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

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

NOT A REPLY UNTIL THEN! :winkwink:

edit: why the fuck did I quote 12clicks on this one :1orglaugh

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.

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

very good :thumbsup

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.

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.

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

Is time standing still everywhere but Earth? o.O

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).

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...

300

After thinking about to, a bit I really do think it is a possible that black holes are formed by particles of matter which have exceeded the speed of light.......


It would explain the mass of blacks holes, as we all know e = mc^2 which means as opjects approach the speed of light, their mass becomes infinelty large.

You can derive this from m = e/c^2 where e is a contant.

This would also explain why light can not escape a black hole. The gravity created is greate enough to pull the light in. That much gravity needs to be created by an object traveling greater than the speed of light....

Just my thought anyway


Any physics heads got any thoughts??

A black hole is just any object that is so massive that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light.

e is not really constant in that equation because the m is a symbol for "relativistic mass" which is a function of the velocity itself. As velocity increases so does mass so therefore e itself changes too.

12clicks,

Do you have a better argument than "this is not true" ? I at least studied this stuff in numbers. Alot of this stuff is proven. Since I did not major in physics, i can't tell you all the details about it. But your approach to the subject is totally wrong. You can't think so simple if you're gonna debunk someones theory that heavily relies on math and numbers. Einstein was not a philosopher, he was a scientist. Simple thoughts doesn't mean anything unless you can show a stable equation.

Are you familiar with the "theory of everything"? Its already 75% complete. Soon they will be able to explain the interaction of all forces in harmony.

How familiar are you with quatum physics? Do you have any idea how complicated it is right now? Nobody can grasp this stuff. Its all in numbers and equations. They say there is 20-something dimensions, while we can sense only 3. Do you think it is even possible to picture these things in your head?

A 2D picture is painted on a surface of a 3D object. We also live in a 3D world on the surface of a 4D universe, which is expanding. The expansion has been proven with the observation of galaxies and their speeds. Its like an inflating baloon. If you keep going in one direction, you will eventually go around the 4D object and come to where you have started. Light also goes around this 4D object, which actually is not a straight line. If you draw straight line on a baloon, it will be an arc in the 3D view. Its the same thing here. A straight line in a 3D world is actually an arc in 4D, so its not the shortest path. If you have the chance to go inside the ballon and travel through it, you would take a shortcut.
Also the shape of the universe is bent by gravitational forces, which also changes the route of light, and makes the path longer.

You also seem like you don't know much about the dual properties of light and why it has a mass.

I don't have the time or the teaching skills to explain it all right now, but I can see for a fact that your approach is wrong and too simple to disprove anything.

if you have time someday, pelase teach me! :thumbsup

I have not studied this stuff at all, and at least you are bringing examples from current scientific studies. The only thing I see 12clicks saying (other than bringing a good argument) is prove it, yet he cannot either. I think the whole conversation is mute unless both sides can prove it :)

What do you want proved? There have been a few dozen statements made.

There are hundreds of examples which confirm the relativity of time. Special Relativity was first formulated in 1905. Given the acceleration of technology one hundred years for a theory that is at the cornerstone of modern physics is in pretty good shape.

A few experiments were mentioned in this thread. One was the experiment where a clock is placed on a plane and another stays on the ground and the clocks expire at different rates depending on altitude because of the slightly weaker gravitational attraction. (general relativity). There have actually been many variations on this experiment over the years. 12 clicks (maybe jokingly) pointed out that the experiment is flawed because clocks aren't accurate to within a millionth of a second. In fact, the "clocks" used were "atomic clocks" which are accurate to BETTER THAN 1 millionth of a second because they measure the frequency of a spectral line of Cesium. Answers in nanoseconds.

Most physicists aren't just running around performing experiments with simple errors such as the degree of error in their measurements. Not only is this not a likely error from an individual but an experiment that will be published is first scrutinized and subject to peer review and then the entire scientific community.

you show them colin :thumbsup

I did not read the entire thread but:

1.) Moving faster than light will not make you go backwards or forwards in time, it will make your proccesses move backwards. For example if you accelerate to a faster than light velocity it will simply move backwards.

2.) Einstein proved that it is impossible to accelerate something to faster than light. So you cannot prove him WRONG cause he said it's impossible to move faster than light in the first place.

Lane, you hop in here in page what? 4? 5? and declare that such and such is fact but offer no proof and offer no theory. You just make a couple of meaningless *statements* and CLAIM they are facts proving my theories wrong.
I trotted out theories, you parrot what someone told you and can not show us that what you parrot is fact.

If you have a theory, present it, if not, please don't pretend you understand any of it by trotting out things you've heard in class but can't explain.:thumbsup

6 pages in and you have a statement to make without reading the thread?
get lost, your points have been covered.:321GFY

I am only telling you what is already proven. You would be right if I was making these up. You are the only one here who is supposed to bring a complete proof if you want others to accept your arguments.

I know you are probably having fun by not giving up argueing against all of this, and finding something wrong or incomplete in everyones post to point out, which makes you look like that you have proven them wrong. You sure as hell know you can't debate this with a physics proffessor and prove your arguments to him/her.
You also sure as hell know you are wrong, thats why you come to a webmaster board to talk about it instead of calling a university, because noone here can completely disprove what you say, at least thats what you think.
You are quite a character 12clicks :winkwink:

"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

Albert Einstein

I still have a problem with gravity, don't get me started on time.

12 Clicks,

You deserve a Nobel Prize for this.

In literature. ;-)

you gurus, please answer me
is Lensman check he owes me RELATIVE term or not according to Einstein theory?

I'd like to quote the true guru on that but the messages are conflicting:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."
Albert Einstein

"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers" - Albert Einstein

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein

Not true, your post about slowing down time for particles is something I asked you to post a link about.
so far, no link. I say that what you call fact is just a half truth.
As far as debating with a professor, find me a board full of professors.

how can a man who makes this statement:
"The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." -Albert Einstein
always be considered right?

simple thing

I'm sorry, this thread title was too funny not to bump.

problem number 1 - you cant travel faster than the speed of light. I dont think Einstein ever suggested you could since this very fact represents the foundation of his work.

i forgot about this jewel :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

thanks for the bump

12clicks you are one stupid mofo :thumbsup

there is no reason something can't travel faster than the speed of light.
the speed of light is just a measure of how fast light travels. there's no proof that something other than light couldn't go faster than light.
Thats like saying you can't run faster than a dog.

and I debunked Charles Darwin by reading GFY...

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

well sir... we dont know what they lerned ya in Physics For Rednecks and how yer dog figures into things... but nothing travels faster than the speed of light. if you knew anything about Einstein and his work (which you are supposedly debunking in your own uneducated, yet somehow charming way), you would know that.

dude, certain members of GFY could be considered the missing link.
I think this *proves* Darwin, not debunks him.

I threw the dog in so you might understand.
There is *no* proof that nothing travels faster than light. you can pretend otherwise but then you'd have a lot in common with the flat earth society.

"One of the reasons that prevent any object with a mass going at or faster than the speed of light is that the mass is not constant - it increases with velocity and it goes to infinity at the speed of light. So that eventually you need infinite amounts of energy to accelerate infinite mass past the speed of light mark!"

pleasurepays.
this might be over your head but here you go:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic.../tachyons.html

it's clearly over your head... since that is nothing more than a theory of something that has not been proven to exist. why not just quote the Old Testament to support your arguments?