I debunked Albert Einstein while eating ice cream - GoFuckYourself.com

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:10 PM

I've always known Einstein was wrong about time travel but I never felt I had the time to properly debunk it.
So tonight, I'm eating Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" icecream and a simple answer to the problem presented itself

The theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time. Here is why its wrong:

Time has no relationship to people. Time passes regardless of what a person does.
if something happends in another galaxy and it takes a year to see it because the light is traveling from so far away, by the time we see it, its already a year old (standard stuff)
But if we travel at faster than the speed of light towards that galaxy, we will get closer to seeing the galaxy in realtime. we will NOT be turning back the clock.
The proof of this is our ability to travel faster than the speed of sound.
If a sound takes 10 seconds to reach our ear because the action creating it was so far away, we hear an action that happened 10 seconds ago. Not unlike seeing something from the other galaxy that happened already.
Now, if we travel at the speed of sound towards the action that made the sound, we DO hear the sound sooner but we do not travel back in time.
Swap speed of sound with speed of light and you see why Albert Einstein is wrong.

Luc Duboi · 06-19-2003, 07:12 PM

detoxed · 06-19-2003, 07:16 PM

you are a fucking genius. sound and light are SOOOO similiar!

Libertine · 06-19-2003, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I've always known Einstein was wrong about time travel but I never felt I had the time to properly debunk it.
So tonight, I'm eating Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" icecream and a simple answer to the problem presented itself

The theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time. Here is why its wrong:

Time has no relationship to people. Time passes regardless of what a person does.
if something happends in another galaxy and it takes a year to see it because the light is traveling from so far away, by the time we see it, its already a year old (standard stuff)
But if we travel at faster than the speed of light towards that galaxy, we will get closer to seeing the galaxy in realtime. we will NOT be turning back the clock.
The proof of this is our ability to travel faster than the speed of sound.
If a sound takes 10 seconds to reach our ear because the action creating it was so far away, we hear an action that happened 10 seconds ago. Not unlike seeing something from the other galaxy that happened already.
Now, if we travel at the speed of sound towards the action that made the sound, we DO hear the sound sooner but we do not travel back in time.
Swap speed of sound with speed of light and you see why Albert Einstein is wrong.

Total and utter bullshit, but you probably realize that. At least, I hope so. Your conception of time is just too simple.

Ironhorse · 06-19-2003, 07:18 PM

Don't quit your dayjob.

uno · 06-19-2003, 07:19 PM

It's all relative man.

Luc Duboi · 06-19-2003, 07:20 PM

He just "copy and paste" from somewhere.

SpaceAce · 06-19-2003, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

Total and utter bullshit, but you probably realize that. At least, I hope so. Your conception of time is just too simple.

I'm sure he's not serious. I hope not.

SpaceAce

Mr.Fiction · 06-19-2003, 07:22 PM

Tell us more about the ice cream.

Gary · 06-19-2003, 07:25 PM

Ok, im not a very smart guy, i readily admit that. But, why would traveling faster than speed of light send you back in time? Diod einstein have some sort of reasoning behind this?

J-Reel · 06-19-2003, 07:25 PM

Oh Yeah? Get this baby up to 88 miles an hour an see what happens.

SilverTab · 06-19-2003, 07:28 PM

Well I dunno...now that it's posted on the internet, I guess it's true...

SilverTab · 06-19-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gary
Ok, im not a very smart guy, i readily admit that. But, why would traveling faster than speed of light send you back in time? Diod einstein have some sort of reasoning behind this?

e=mc2

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:29 PM

I see you all SAYING no but I don't see anyone PROVING I'm wrong. shit, it should be easy. Albert Einstein is on your side.

Mr.Fiction · 06-19-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gary
Ok, im not a very smart guy, i readily admit that. But, why would traveling faster than speed of light send you back in time? Diod einstein have some sort of reasoning behind this?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstei...win/twin1.html

Gary · 06-19-2003, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SilverTab

e=mc2

Huh? German?

