1. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    17 Aug '07 23:19
    I heard on the news today that some scientists have caused a molecule or something to move at the speed of light.
    Also, that if one left point A at the speed of light they would arrive at their destination and return to see their departure from point A.

    Weird.
  2. USA
    Joined
    02 Mar '07
    Moves
    8808
    18 Aug '07 03:19
    Originally posted by josephw
    I heard on the news today that some scientists have caused a molecule or something to move at the speed of light.
    Also, that if one left point A at the speed of light they would arrive at their destination and return to see their departure from point A.

    Weird.
    SURELY YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS BLASPHEMY DO YOU???
  3. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    19 Aug '07 20:07
    Originally posted by Dance Master MC
    SURELY YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS BLASPHEMY DO YOU???
    No!
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Aug '07 06:55
    Originally posted by josephw
    Also, that if one left point A at the speed of light they would arrive at their destination and return to see their departure from point A.

    Weird.
    Thats simply bad science.
    Its not clear what you are saying, but if you mean they could return to their departure point in time to witness their departure then that is false as it would require their velocity to be infinite (not the speed of light).
    If what you mean if that they 'turn round' (not return) and look back the way they came, then they still would not see their departure as again it would require that they travel faster than light.

    However since it is possible to slow light down or make it take a longer route there is nothing stopping you from seeing your departure even when you are hardly moving at all, (look in a mirror and you will see it).
  5. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    23 Aug '07 05:06
    Originally posted by josephw
    I heard on the news today that some scientists have caused a molecule or something to move at the speed of light.
    Also, that if one left point A at the speed of light they would arrive at their destination and return to see their departure from point A.

    Weird.
    To suggest that something can move backwards in time based on the
    old theory of Einstein is strange indeed.

    Time is the fourth dimension. It is the dimension that allows for
    interaction between particles, thus making movement possible. We are
    very much aware of this dimension, which is why we can remember
    previous events. Assume for an instance that time has a given speed. If
    you can increase the speed throughout the universe you should be able
    to move us all forwards in time. If you can somehow reverse the direction
    of time throughout the universe everything should move backwards in
    time. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

    Now, assume that you can create a little bubble around yourself, and
    then send that bubble hurling backwards or forward through the fourth
    dimension (time). Then you would in effect travel through time, because
    the rest of the universe would move at the constant speed of time,
    whereas you fast forward or rewind (to rewind is impossible, by the way).

    If time has the speed of light, say, and you travel some distance from
    earth and then return at a speed higher than the speed of light,
    you should move forwards in time. What Einstein said was that if you
    travel at a speed higher than the speed of light, the normal timespace
    continuum would not affect you as you would "skip" timeframes and
    jump to a later timeframe. People on earth would have seen years pass
    by, whereas you would have seen weeks (depending on exactly how fast
    you manage to travel).

    In theory, if you can increase your speed beyond the speed of time
    (whatever that may be) you can jump forward in time. This, however,
    implies that you cannot go backwards in time. If higher speed would
    cause your physical body to skip time frames, then the only logical
    solution to go backwards in time is to travel at negative speed (which is
    of course ridiculous).

    (This is the way I've had it explained to me, but if anyone knows better,
    please don't worry about offending me. I would very much appreciate a
    correction, if needed.)
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Aug '07 06:40
    Originally posted by stocken
    (This is the way I've had it explained to me, but if anyone knows better,
    please don't worry about offending me. I would very much appreciate a
    correction, if needed.)
    You are way off. Most of what you said is wrong.

    Besides the original poster said nothing about going faster than light.
  7. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    23 Aug '07 09:006 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You are way off. Most of what you said is wrong.

    Besides the original poster said nothing about going faster than light.
    josephw wrote:

    Also, that if one left point A at the speed of light they would arrive at their destination and return to see their departure from point A.


    As if you travel the speed of light you'll move backwards in time. This is
    not the way I've understood it at all, so I explained how I've had it
    explained to me. If I'm so off, please don't hesitate to explain what I've
    got wrong.

    It's my understanding that you can't really move backwards in time as
    that would require you to reverse time itself, not for your physical body,
    but for the rest of the universe. How could that possibly be done? When
    you're moving forward in time, you're not really affecting the universe
    itself, but skipping so and so much physical degradation (aging) by
    moving so fast that time itself has no effect on your physical body.* In
    doing so, you would experience like one day while others who's not
    moving as fast might experience a week (depending on the speed and
    distance maintained).

    * When I speak of time and timeframes, I'm obviously not talking about
    time as a tangible existence that can be affected by any means. I'm
    talking about movement. Reversing time would mean to reverse the
    movements of every particle in the universe (except the ones that make
    you up) so that they take the exact same positions as they took before
    (or you'd get an alternate history). When moving forward, you're taking
    yourself out of the universe for so and so long so that your body is not
    affected by the movement and ongoing interactions between particles in
    the universe such that when you re-enter (slow down to a speed that is
    again too slow to not interact with the surrounding) you haven't aged a
    bit, but everyone else may have aged years (depending on how long
    you've been away from the influence of time). Another way to travel
    forward in time then, would be if you're put in cryopreservation where
    your body won't be affected by time and then revived some 100 years
    later. You'd still be a young man while everyone you knew are either
    dead or ridiculously old. To you, no time at all has elapsed.

    Interesting link. Apparently, you can't go faster than light as if you do
    there's no telling what will happen. It's not science even, but a funny
    thought experiment. 🙂

    http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae283.cfm

    Another link on the subject (I'm actually learning as I move forward in
    time here - usually I just move forward in time):

    an object traveling at high speeds ages more slowly than a stationary object. This means that if you were to travel into outer space and return, moving close to light speed, you could travel thousands of years into the Earth's future.


    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through.html

    And I guess the page after the above one really slaps me in the face
    for saying that it's impossible to travel backwards in time:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/through2.html

    😳🙂
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    23 Aug '07 09:38
    Originally posted by stocken
    As if you travel the speed of light you'll move backwards in time. This is not the way I've understood it at all, so I explained how I've had it
    explained to me. If I'm so off, please don't hesitate to explain what I've
    got wrong.
    The faster you travel the slower time goes for you in relation to other stationary objects. At the speed of light time stops for the object traveling at the speed of light. So you are correct to say that the original post was wrong to imply that time would move backwards.

    However some of your other statements such as:
    If time has the speed of light, say,..
    just don't make any sense at 'speed' is distance moved in a given time so to talk of time moving at a given 'speed' (comparable to the speed of light for example) is simply meaningless.

    My understanding was that relativity showed that nothing could travel from stationary to the speed of light and then faster but that objects traveling faster than the speed of light (and back in time) was not totally ruled out.

    However the original post does not make a whole lot of sense.
  9. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    23 Aug '07 09:422 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The faster you travel the slower time goes for you in relation to other stationary objects. At the speed of light time stops for the object traveling at the speed of light. So you are correct to say that the original post was wrong to imply that time would move backwards.

    However some of your other statements such as:
    [b]If time has the speed of light was not totally ruled out.

    However the original post does not make a whole lot of sense.
    [/b]
    Thank you. 🙂

    Wouldn't it be amusing though that if you reach a speed higher than light
    your body doesn't only stop it's aging process, but physically move
    backwards? Then, by the time you land on earth again some 2000 years
    from now, you're an abortion gone terribly wrong. 😵
  10. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    23 Aug '07 17:56
    Weird science.
Back to Top