1. Re: Space time question

Originally Posted by rbaynes
Hi I am a Salvation army officer in Chesterfield England (But don't hold that against me) trying to make sense of some of the latest findings and report arriving from the science communities. The question is
If I was to travel one light year into space and back in one second (I know its not possible) would I arrive 2 years before I left?

Ray Baynes
This is the basis ot the ¨Twin Paradox¨ in Special Relativity. I assume that by travelling that one light-year in one second, you mean one second on the spacecraft´s clock. The other way would have energy problems. This means that the spacecraft is going near the speed of light. Thus the twin in the spacecraft would age 1 second and the twin on Earth would age 1 year. This scenario does not allow for backward time-travel so you can not arrive before you leave. The whole upshot to this paradox, and its resolution is that the twin on Earth sees his other twin as time-contracted, whereas the twin on the spacecraft see the trip as distance-contracted.

As far as you being a Salvation Army officer, my heart leaped at that. I have fond memories of the Salvation Army in my youth in Wiesbaden, Germany.

2. Re: Space time question

Re: the Twin Paradox - Actually, what happens is one twin gains mass (gets fat) because he/she didn't watch his weight in Einstein's Stress-Energy tensor...

(t'/t = ) is a relative light density for an invariant mass/ruler "length" .... not a subjective "time". That is why v/c is squared, not linear as in Galilean coordinates/Newtonian physics, where c = 1 (P = m(v/c)c = mv.

Or even in the "Mass-Dilation" equation...

In ordinary perception (and mathemagical imagination) the "speed of light" is instantaneous. Maxwell's result is only interpreted as speed because it ignores permeability and permeability constants. The trace of the Electromagnetic Field Tensor is equal to 0 (Why?) (The "vector potential" A is actually the change in momentum ("acceleration") from m0 = 0 in the Lorentz force equation, and such a change is set to 0 as a condition of the EM field tensor.... (invoking "simultaneity" at the local field point.)

(There is obviously more to this story for matter (consider objects that are underneath the surface of the parking lot as a different "vacuum" energy....

(In outer space, the vacuum energy is less than that just above the surface of the parking lot, but still exists if there is even one photon at the local field point, otherwise known as (0,0) = (rest mass ct, change in mass vt') with the resultant ct' satisfying the triangular equality and Occam's Razor.

3. Re: Space time question

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Maxwell's result is only interpreted as speed because it ignores permeability and permeability constants.
Or, susceptibility is considered zero. That makes sense.

4. Re: Space time question

Not only that, but the "mass length" actually has to be interpreted as a radius in STR (where a change in mass is a "spin" - for light, spin polarization.) is a change in relativistic "momentum", but it appears as in the light density factor.

The interpretation of the product depends on whether one is considering ct' as a final state (in which case it is "virtual"), or an initial state (as a start to creating multiple instances of identical bosons)... in which case it is "real".

That is, a photon (light particle) will travel slower (take longer) over a given "length" in an environment that contains other photons (DM field) than at its vacuum level (0 point energy) at which there are no other photons....

One can also say a photon will travel less far over a given distance given the same time interval in a denser medium...

(but not both in STR unless c changes, in which case the system is no longer linear, and GTR applies - whatever THAT means to a single observer at the center of the "light cone" (0,0) describing "past" and "future" whatever that means to the observer in the parking lot....

5. Re: Space time question

Like, no actually love this question RB.
If u traveled at the speed of light plus one second u would arrive 2 seconds to 5 min later. I didnt account for the movement of earth so 5 min might be longer, or i might have it backwards, not good at the math at all. So if i travelled less than the speed of light and back i always arrive in the future.
If i travelled faster than the speed of light i can actually go to the past.

Originally Posted by spacedout
If it was possible to travel one light year in a second this would create a new value that would blow the current physic laws. Still, if it was possible to travel a light year into space and be back in a second, wouldn't that create a time warp?
I totally agee with your post Spacedout. Well put, a time warp. I belive this is possible.