Gary · 06-19-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstei...win/twin1.html

Ok, i still dont understand. I mean, on other planets a "day" is not 24 hours, it goes by rotation of planet. So if we are going by aging on earth, why would it matter how far or how fast you travel? Earth will still rotate same speed

SilverTab · 06-19-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gary

Ok, i still dont understand. I mean, on other planets a "day" is not 24 hours, it goes by rotation of planet. So if we are going by aging on earth, why would it matter how far or how fast you travel? Earth will still rotate same speed

Too bad it has nothing to do with earth rotation speed!

LOL

detoxed · 06-19-2003, 07:34 PM

thats ridiculous, i have a 12 inch dick, prove me wrong. it should be easy, i've been fucked by a few people here.

nazgul · 06-19-2003, 07:35 PM

Traveling at the Speed of light doesn't send you back in time, it theoretical sends you to the future. A rough proof of this is in the has actually been tested.

Scientist took two clocks and set them at exactly the same time. The left one clock on the ground, and put the other in a plane. They then flew the plane around the world a few times. When they took the clock off the plan it was no longer in synch but was behind the clock that as on the ground.

The theory is that if you travel at the speed of light, you will actually "stands still" as everything around you ages. So when you stop traveling at the speed of light, you seem to have gone forward in time.

This speed of light theory doesn't have anything to do with traveling to the past.

Now that is just the theory you were talking about.

Read some of steven hawkings shit. That will really scramble your noodle. He talks about space and time being fabrics. Comparing them to a taught sheet that create a plane. Then have multipe instance of the same moment occuring on each of those planes. He talks about how black holes and the gravity of stars then create indentiations, or ripples in the plane, much like what would happen if you put a bowling ball in the center of a sheet that two people were holding on the ends. his theory is basically the gravity generated at those points is great enough to allow you to travel, to the alternate planes. By traveling to these alternate planes you can travel to diffrent places in time.

Something to that effect anyway. Been a long time since i have read this shit, but it is called

"The Universe in a Nut Shell"

Its a fun read

Gary · 06-19-2003, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SilverTab

Too bad it has nothing to do with earth rotation speed! LOL

But, im 28 years old on earth. each day is 24 hours, a year is 365 days, etc...

If i travel faster than speed of light to some distant planet and come back to earth. How will that effect time?

michaelw · 06-19-2003, 07:38 PM

i actually agree with 12clicks this time

time does not slow down or speed up

if you go faster than the speed of light towards and object, you will simply see the object faster .. youre not going back in time

nazgul · 06-19-2003, 07:39 PM

Exactly you can't travel at the speed of light towards an object, that has no effect, it is traveling at the speed of light from one point, and returning to that same point....

Mr.Fiction · 06-19-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gary

But, im 28 years old on earth. each day is 24 hours, a year is 365 days, etc...

If i travel faster than speed of light to some distant planet and come back to earth. How will that effect time?

Stop asking serious questions. Your posts are supposed to be funny. That's your place on GFY.

slapass · 06-19-2003, 07:41 PM

time slows down when near massive objects so you could go near a large object for a while come back to earth and we would be older relative to you. Objects get more massive with speed so same deal if youwent very fast.

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nazgul
Traveling at the Speed of light doesn't send you back in time, it theoretical sends you to the future. A rough proof of this is in the has actually been tested.

Scientist took two clocks and set them at exactly the same time. The left one clock on the ground, and put the other in a plane. They then flew the plane around the world a few times. When they took the clock off the plan it was no longer in synch but was behind the clock that as on the ground.

The theory is that if you travel at the speed of light, you will actually "stands still" as everything around you ages. So when you stop traveling at the speed of light, you seem to have gone forward in time.

This speed of light theory doesn't have anything to do with traveling to the past.

Now that is just the theory you were talking about.

