07 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeTime is a dimension of the universe and thus is a medium that we travel through. Time is not dependant on mass and and energy, the direction mass and energy travels is dependent on mass and energy. One does not leave cause and effect as i explicitly said you would not avoid or reverse aging by traveling in the opposite direction through time.
If mass and energy have direction, and time is dependent on the activity of mass and energy, then how can it be said time is not following that direction?
I don't see how you could avoid being affected by a reversal of cause and effect. There are some very real problems with time travel from a practical standpoint. Like, how does one leave the stream o s illustrate how difficult it is finding precisely the right words for talking about time.
Your problem is equating cause and effect with time but they are not the same thing. Cause and effect is the phenomena that allows the human mind to percieve ones travel through time.
Heres an example. You are traveling in the opposite direction through time but you throw a ball in the air and hit it with a baseball bat... The chain of cause and effect will be exactly the same as if you were to be travelling normally through time.
A mass travells positively through time because its energy and mass is positive, if you could gather enough negative energy into one space to create a large enough warp to travel through then you could travel large distances in a very short time without exceeding the speed of light and could travel actually leave your destination and return before you left. There have been experiments that observe the effects of negative energy which was once thought not to exist.
07 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeDo you think it is possible for some inches to be longer than others? Maybe length is variable too. But how would you know? The only way to measure time or length is with itself. Time and length are relative, but not variable.
In regard to the formation and development of the universe, if we compare how fast things were happening at various points in the past to where we are now, it's possible for the universe to be much younger than it appears to be. If we assume time has always moved at the same rate it appears to be moving (all clocks along the way moving at the same constan constant... Einstein has already proven this, and as far as I know it hasn't been disproven.
What RJ wants is for it to be possible to have 5 years go by in 1 year. But does that even make sense? Maybe you are actually 6000 years old its just that last year time went extra fast and did 200 years per month.
07 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232I'm saying cause and effect move in one direction. That's not equating it with time.
Time is a dimension of the universe and thus is a medium that we travel through. Time is not dependant on mass and and energy, the direction mass and energy travels is dependent on mass and energy. One does not leave cause and effect as i explicitly said you would not avoid or reverse aging by traveling in the opposite direction through time.
Your prob ...[text shortened]... een experiments that observe the effects of negative energy which was once thought not to exist.
When I say cause and effect move in one direction, it's the same as saying cause comes before effect... or the cause causes the effect. That eight ball you shot into a corner pocket didn't happen until you caused it to happen. You caused the cue ball to hit the eight ball, and that caused the eight ball to go into a corner pocket. The effect of one cause becomes the cause of the next effect and so on. And then to make matters more complicated, as a chain of causes and effects spread out we can see multiple causes going into making one effect, or a cause having multiple effects, and so on. It's not a simple chain of events, and over time it can become more and more complicated. What this means is you are attempting to go back in time against an enormously strong current of naturally progressing events.
If gathering up enough negative energy into one space to create a warp to travel through is even possible, have you stopped to think what effect that might have on you personally? There is a theory that says (predicts) if you did manage to start traveling back in time, you wouldn't get very far. All the forces that hold you together would kick into reverse, and you would essentially dissolve into the space around you. I would want to make sure any theory I'm relying on is correct before leaving... because no amount of protective clothing or other safe gaurds can help me if I'm wrong.
07 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadHoo boy... you guys really know how to keep an old fart busy.
Do you think it is possible for some inches to be longer than others? Maybe length is variable too. But how would you know? The only way to measure time or length is with itself. Time and length are relative, but not variable.
What RJ wants is for it to be possible to have 5 years go by in 1 year. But does that even make sense? Maybe you are actually 6000 years old its just that last year time went extra fast and did 200 years per month.
I didn't say time varies. I said time is a variable and not a constant. That means time is relative. So the question should be "relative to what?" It doesn't mean the clock on your wall will speed up or slow down for no apparent reason, so relax.
RJ wants to age 5 years in only one year? Why? Sometimes when I'm reading messages here I can hear myself thinking "Oh, Kill me now... so I don't have to suffer through any more of this!" Maybe RJ has the same problem, and wants to end his suffering sooner rather than later.
07 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThen there is no disagreement between you and I, but clearly we disagree with RJ, but thats normal.