6. Re: Space time question

I would try to explain this with shows i have seen. Although i doubt u all would take me seriously if i quoted a ufo show series. If u are intersested just ask.

I think there are ppl working both; fast travel in space and faster than light travel in space.

Moving clocks count slow.

Articles:

7. Re: Space time question

Even though i disagree and consider light not consant at all. The speed is slowly slowing light right now no now no now lol. Is almost constant.
Here is a little proof of how space-time could work.

Have to say special tks to Kg4 for hitting the nail in the coffin here. Eighstiens spooky particle thoery applies in my mind also.

Relativity's Legacy: Your Guide to Traveling the Galaxy in Only 20 Years

8. Re: Space time question

Originally Posted by David M W
Another way to think about it is, at the speed of light space time is dilated to zero value. This means that at the speed of light there is no space or time to move in. So you can easily see that faster than light travel really is a mute proposition. Now some might argue that FLT may equate to negative space time or time travel. But since this would break the fundamental laws as we know them, then it is highly unlikely to be a possibility, a sure bet it's an impossibility.

There are many aspects of this universe that we don't understand yet. Black holes, space time and even gravity are just a few of the more common aspects that we have little understanding about their physical nature or their fundamental basis.

Its good to have thought experiments and fun to play around with the what ifs, but the reality is magic is not real. There are many things we can imagine, but reality follows laws that as far as we know (which all the evidence we have indicates) cannot be violated.
Interesting statement David. Do u actually think our laws of physics gravity ect cant be broken?
I only ask because i think they are not complete. It is still a work in progress. In Relativity didnt Eisenstein intoduce the quantum. Did the quantum 10 not make a difference in science and physics and what we know as quantum mechanics. I dont mean to be disrespectful, i would just like to know your answer to these questions.

Im actually a hardware engineer. I have learned to fix very complex items. Mostly hard drives somtimes severs; by actually breaking them. I think the same can be applied to physics.

Break it then make it better.

Long story short, i have to do this with drives. An error doesnt allow them to boot. I have to break them more in order to fix them. Then i have to correct what i did, the media corruption i caused. Without doing this the drive loops in an error and i would never have a chance to repair it.

Again i say sometimes u need to break it bf you can fix it.

Also dont forget to challenge everything." from EA Games.

10. Re: Space time question

Originally Posted by Jason me
I would try to explain this with shows i have seen. Although i doubt u all would take me seriously if i quoted a ufo show series.
-facepalm-

You are correct. Cannot take that seriously, no.
Originally Posted by Jason me
Even though i disagree and consider light not consant at all.
While you are stumbling around spouting about opinions, could you present some actual evidence?

Originally Posted by Jason me
Here is a little proof of how space-time could work.
Relativity's Legacy: Your Guide to Traveling the Galaxy in Only 20 Years
That is a popsci article that waxes speculatively... Very.. Speculatively. It is not Science, it is nothing more than "IF the universe works a certain unknown way, then it may be possible to do such action" type of thing. How could you possibly consider such to be PROOF?!
I am beginning to think that you take anything you would like to believe in and label it "proof" or "Twoof."

Originally Posted by Jason me
Have to say special tks to Kg4 for hitting the nail in the coffin here.
Kg4pae did not hammer any nail into any coffin. He talked about the twin paradox, which, frankly does not even apply to the OP's question since the OP requires breaking the Universe. That is not the OP's fault... but the question has no scientific answer. I believe that Kg4pae was bringing the topic back into the scientific realm with an interesting discussion point. That is not, however, hammering nails into coffins. What made you think that?

Originally Posted by Jason me
In Relativity didnt Eisenstein intoduce the quantum. Did the quantum 10 not make a difference in science and physics and what we know as quantum mechanics.
What? What language are you speaking?

Page 3 of 7 First 12345 ... Last

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•