Read some of steven hawkings shit. That will really scramble your noodle. He talks about space and time being fabrics. Comparing them to a taught sheet that create a plane. Then have multipe instance of the same moment occuring on each of those planes. He talks about how black holes and the gravity of stars then create indentiations, or ripples in the plane, much like what would happen if you put a bowling ball in the center of a sheet that two people were holding on the ends. his theory is basically the gravity generated at those points is great enough to allow you to travel, to the alternate planes. By traveling to these alternate planes you can travel to diffrent places in time.

Something to that effect anyway. Been a long time since i have read this shit, but it is called

"The Universe in a Nut Shell"

Its a fun read

Hawkings is wrong and the test of the clock on the plane is flawed.
the accuracy of messuring millionths of a second in that test is unproven.

I misspoke when I said "back in time" I meant "light speed does not slow time"

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nazgul
Exactly you can't travel at the speed of light towards an object, that has no effect, it is traveling at the speed of light from one point, and returning to that same point....

irrelevant. the time you are gone from that point is the exact amount of time you were traveling.

Gary · 06-19-2003, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

Stop asking serious questions. Your posts are supposed to be funny. That's your place on GFY.

Probably best that way, im getting a headache.

thank you

nazgul · 06-19-2003, 07:43 PM

Right, nothing can slow time, but when you are traveling at the speed of light, time does not exist.

Do not try to bend the spoon that is impossible, only realize the truth....... There is no spoon

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by slapass
time slows down when near massive objects so you could go near a large object for a while come back to earth and we would be older relative to you. Objects get more massive with speed so same deal if youwent very fast.

I thought my watch lost time after meeting sleazydream in Montreal.

SureFire · 06-19-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I see you all SAYING no but I don't see anyone PROVING I'm wrong. shit, it should be easy. Albert Einstein is on your side.

Some may chose not to...

One this bb it is all about post #s, so let mods or others debate you.

quiet · 06-19-2003, 07:45 PM

the atomic clock experiments:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html

an explanation of time dilation:

http://members.tripod.com/wmhxbigguy/Theory/time.html

and the twin paradox:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html

good as any post to sign off on. cheers

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by quiet
the atomic clock experiments:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html

an explanation of time dilation:

http://members.tripod.com/wmhxbigguy/Theory/time.html

and the twin paradox:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html

good as any post to sign off on. cheers

these URLs "tell" a theory but don't bother to prove anything.

John3 · 06-19-2003, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks
I've always known Einstein was wrong about time travel but I never felt I had the time to properly debunk it.
So tonight, I'm eating Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" icecream and a simple answer to the problem presented itself

The theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time. Here is why its wrong:

Time has no relationship to people. Time passes regardless of what a person does.
if something happends in another galaxy and it takes a year to see it because the light is traveling from so far away, by the time we see it, its already a year old (standard stuff)
But if we travel at faster than the speed of light towards that galaxy, we will get closer to seeing the galaxy in realtime. we will NOT be turning back the clock.
The proof of this is our ability to travel faster than the speed of sound.
If a sound takes 10 seconds to reach our ear because the action creating it was so far away, we hear an action that happened 10 seconds ago. Not unlike seeing something from the other galaxy that happened already.
Now, if we travel at the speed of sound towards the action that made the sound, we DO hear the sound sooner but we do not travel back in time.
Swap speed of sound with speed of light and you see why Albert Einstein is wrong.

I concur.

nazgul · 06-19-2003, 07:49 PM

These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

since when did empirical mean theoretical??

seems like the proof is right there, or atleast it is evidence supporting the theory

Libertine · 06-19-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by michaelw
i actually agree with 12clicks this time

time does not slow down or speed up

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Look for the time dilation paragraph.

chodadog · 06-19-2003, 07:51 PM

I thought about this. Assume you're at point A, and you're looking at point B. If you travel from point A to point B, faster than the speed of light, and back to point A. You will be able to see yourself at point B. Dose this mean you've gone into the future? No. 'Cause afterall, that's not really you that you are looking at. That is merely the reflection of light that you have managed to overtake.

But hey, i'm no physicist. Just my 2 cents.

