posted July 31, 2005 03:24 AM         

similarly if we keep the velocity of light to its original value (300000000 kms per second)and if we could do things (like throwing a ball etc) .. at say 15000000 kms per second (half the speed of light).. then we would obtain the same result as described above ..

so that means that it is only because light travels at such a fast speed ie.. 300000000 kilometres per second that we consider it infinite and are able to trust each other otherwise..(ie when one event happens somewhere at 12 noon .. light travels the other place instantaneously to tell the other person that it has happened.....(ofcourse there certainly is a time lag... and we should consider it .. it is just that we do not choose to consider it))

comments...?

posted July 31, 2005 08:36 AM         

But, when you consider actual light, you have to take into accoutn relativity. The reason is because everything depends on where you are. If you threw close to the speed of light, and they were moving towards you close to the speed of light, then would'nt they catch it before they saw you send it? For example, to use your analogy, you throw the ball at 1.5 k/h while they move towards you at 1.5 k/h, therefore the overall speed is 3 k/h that the ball is moving relative to them, but the speed of light is only 2, so it's going faster, and hence they're receiving it before they saw you throw it. The reason this doesn't work is because the closer you get to the speed of light, the more time slows down. You do not add 1.5 to 1.5 but 1.5 plus the relative version of the other 1.5 which will end up being less than .5 - the formulas force the values below the speed of light. To be more specific, the time as seen by the thrower runs at a different speed to the person moving towards them close to the speed of light. This is relativity.

As for the second situation, yes, this happens with sound often - you see lightening before the thunder because it travels faster. If you were to run faster than the speed of light, then you do move into the past. Have you heard of the Grandfather paradox? Say you travel out into space for ten years faster than the speed of light. You come back to Earth in the past (before light was sent at that time - ie on Earth the time travels slower, but going faster forces time to flow into the negative). So anyway, you travel into the past, replace your mum's husband and have a baby - which is you and your son. Hang on, I think I've missed the point of the paradox. You meet your Grandma and have a child which is your father in the future, which means you are your own grandfather. Yeah, I think that's it. So anyhow, can't really happen. Information can travel faster than light, but not matter. I think every now and then they say something travels faster, but I've never seen anyone disprove Einstein's formulas.

Anyhow, thanks for allowing me to rant off about physics. Haven't done that in a while

Dean.

posted August 01, 2005 09:10 AM         

so that all implies that if i travel faster than light .. i will be able to go at the "back of light" (relative to the person who is a normal earth-being)....but can you please explain the tangible aspects as well..
i mean this is the part that i always have failed to understand.... : what i m saying is this:
Consider the lightening.. we hear it later than it actually happened .. but.. according to Einstien (and others).. the same does not happen with light.. ie.. though there is a possibility that we can almost quite easily get at the "back of sound-waves" travelling in space..... (by outruning them i mean .. and hearing the sounds again...(by the way is that possible???....please tell that as well... i mean the speed of sound is quite low ..))..the same does not ..as you say (and so did the other scientists) that if we travel faster than light .. why do we start feeling the past tangibly as well... why not only in vision?????..
thats my question.. and i m sure that you must have sometime thought about it as well.. so sesame i want you to be a nice teacher and explain me.... and if you can't do that do atleast show some way ..(on which you tried to tread i mean)... or some way via which i can "reach there"..

posted August 01, 2005 02:23 PM         

Secondly, the formula you want is time_observer = time_ship/square_root(1 - (v squared/c squared)) where v = speed of space ship, and c = speed of light. Therefore, at 90 percent of the speed of light, v^2/c^2 = 90^2/100^2 = .81, therefore time_observer = time_ship/square_root(1-.81) = time_ship X 2.29. So the observer at stationary (ie earth) = 2.29 times the time on the ship, so the ships time is slower. The closer you are to light, the more this figure blows out. If you're faster than light...

to = ts/square_root(1-1.1^2/1^2) = what is called an imaginary number - the square root of a negative number is impossible, and yet we use it in electronics, but they're called imaginary.

