einstein never said anything about going back in time.

if we time it from earth
not if we time it from the ray of light

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

What is Ben & Jerry's putting in the ice cream these days?

B

If you suck 12 clicks cock at the speed of light... it will be like going back to the past since you'll finish 5 minutes earlier! :thumbsup

You say that almost as if he's not coked up and off his tree right this moment? Bwahahaha.

That was such a good story. I wish they would have lined up a few more believable facts. it would have been fun

1. If you move away from the object with the speed of light, and look with the telescope on what is going on with the object that you are leaving, you will see the still frame as the light from the object will be traveling with your speed. So the image will be frozen.


2. If you stop immediatly, you will be able to see what is going on at the object that you left, with normal speed from the point of time that you left the object.


3. read number 2 again


4. Still watching the object that you left you start going back with the speed of light ...
the events that you will see in the telescope will happen faster since you are going with the speed of light against the "video" that is fed to you at the speed of light. (I doubt you would notice it... :)

5.read 4 againg couple of times, its kinda confusing


6. at the time of your arivall you will catch up with the events that happended during #1 and #4

therefore you will not see time delay/shift

how about bringing something to the table.

I dont quite catch #2 and #4
although #1 is obvious :thumbsup

The shortest distance between two points is a wrinkle bringing the two closer together.
Madeleine Le'Engle

I mentioned it earlier... you are not even debating about Einstein theories but making observation on how the eye perceive speed...


btw... what do you think about Eisntein saying that object actually get smaller when travelling at the speed of light?!

let me get some icecream myself :1orglaugh

not true.
If I'm standing on the sun and you are a light particle and I tell you to call me when you reach earth, you'll call me in 8 minutes.

Add time, and you have a 4th dimension. Hooray.
After that, realize that the limitations of your mind, imagination and perception do not necessarily reflect the limitations of reality. Think of it this way: if there were a 2d creature on the surface of a sphere, that creature would perceive his "universe" as infinite, and would furthermore be unable to imagine anything beyond the 2nd dimension using only observations from 2 dimensions.
However, that doesn't mean there aren't more dimensions - we humans only need to look at that pitiful creature, and we will instantly see that his world is in fact 3d and probably laugh our asses off at his stupidity.

Now, who's watching us? :glugglug

:helpme

lame-o

just follow the steps... :)

if you stand still
he will call in 8 minutes
if your jogging, he will call in 7.99999999998 minutes
if your sprinting, he will call in 7.999995 minutes
and if your in a space shuttle going @ the speed of light, he will call you right away

:thumbsup

No, that is exactly my argument. how we *see* things happen has no relevance to time.

Haven't thought about it, don't believe it aqt first blush.

If I am traveling at the speed of light excatly. In my hand I hold a ball. I then throw the ball as hard as I can, would that ball then be going faster than the speed of light?

Ehm... I believe #1 is flawed. Since you are travelling at the same speed as the light particles, they will not "catch up" with you, and thus will not enter your telescope and your eyes. So, you would need to travel at almost the light speed to achieve a "video", which would be near still, and which would be very weak since your light feed will be very small.
Also, in 4 the "video" would be twice as bright as normal :winkwink:

are you in a vaccum?

really cool :thumbsup
and the answer should be yes

I dont know. I just know if I can throw a ball at 70mph and I happen to be in a car doing 70 as well. The ball is already traveling at 70mph before I proceed to throw it. Thus when I throw it the ball would be at 140 correct?

I think so yes, if we discard the resistance of air

fuck wat an idiot,
u cannot travel the speed of light,
gravity increases to the point that it slows u down,

why do u think they are testing out warping?

if you clocked it with a radar I bet it would still only clock 70mph. Weird.... :)

only if you can throw a ball 70 mph but even then, it will rapidly decrease in speed. you continue to travel at the speed of light, the ball has left your hand and inediately slows.

in a vacuum, there is no gravity
whos the idiot now? :thumbsup

ahh, not true

Ok so for a brief period before it slows down (air blah blah) it would be traveling at a faster speed than myself.