Mr.Fiction · 06-19-2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

these URLs "tell" a theory but don't bother to prove anything.

You're not proving your ice cream theory either. You're guessing that he is wrong.

Until we can travel a lot faster than currently possible, it can't really be totally proved or disproved, right?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nazgul
These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

since when did empirical mean theoretical??

seems like the proof is right there, or atleast it is evidence supporting the theory

there are forces that can affect time pieces that are meaningless to time itself.
at no time were these explored in the rush to prove Einstein right instead of trying to prove him wrong (which is the basis for all proofs)

SykkBoy · 06-19-2003, 07:55 PM

Am I the only one who'd love to see 12clicks all coked up and off his tree?

Comedy Gold, I tell ya

06-19-2003, 07:55 PM

going into the future should be ALOT easier than going in the past

the speed of light is a limit wich is somewhat "impossible" to reach. (from what I remember)
but with technology, we approach is every day

the faster we go, the more time passes slowly.
so if we go @ a speed close to the speed of light we will go in the future, although it will still take alot of "travel time"

finally, the experiment with the atomic clocks
when they put atomic clocks in a jet that went @ Mach3 (I think)
when they brought it back to earth, the clocks were a few milliseconds distorted.

going FASTER than the speed of light, now thats something to think about

Im not 100% sure of what I wrote here, but most of it is still fresh in my head

edit: lol nazgul, I hadent read your post, hehe

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chodadog
I thought about this. Assume you're at point A, and you're looking at point B. If you travel from point A to point B, faster than the speed of light, and back to point A. You will be able to see yourself at point B. Dose this mean you've gone into the future? No. 'Cause afterall, that's not really you that you are looking at. That is merely the reflection of light that you have managed to overtake.

But hey, i'm no physicist. Just my 2 cents.

right or wrong, thats good thinking

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

You're not proving your ice cream theory either. You're guessing that he is wrong.

Until we can travel a lot faster than currently possible, it can't really be totally proved or disproved, right?

not true, my "swap speed of sound for speed of light " theory is flawless.
speed of light is not a meaningful limit or gauge or point to achieve. what if we were blind?

chodadog · 06-19-2003, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

not true, my "swap speed of sound for speed of light " theory is flawless.
speed of light is not a meaningful limit or gauge or point to achieve. what if we were blind?

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bdjuf
going into the future should be ALOT easier than going in the past

the speed of light is a limit wich is somewhat "impossible" to reach. (from what I remember)
but with technology, we approach is every day

the faster we go, the more time passes slowly.
so if we go @ a speed close to the speed of light we will go in the future, although it will still take alot of "travel time"

Im not 100% sure of what I wrote here, but most of it is still fresh in my head

this is being said but not proven

06-19-2003, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 12clicks

this is being said but not proven

its a theory, thats the point of it...
still to be proven

true until proven wrong!

(and dont tell me false until proven true, with einsteins credibility, its always the other way around)

Gman.357 · 06-19-2003, 08:05 PM

Einstein theorized that NOTHING could go faster than the speed of light. So what the hell does he know about it anyway? Didn't he ever watch Star Trek?

12clicks · 06-19-2003, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chodadog

If a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

exactly.
time is more than just what we see.

06-19-2003, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gman.357
Einstein theorized that NOTHING could go faster than the speed of light. So what the hell does he know about it anyway? Didn't he ever watch Star Trek?

exactly,
but the faster you go, the more time passes slowly, thus throwing us in the future!!!

and if we were to go @ the speed of light, time stops
so you can go infinite years in the future instantly...
now THAT is cool :D

Buff · 06-19-2003, 08:06 PM

Human beings will never be able to "travel backwards through time" -- we know this to be a fact; how, you ask?

Simple, because if at any point in the future it became possible to travel back through time, someone would do it, so we would already always have known it was possible.

Now that's logic, biatches.