Thridly, one way (I think the only way?) to travel faster than light is via astral travelling. You are energy, so the limitation above won't slow you down. Light is constant, but I think you're energy (which is a form of light) could be faster? Light actually does change speed according to heat. Mirages are reflections of the sky due to the light moving faster through the hot air of the ground, so I believe you could travel faster than what we call light in a vacuum (at a relative temperature). So, if you can speed up you're astral self, then have fun in the past Now, I wonder if slowing it is needed to move into the future?

posted August 02, 2005 12:12 AM         

is that so.. do answer please!
Well sesame as you can well understand i did not read the complete chapters and but am only intuitively jumping onto conclusions (since i just looked at some diagrams etc..in the further chapters i did not study)..
You might think that thats my fault.. well then i accept it is.. but can you answer me for now...please.

posted August 04, 2005 06:15 AM         

Not too sure about "lorentz transformations", is that to do with chaos? I think there's lorenz attractors or something? I love mesons - bound particles that self anihilate in microseconds, and yes, relativity slows down there life enough so they may travel to Earth before they anihlate. If there wasn't relativity, they would disappear in the ozone someowhere. As for maths, yes, the relativity equations explain mass increasing, length contracting, and time dilating relative to the speed of light. What I was alluding to about faster than light travel is more to do with the trend - as your speed approaches the speed of light. See, if v = c in the formula, you get an impossible number - something divied by zero. In this situation, the time would be infintely slow, or zero - time stands still. As you go faster (ignoring imaginary numbers) in theory time will become negative, and hence go backwards. I was just trying to make you aware of why it's impossible for matter anyway, because also of e = mc squared. The energy required to move the mass at the speed of light is infinite. Also, the mass wouldn't exist in time as it wouldn't exist (well, it would've stopped), hence the forth dimension = 0. My point is that the formulas have been tried and tested, and yes, there is more to life than maths, but maths is the universal language that explains life. Well, never quite, but that's the theory.

So, in summary, when we travel at slow speeds, time seems to be linear. As you approach light, time slows down. When you = 99.999999999999 percent of light, time = 0, so ignoring the impossibility of moving at the speed of light, and the fact that faster produces imaginary numbers, in theory, you will move backwards in time. It's like a dip. You start at 40, then curve exponentially to zero, then climb back up. Does any of this make sense? The problem if that it's impossible for matter to goe faster than light, but I believe energy (which equals matter on some level) may go faster and gives rise to astral travel, dreams, teleportation and levitation to name a few phenomena (not to mention ghosts etc.) I believe science does have limitations, but it is still a valuable tool in understanding things we wouldn't otherwise.

So, does this answer your current questions? If not or so, fire some more away! You know, I used to go to askjeeves.com where people could ask questions and other people could answer, and there was one question where someone asked for the hottest object in our solar system. One person answered the sun. I said, "Well, other than the sun which is the obvious hottest object, I would say Io, a moon of Jupiter which is covered in volcanoes". So the person that said sun got totally annoyed at me, and went on to sign my guestbook saying I didn't know how to read a question! (found here http://www.megspace.com/science/porsche911/guestbook.html ) Anyway, I stopped going there, not because of him, but I just got bored. And I think they stopped the questions thing.

posted August 05, 2005 01:34 AM         

Well you write it so properly i could relate so much.. i mean the right things fell into the right place:
"but I believe energy (which equals matter on some level) may go faster and gives rise to astral travel, dreams, teleportation and levitation to name a few phenomena "
Well for the first time i could satisfactorily build up a connection with such intangible things like levitation , astral travelling etc..

Secondly lorentz transformations are simply the four equations which relate a moving frame to a stationary frame..(Mr. Lorentz worked that maths out..!)

posted August 06, 2005 08:32 PM         

Man, he was a cool dude (for a physicist). He also helped prove the problem with the Challenger disaster in 1986. And of course was one of four who discovered the quark around 1964.

posted August 09, 2005 05:55 AM         

Black water? Have you seen sprinklers rotate? Well, that's because the water comes out and spins it right? Well, that's the hypothesis. If you push water in the other way, does it spin in the opposite direction? Well, no, it blows up and floods your lab

Yes, he's a cool friend Have you read QED? Six simple pieces? Six not so simple pieces? Great books

Dean.

posted August 18, 2005 03:41 AM         

Sesame, you're awesome!

Welcome to LindaLand, guy Great topic.