

__________________

12clicks

this is not a fact.

really? then how heavy is a light particle?
this is just woeds on a page. no proof.

show us a link before I argue it
show your work, otherwise its not true. I think they are excellerating these particles for a different reason

this just isn't true.

__________________

FATPad

There are no clocks on any other planets (that I know of).

Is time standing still everywhere but Earth? o.O

__________________
<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>

ADL Colin

Depends on how you define "heavy" and/or "mass".

It has relativistic mass like this:

E = mc^2
m = E/c^2

You can get into contradictory definitions of these things really quickly because what we are talking about is models and measurements performed in particular ways (i.e. wave/particle duality is a good example).

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

xxxdesign-net

Wrong!

Your are basing your theory on a false statement...

and that statement should have been your conclusion since your are debating Einstein theory... a theory that is the opposite of your opening statement....

Time as a relation to people/object if those people/object are travelling at the speed of light...