06-19-2003, 07:10 PM	#1
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,780	I debunked Albert Einstein while eating ice cream I've always known Einstein was wrong about time travel but I never felt I had the time to properly debunk it. So tonight, I'm eating Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" icecream and a simple answer to the problem presented itself The theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time. Here is why its wrong: Time has no relationship to people. Time passes regardless of what a person does. if something happends in another galaxy and it takes a year to see it because the light is traveling from so far away, by the time we see it, its already a year old (standard stuff) But if we travel at faster than the speed of light towards that galaxy, we will get closer to seeing the galaxy in realtime. we will NOT be turning back the clock. The proof of this is our ability to travel faster than the speed of sound. If a sound takes 10 seconds to reach our ear because the action creating it was so far away, we hear an action that happened 10 seconds ago. Not unlike seeing something from the other galaxy that happened already. Now, if we travel at the speed of sound towards the action that made the sound, we DO hear the sound sooner but we do not travel back in time. Swap speed of sound with speed of light and you see why Albert Einstein is wrong. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

06-19-2003, 07:18 PM	#5
Ironhorse Pixel Pusher Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 7,092	Don't quit your dayjob. __________________ [email protected]

06-19-2003, 07:19 PM	#6
uno RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC Area Posts: 18,450	It's all relative man. __________________ -uno icq: 111-914 CrazyBabe.com - porn art MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!

06-19-2003, 07:25 PM	#10
Gary Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Kimmykims couch Posts: 6,110	Ok, im not a very smart guy, i readily admit that. But, why would traveling faster than speed of light send you back in time? Diod einstein have some sort of reasoning behind this? __________________ Up to 35$ per join...!

06-19-2003, 07:25 PM	#11
J-Reel Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Boneprone's guest house Posts: 3,782	Oh Yeah? Get this baby up to 88 miles an hour an see what happens. __________________ Scheck out the new girls at www.hawtmoney.com ICQ 177-447-671

06-19-2003, 07:12 PM	#2
Luc Duboi So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,881

06-19-2003, 07:16 PM	#3
detoxed vip member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 17,798	you are a fucking genius. sound and light are SOOOO similiar!

06-19-2003, 07:20 PM	#7
Luc Duboi So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 1,881	He just "copy and paste" from somewhere.

06-19-2003, 07:22 PM	#9
Mr.Fiction Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Free Speech Land Posts: 9,484	Tell us more about the ice cream.

06-19-2003, 07:28 PM	#12
SilverTab Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: MTL Posts: 5,060	Well I dunno...now that it's posted on the internet, I guess it's true... __________________ mmm my sig was too big... no more cool animation but hey still! need php? ICQ: 94586959

06-19-2003, 07:29 PM	#14
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,780	I see you all SAYING no but I don't see anyone PROVING I'm wrong. shit, it should be easy. Albert Einstein is on your side. __________________ I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.

06-19-2003, 07:34 PM	#19
detoxed vip member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 17,798	thats ridiculous, i have a 12 inch dick, prove me wrong. it should be easy, i've been fucked by a few people here.

06-19-2003, 07:35 PM	#20
nazgul Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 227	Traveling at the Speed of light doesn't send you back in time, it theoretical sends you to the future. A rough proof of this is in the has actually been tested. Scientist took two clocks and set them at exactly the same time. The left one clock on the ground, and put the other in a plane. They then flew the plane around the world a few times. When they took the clock off the plan it was no longer in synch but was behind the clock that as on the ground. The theory is that if you travel at the speed of light, you will actually "stands still" as everything around you ages. So when you stop traveling at the speed of light, you seem to have gone forward in time. This speed of light theory doesn't have anything to do with traveling to the past. Now that is just the theory you were talking about. Read some of steven hawkings shit. That will really scramble your noodle. He talks about space and time being fabrics. Comparing them to a taught sheet that create a plane. Then have multipe instance of the same moment occuring on each of those planes. He talks about how black holes and the gravity of stars then create indentiations, or ripples in the plane, much like what would happen if you put a bowling ball in the center of a sheet that two people were holding on the ends. his theory is basically the gravity generated at those points is great enough to allow you to travel, to the alternate planes. By traveling to these alternate planes you can travel to diffrent places in time. Something to that effect anyway. Been a long time since i have read this shit, but it is called "The Universe in a Nut Shell" Its a fun read Last edited by nazgul; 06-19-2003 at 07:38 PM..