So if we are doing this at the speed of light, and the ball leaves my hand faster than the speed of light.
Would it just vanish from vision to reappear in my hand. Would it.. umm fuck think I just gave myself a brain hemorage.

u?
but nice try

of course its true!
play golf in space, the golf ball will go infinately until it sees an obstacle! no?

u cannot travel the speed of light,
gravity increases as u get closer to it.

ok, lets think about it in terms of taking the pictures with the digital (or whatever) camera

in #1 you will be taking a pictures of the same image that is traveling with you with the same speed. so it will be a still frame (frozen)

on the way back (#4) your camera will take pictures that are greater time apart since you are going against the light that is fed to you.

In #1, even though the camera or your eye for that matter will not pick up the light that is traveling with you (it will be black), only because these devices rely on light as the main source of image. What if you use other devices that can catch the light particles that are traveling with you in step #1) so you can get a clear image, it would be still frozen and in step #4 faster the normal.

yo fool there is gravity is space just low forms of it.

I happened to pick up the may issue of scientific american to read on a flight to chicago, the main article was about parallel universes, multiverses, & some REALLY HEAVY shit...I had to take a nap after reading this shit, it was so over my fucking head.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?col...A5809EC5880000

Take some time to read through all 9 pages, you'll feel pretty insignificant & very dumb :)

That would not be gravity, that would be lack of friction. With no friction there is nothing to slow it down. If the golf ball got to close to a large object its gravity would pull it.

I don't think this proves the sound/light relationship right or wrong, but one time I had the oppurtunity to sit down at Outback with the editor of a book by Richard Gott (who proposed string theory around 1985)...called 'Time Travel in Einstein's Universe .'

He explained time not as your picturing it, but as an additional dimension that we are passing through. We live in a 3 dimensional world, but pass through a 4th dimension (time.)

He gave an example of a stick figure on a peice of paper that lives in a 2 dimensional world, x and y, but doesn't recognize a 3rd dimension that also exists, z. Let's say that paper had the curvature of the earth...and the stick figure ran in on direction on that paper for a long, long time, around the paper...eventually he would appear at the same place he started. He would be clueless as to how he travelled straight in on direction and ended up at his starting place, because he couldn't comprehend the 3rd dimension existed. Supposedly, this is similar to how time interacts with us.

I don't know if this helps prove the Ice Cream theory right or wrong, but had to put in my :2 cents: as I put this Cherry Garcia away...

:winkwink:

#1, dont call me an idiot and a fool for having a different opinion than you on a tough subject

#2, if so, then how can the light go @ the speed of light?
you would tell me that light isint affected by gravity? then how come a black hole will bend the light so much that it wont make it to the other side?

String theory has nothing to do with time

this is just a way of describing why we can't grasp his theory of the 4th denention called time. it does not prove time as a 4th demention. :)
not to be argumentative

you're right light particles have weight and are affected by gravity

the mass of the black holes is so great that light cant escape its gravitational forces...

i didnt call u an idiot i called u a fool, idiot.
:1orglaugh

#1 and its not a diff opinion i dont care u r trying to bash mine with false facts,

#2 gravity only bends light now slows it down

exactly. therefore proving that particles CAN go @ the speed of light, with or without gravity..

remember, gravity doesnt slow down objects traveling horizontaly, it only slows down objects going against gravity
so in this case, its friction that would slow an object down, not gravity

relax dude

Right, but really, it's all related. I honestly just stated that to make it sound cool that I got to hang out with these guys.

:winkwink:

#1 Im not trying to bash you, Im just giving my arguments
#2 if gravity doesnt slow down light, why would it slow down other particles? as you mentionned previousely?

i am only having fun,
this is gfy dont take me to seriously on here.
:glugglug

I know I dont :thumbsup
its just hard to imagine somebodies reaction behind what he types :winkwink:

how can light = a form of energy, alter time, which has nothing to do with energy.

maybe it can alter your perception of time.. but not time itself