I didn't say time varies. I said time is a variable and not a constant. That means time is relative. So the question should be "relative to what?" It doesn't mean the clock on your wall will speed up or slow down for no apparent reason, so relax.
RJ wants to age 5 years in only one year? Why?
Hes a young earth creationist and he needs a way to reconcile the fact that the universe is big with his religious beliefs. I gave three possible options with regards to light and the size of the universe, and RJ doesn't like any of them, so he is trying to attack it with nonsense.
07 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI didn't say that. I think the idea is that by Earth's clock only about 6000 years of time has gone by. Perhaps a clock somewhere else may account for more time going by relative to Earth's time. That may be why today man thinks starlight must have taken millions or billions of years to get to Earth from a particular location, since the speed of the stretching of space is also not taken into account.
Then there is no disagreement between you and I, but clearly we disagree with RJ, but thats normal.
[b]RJ wants to age 5 years in only one year? Why?
Hes a young earth creationist and he needs a way to reconcile the fact that the universe is big with his religious beliefs. I gave three possible options with regards to light and the size of the universe, and RJ doesn't like any of them, so he is trying to attack it with nonsense.[/b]
The Instructor
07 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you are OK with the universe being 13.7 billion years so long as earth is only 6000 years old?
I didn't say that. I think the idea is that by Earth's clock only about 6000 years of time has gone by. Perhaps a clock somewhere else may account for more time going by relative to Earth's time. That may be why today man thinks starlight must have taken millions or billions of years to get to Earth from a particular location, since the speed of the stretching of space is also not taken into account.
The Instructor
07 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeHow does relativity "apply" to the age of the universe? What is a year? It is a full orbit of the earth around the sun. So when we estimate the universe to be around 14 billion years old then we mean a full orbit of the earth around the sun 14 billion times would happen since the beginning of the universe if our solar system were to exist since the beginning.
So you are OK with relativity so long as it doesn't apply to the age of the universe?
Time is relative, age is not... If you were to go out into space and travel through time faster than me it would not make me age less by the time you returned.
You accuse some of arrogance based on the fact that you are right but it is clear to me that you have less of a grasp on the concept than you think... Which is arrogance.
08 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I did not say that either. I said it would depend on the location of the clock and the speed of the stretching of space. As the theory goes, with the Earth in a special place in the center of the universe and the space being dented by the matter of the earth first and later with the matter of the Sun, moon, and stars and the stretching of space at whatever speed, then the time observed from the Earth is only a little over 6000 years. The time observed from some other location may be different because of the theory of relativity. But the universe is not billions of years old, if the Earth clock is always used.
So you are OK with the universe being 13.7 billion years so long as earth is only 6000 years old?
The Instructor
08 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232I believe you are referring to the message where I responded to someone else of accusing young earth creationists of arrogance. All I said was that I know high minded arrogance when I see it... in other words, I don't need anyone telling me who I should regard as being arrogant. If singling out a particular group of people as being arrogant because you disagree with them is NOT arrogance, then what is it?
How does relativity "apply" to the age of the universe? What is a year? It is a full orbit of the earth around the sun. So when we estimate the universe to be around 14 billion years old then we mean a full orbit of the earth around the sun 14 billion times would happen since the beginning of the universe if our solar system were to exist since the beginni ...[text shortened]... clear to me that you have less of a grasp on the concept than you think... Which is arrogance.
How does relativity "not" apply to the age of the universe? We are observers on one point of the timeline. An observer anywhere along that line would notice nothing unusual about the passage of time, just as we do not notice anything unusual about the passage of time where we are. So from that can we conclude that the passage of time along the timeline is and always has been a constant? I don't think so.
Imagine watching the same movie from 3 or 4 different screens. You are using 3 or 4 different disks of the same movie, but running them at different speeds. Now imagine the characters in the story being real and able to perceive what is happening around them, but only from the perspective of their own particular transmitted movie. You, as the observer of all movies running at the same time, will be the only one who notices any difference in the passage time as it occurs on those screens. The characters in each of those 3 or 4 identical movies are only perceiving a passage of time in their own time frame.
It's natural for any of the people in those movies (running at various speeds) to assume the rate of time for past present and future events is always the same. And it's natural for us to assume the rate of time at any point in the past, compared to now, would be the same as it is now.