06-19-2003, 07:38 PM	#22
michaelw Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Calgary, Canada Posts: 1,342	i actually agree with 12clicks this time time does not slow down or speed up if you go faster than the speed of light towards and object, you will simply see the object faster .. youre not going back in time __________________ <b><a href="http://www.hotlinkprotector.com"><font color="yellow">Hotlink Protector</font></a> - Protect all your file types from hotlinking the professional way. <br> See a demo <a href="http://www.hotlinkprotector.com/demo.html"><font color="yellow">here</font></a>, and testimonials <a href="http://www.hotlinkprotector.com/testimonials.html"><font color="yellow">here</font></a><br>ICQ: 146423631

06-19-2003, 07:39 PM	#23
nazgul Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 227	Exactly you can't travel at the speed of light towards an object, that has no effect, it is traveling at the speed of light from one point, and returning to that same point....

06-19-2003, 07:41 PM	#25
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,627	time slows down when near massive objects so you could go near a large object for a while come back to earth and we would be older relative to you. Objects get more massive with speed so same deal if youwent very fast.

06-19-2003, 07:43 PM	#29
nazgul Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 227	Right, nothing can slow time, but when you are traveling at the speed of light, time does not exist. Do not try to bend the spoon that is impossible, only realize the truth....... There is no spoon

06-19-2003, 07:45 PM	#32
quiet we'll miss you our friend. RIP Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Fernie, BC Posts: 25,115	the atomic clock experiments: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html an explanation of time dilation: http://members.tripod.com/wmhxbigguy/Theory/time.html and the twin paradox: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...n_paradox.html good as any post to sign off on. cheers

06-19-2003, 07:49 PM	#35
nazgul Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 227	These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks." since when did empirical mean theoretical?? seems like the proof is right there, or atleast it is evidence supporting the theory

06-19-2003, 07:51 PM	#37
chodadog Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 9,736	I thought about this. Assume you're at point A, and you're looking at point B. If you travel from point A to point B, faster than the speed of light, and back to point A. You will be able to see yourself at point B. Dose this mean you've gone into the future? No. 'Cause afterall, that's not really you that you are looking at. That is merely the reflection of light that you have managed to overtake. But hey, i'm no physicist. Just my 2 cents. __________________ 26 + 6 = 1

06-19-2003, 07:55 PM	#40
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	Am I the only one who'd love to see 12clicks all coked up and off his tree? Comedy Gold, I tell ya __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

06-19-2003, 07:55 PM	#41
buddyjuf Guest Posts: n/a	going into the future should be ALOT easier than going in the past the speed of light is a limit wich is somewhat "impossible" to reach. (from what I remember) but with technology, we approach is every day the faster we go, the more time passes slowly. so if we go @ a speed close to the speed of light we will go in the future, although it will still take alot of "travel time" finally, the experiment with the atomic clocks when they put atomic clocks in a jet that went @ Mach3 (I think) when they brought it back to earth, the clocks were a few milliseconds distorted. going FASTER than the speed of light, now thats something to think about Im not 100% sure of what I wrote here, but most of it is still fresh in my head edit: lol nazgul, I hadent read your post, hehe Last edited by buddyjuf; 06-19-2003 at 08:03 PM..

06-19-2003, 08:05 PM	#47
Gman.357 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,796	Einstein theorized that NOTHING could go faster than the speed of light. So what the hell does he know about it anyway? Didn't he ever watch Star Trek? __________________ Ouch.

06-19-2003, 08:06 PM	#50
Buff GFY Assassin Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,993	Human beings will never be able to "travel backwards through time" -- we know this to be a fact; how, you ask? Simple, because if at any point in the future it became possible to travel back through time, someone would do it, so we would already always have known it was possible. Now that's logic, biatches.