01 May 08
Originally posted by GregM"...and no one believes this is possible"
Nothing has been observed to travel "at the speed of light" and no one believes this is possible; however if you are talking about speeds close to that of light (say .999999c) then this is done every day in particle accelerators and the process is very well understood. We definitely know exactly how fast these particles are going or we would not be able to cau ...[text shortened]... it too since GR has been confirmed as accurate for comparable length, mass, and time scales.
Have you been reading the posts here?
Kelly
01 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAccording to current scientific theory, nothing can travel at the speed of light save light (and also gravitons and gluons, if I remember correctly).
"...and no one believes this is possible"
Have you been reading the posts here?
Kelly
Movement close to the speed of light is possible, however. If you will go and re-read the thread you will find :
Originally posted by many writers in this thread that I'm to lazy to credit :-P
I read where if one was to travel close to the speed of light you would age slower then on earth...
Well at 0.9C , the time dilation ratio is about 2.2 to one. In other words, you on the spacecraft THINK you are going 2.2 times the speed of light, and in fact you age 1 year in your craft for every 2.2 going by on earth...
When you look at #'s close to C , for this exercise we will call C 186,282 MPS. This business of getting close to C to go interstellar is not what it's cracked up to be...
It would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to light speed. (Ergo, impossible - RV)
That represents a time dilation of almost 500,000 to 1. That would be tricky to get to the velocity so close to C in such a short distance of 4 LY. If you had the thrust available, you might do it for a distance of a few thousand LY. That must be within one millimeter per second of the speed of light!
End of quotes
Anything else?
01 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI've read through the thread again; can you quote a post where someone claims light-speed travel is possible?
"...and no one believes this is possible"
Have you been reading the posts here?
Kelly
What exactly is the statement that you take issue with? "Humans experience time dilation when they move"?
01 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by GregMAlready did your legwork - look at the post above .
I've read through the thread again; can you quote a post where someone claims light-speed travel is possible?
What exactly is the statement that you take issue with? "Humans experience time dilation when they move"?
😉
02 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo you are saying, just to get the record straight, you believe if you can travel close to the speed of light, you will, inside the space/time frame of the spacecraft, say at 0.9C, will be effectively traveling on a one way trip into the future, and that at about 2.2:1 (@0.9C). So you go into space and 8.8 years goes by on earth while you go to Alpha Centauri, my favorite destination for nearby stars, but when you get back to earth, only 4 years have gone by for you, say you leave in the year 2100, go to AC and come back travelling at 0.9C, on earth it's close to 2109 but for you, your shipboard calander says its 2104 and it can be medically proven you are 4 odd years younger than your identical twin who stayed behind on earth.
Yes
Kelly
Say you were both 40 when you left, when you get back, your twin is now 48.8 but biologically and timewise for you, you are only 44.
Do you believe that is what would happen if you went 90% if the speed of light? BTW, that takes only double the thrust needed if GR wasn't reality. Well, 2.3 times the thrust. Do you think this is a true statement?
Do you believe that statement?
02 May 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI wouldn't call that time travel, but, whatever.
Traveling close to C would give a sort of time travel, but for the travelers, it is just one way, travel into their personal future. They can't go back in time, just forward faster than people who stick around at normal velocities like on earth which is going about 200 miles per second, not enough to give much GR time dilation.
02 May 08
Originally posted by RetrovirusNeither do I. If I would I would be a time traveller all the time. I go farward in time with the speed of 60 seconds/minute.
I wouldn't call that time travel, but, whatever.
But if you can go farward and backward in time, à la H. G. Wells, then we are talking time travels.
02 May 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhich is why I called it 'sort of' time travel. Of course you can't go back in time but you would be in fact going into the future faster than our regular 60 beats per minute, at 0.9C, you would be going into the future at about 138 beats per minute. That is still manipulation of time but not Wellsian time travel for sure.
Neither do I. If I would I would be a time traveller all the time. I go farward in time with the speed of 60 seconds/minute.
But if you can go farward and backward in time, à la H. G. Wells, then we are talking time travels.
03 May 08
Originally posted by rlbatezIts not just theory, it HAS to be encorporated into many activities that humans pursue right now, even though we probably won't even get close to C for hundreds of years. Like GPS, if it didn't encorporate GR and time dilation, it would as I have said before be about as accurate as a 15th century portuguese shipping map. Any of hundreds of particle accellerators also have to take into account dilation AND mass increase in order to be able to accurately collide beams going within a haresbreath of C. It has to be taken in to account when figuring out why cosmic ray debris actually reaches the earth when the ray explodes in the upper atmosphere, the byproducts at low speeds decay so fast as to not last enough to make it a mile before decaying but they live longer because of the velocity and therefore actually make to the ground. Anyone think of other examples of GR in action in the here and now?
Albert Einstein says so in his theory of relativity, doubters should read it or take some Physics classes!
04 May 08
GR is required to explain the rate of precession of Mercury’s orbit around the Sun accurately.
Gravitational lensing is predicted in GR. This phenomenon is a result of the warping of space-time by massive objects, such as clusters of galaxies or black holes. A mass between an observer and an object being viewed can bend the path of the light form the object and distort the image the observer sees.
(This has been observed experimentally many time and is the cause of Einstein rings)
05 May 08
Originally posted by Retrovirus"Nothing in theory would suggest that time travel for humans is impossible. "
According to current scientific theory, nothing can travel at the speed of light save light (and also gravitons and gluons, if I remember correctly).
Movement close to the speed of light is possible, however. If you will go and re-read the thread you will find :
Originally posted by many writers in this thread that I'm to lazy to credit :-P [/i ...[text shortened]... in one millimeter per second of the speed of light!
[i]End of quotes
Anything else?
Nothing in the theory, I agreed with those words. Reality, another
subject.
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by GregMI started off only saying, "in theory" and from there if you do not see
I've read through the thread again; can you quote a post where someone claims light-speed travel is possible?
What exactly is the statement that you take issue with? "Humans experience time dilation when they move"?
the disagreement I don't think I can add anything to this discussion to
enlighten you.
Kelly
05 May 08
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, Theory = "What we expect the perceived reality to be until proven otherwise" in this case.
"Nothing in theory would suggest that time travel for humans is impossible. "
Nothing in the theory, I agreed with those words. Reality, another
subject.
Kelly