Instead of 3 or 4 identical movies, imagine the same movie starting off very fast, then gradually slowing down to what we, the observer, perceive as a normal passage of time. The characters in the story however will not notice any difference in the passage of time.
08 Jun 13
2 edits
Near the end of that movie, those people who have their own conscious awareness begin wondering how long this movie has been running. Based on their calculations, the movie they are a part of has run for about 2 hours. However, you as the observer of this movie know better. Because from your vantage point you can see that isn't true. Your clock is a "true" clock, theirs started fast and gradually slowed down... but they don't know that.
Einstein developed the idea of an outside (or imaginary) observer to explore what "relative to an observer" would mean. No one needs to be an "Einstein" to understand how this works. You can do it too... almost anyone can.
08 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232Age less? That is the opposite of what happens with relativistic velocity, the one going faster ages less, so if I go out in a spaceship at .999c and go out 100 light years and come back, a round trip of 200 light years, I also go 200 years into the Earth's future.
How does relativity "apply" to the age of the universe? What is a year? It is a full orbit of the earth around the sun. So when we estimate the universe to be around 14 billion years old then we mean a full orbit of the earth around the sun 14 billion times would happen since the beginning of the universe if our solar system were to exist since the beginni ...[text shortened]... clear to me that you have less of a grasp on the concept than you think... Which is arrogance.
That is not theory btw.
There are many aspects of science that HAS to take that into account. For instance, even though satellites are not traveling at relativistic velocities (close to the speed of light) for some purposes relativity HAS to be taken into account, for instance, GPS satellites have the relativistic equations on board the computers up there and also in every GPS radio on earth, because if they didn't, the entire GPS system would be worthless, accurate to within a couple of miles, useless for navigation. That is because of two effects: 1, going fast (velocity) and 2,being in a different strength gravity field. The first because a satellite is travelling 18,000 odd miles per hour and the second because as it goes up and down in altitude, it encounters a stronger and weaker gravitational field and that also changes the flow of time on that satellite vs earth time. Atomic clocks are now so accurate they can tell just by reading which one goes faster or slower by having one clock 1 foot higher than the other, because there is a different strength gravity field, minutely different but different nonetheless. The deeper into a gravity field, the slower time flows so as a rocket goes out into space, say on the way to the moon, there is a change in how a very accurate clock would tick off time vs the same clock on earth and also by how fast you go.
Also, as you go faster, you gain mass, which is why you can't just take a rocket, even with an infinite amount of fuel, and go exactly at the speed of light. A bit less perhaps, but not exactly at c. The closer you get to c, the more mass you pick up. That is why c is the speed limit.
You can get theoretically extremely close to c but not really get there, a light beam will ALWAYS out race a rocket.
The gravity thing means if you were to get sucked into a black hole, the deeper the gravity well, the slower time flows there and in the center of a black hole, time gets REALLY stretched out and conversely, as you get away from gravity fields, time speeds up.
08 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseEinstein said it would take an infinite amount of energy to get a rocket to accelerate to the speed of light. And when it finally got up to that speed, the rocket would then have an infinite amount of mass. What I'd like to know is, wouldn't it also take an infinite amount of time for that to happen?
Age less? That is the opposite of what happens with relativistic velocity, the one going faster ages less, so if I go out in a spaceship at .999c and go out 100 light years and come back, a round trip of 200 light years, I also go 200 years into the Earth's future.
That is not theory btw.
There are many aspects of science that HAS to take that into a ...[text shortened]... ets REALLY stretched out and conversely, as you get away from gravity fields, time speeds up.
It was Einsteins way of saying it would be an impossible thing to do. He also said if anything exceeded the speed of light it would go back in time. I don't believe he was implying time travel as a possibility, I think it was just his way of saying he believed that was impossible as well.
Before anyone starts yelling at me, I just want to say that it was Einstein who said that... not me. But I do think his point is well taken. At the speed of light time reaches zero. This may have something to do with why light will always appear to move at the same constant speed relative to any observer. Multiple observers can be moving in different directions, and the same beam of light will appear to be moving at that one constant speed for all observers. I don't know how he figured that out, but apparently it's true.
But what if we imagine light is the 'observer'? Does it see everything it passes moving at the speed of light? Maybe not. Light might not be able to 'see' anything if it exists in zero time, not even as an imaginary observer.