I can time travel.
I'm just moving forward at the same uniform rate as everyone else on the planet.
[QUOTE=General Omega;28961721]Delta means this
[delta]x = x[sub 2] - x[sub 1]
Sub meaning subscript, which just indicates the instance that you are reading the variable related to other instances.
So if we take x and record it at two instances, lets say 5 and 10. Then we would take 10 - 5. This equals 5. So delta x is 5.
So if we were to look at a common application of this, it would be slope. Delta Y / Delta X = Slope.
Y[2] - Y[1] / X[2] - X[1]
TL;DR
a scientist's way of being lazy and subtracting things from it's self.[/QUOTE]
You could have just said final minus initial.
And an easier 'real life application' of delta in the use of mathematics and physics is in thermodynamics.
Q = mcΔt
Where Q is the energy output, M is the mass, C is the heat capacity, and T is temperature.
[QUOTE=FinalHunter;28957825]
No, it is NOTHING "like" time travel, you aren't moving to another point in time you're simply experiencing it at a rate different from what we are used to.[/QUOTE]
We are moving mostly through time and only a little through space. So really, we're all time travelers.
It's called aging.
If you stopped time for ages e.g. Hiro Nakamura or Bernards Watch, would you age while everyone else around you didn't?
If it's for ages, yeah. Everybody else is completely frozen in time while you are the only one capable of moving through it.
Now, I don't know if you could actually see everyone else around you age on the count of they're frozen in time. You're seeing them as they were from the moment they froze in place.
[IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/344egx2.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=jaykray;28962709][img_thumb]http://i52.tinypic.com/344egx2.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Similarly, if someone changed something in the past, would we ever realize it?
Fucking time paradoxes
What is the theory/hypothesis/whatever that relates how fast we are traveling through the universe to the speed of light?
The basis of my thought is this: the universe is constantly expanding, and it is also said to be [i]accelerating[/i] in its expansion. How does the speed of light relate to this? Since we are already traveling at a very fast rate away from the singular point at which the big bang (if true) happened, how does that relate to time?
And where can I learn about this stuff? I've been intrigued with it for a while now, but this is the first I've said anything of it.
[QUOTE=Shooter;28963072]What is the theory/hypothesis/whatever that relates how fast we are traveling through the universe to the speed of light?
The basis of my thought is this: the universe is constantly expanding, and it is also said to be [i]accelerating[/i] in its expansion. How does the speed of light relate to this? Since we are already traveling at a very fast rate away from the singular point at which the big bang (if true) happened, how does that relate to time?
And where can I learn about this stuff? I've been intrigued with it for a while now, but this is the first I've said anything of it.[/QUOTE]
yup, what's the exact theory? Just curious about that.
so how is high school physics class treatin you
[QUOTE=Voice of Reason;28962953]Similarly, if someone changed something in the past, would we ever realize it?
Fucking time paradoxes[/QUOTE]
No, we wouldn't.
If anyone changed anything in the past, they've already [B]done[/B] it.
It's literally impossible to change the past because everything you did back then actually happened.
[QUOTE=Voice of Reason;28962953]Similarly, if someone changed something in the past, would we ever realize it?
Fucking time paradoxes[/QUOTE]
My theory, you can't change the past, anyone who attempts to stop an event will inadvertently cause it to happen.
Also, I somehow worked it out that time wasn't linear, and that the events of the future had already happened :v:
[QUOTE=Trumple;28950152]In case you didn't know, Albert Einstein was a scientist. He produced the famous E=mc^2 equation you've all heard of and probably never had to use (Unless you took a further Physics course beyond school)
This itself is intriguing because it shows something moving faster (Therefore has more kinetic energy) actually gets heavier.[/quote]
Wrong. He didnt "produce" this equation, it resulted from special relativity. And it doesn't at all says that a mass moving gets heavier, it only means that mass is energy.
[QUOTE=Trumple;28950152]
[b][h2]Special Relativity[/h2][/b]
Special relativity states that time (and distance) measurements begin to change the closer you get to the speed of light. Thats right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you. It's like motherfucking [b]time travel[/b].
[/quote]
Time doesn't go slower for you. You expect time at the same rate as if you were not moving. Just [b]relative[/b] to another person, your time is measured differently. That's why it's called [b]Relativity[/b]
[QUOTE=Trumple;28950152]
Lets put this into an example.
Face has a twin called Punch. One day, Punch says:
[b]"Face, I really want to shift time a little just to mess with people"[/b]
[b]"lol no, herp, thats not fucking possible."[/b]
[b]"But it nearly is...I bet I can be younger than you in the future"[/b]
[b]"Why the fuck are you so retarded, we're the same age and it will stay that way. I hate you Punch."[/b]
So, Punch, being the most intelligent fucker you'll ever hear of, builds a rocket that can travel at 95% of the speed of light.
Punch leaves Earth at the age of 25 and travels at 95% of the speed of light for 5 years (In his time) and lands on a distant planet.
"[b]Fuck this I forgot to bring my laptop to play Minecraft.[/b]"
So Punch travels back to Earth to get his laptop at the same speed and it takes him another 5 years.
When Punch arrives, he is aged 35. He goes back to his house and finds Face walking around the house with a zimmer-frame.
"[b]What the fuck happened to you, Face? You look like a prune."[/b]
Face is aged 57, while Punch is only 35.
[/quote]
This is actually an effect of [b]General[/b] Relativity (the Twin-Paradoxon). Special Relativity is only valid for inertial frame of references (a.k.a. "non accelerated and non rotating"). Since you can't decide which one of those twins was moving, there is nothing like "one is aging faster than the other" (either the rocket-twin is moving away from the one on the planet or the planet is moving away from the one in the rocket - Both descriptions are valid. This is an intrinsic symmetry of [u]Special[/u] Relativity).
But when the other twin accelerates/decelerates his rocket to turn back to his twin brother, symmetry is broken. That's why the Twin-Paradox is valid but only in [b]General[/b] Relativity which includes accelerated frames of reference.
[QUOTE=Trumple;28950152]
A real life example of this is an experiment where two atomic clocks were synchronized. One clock was flown around the world while another remained in London. When the two clocks were bought together again, they were very slightly out of sync.
:science:[/QUOTE]
Again, this General Relativity was involved to break the symmetry. Also the out-of-sync also origins from the height difference, not only from the travel.
It's always surprising whenever someone who heard a little about a scientific theory on TV makes immediately a post in an online forum without even doing some research before.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Shooter;28963072]What is the theory/hypothesis/whatever that relates how fast we are traveling through the universe to the speed of light?
The basis of my thought is this: the universe is constantly expanding, and it is also said to be [i]accelerating[/i] in its expansion. How does the speed of light relate to this? Since we are already traveling at a very fast rate away from the singular point at which the big bang (if true) happened, how does that relate to time?
And where can I learn about this stuff? I've been intrigued with it for a while now, but this is the first I've said anything of it.[/QUOTE]
The speed in spacetime is limited by c, spacetime itself can expand faster than c. That's why we just see a little bit of our universe (the "known" universe). Everything behind the point where the universe expands faster or equal to c in relation to our point of view, we are unable to get any information from there.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;28963879]No, we wouldn't.
If anyone changed anything in the past, they've already [B]done[/B] it.
It's literally impossible to change the past because everything you did back then actually happened.[/QUOTE]
Except if multiple-world hypothesis is correct. At least it's a way to solve this issue.
[QUOTE=aVoN;28964727]And it doesn't at all says that a mass moving gets heavier, it only means that mass is energy.[/quote]
Not true...
Take for example a football of mass 1kg
The kinetic energy is one form of energy the ball has, given by 0.5mv^2
When stationary, the KE of the football is 0J (0.5x1x0)
When moving at say 10 m/s, the KE is: 50J (0.5x1x10^2)
Since E=mc^2
m= E/c^2
So at a greater velocity, the mass of the ball is larger. True, not much larger when you factor in gravitational potential energy etc. but it is larger.
To all the people saying it's really simple and everyone knows this already:
I would agree, but not everyone is as [del]intelligent[/del] well-learned about science as your average facepuncher. My mum still doesn't understand how the sun is a star. She gets confused right away every time there's a documentary about this stuff on. It's sad :frown:
[QUOTE=Pavarotti;28966233]To all the people saying it's really simple and everyone knows this already:
I would agree, but not everyone is as [del]intelligent[/del] well-learned about science as your average facepuncher. My mum still doesn't understand how the sun is a star. She gets confused right away every time there's a documentary about this stuff on. It's sad :frown:[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you see it the same way. If people WANTED to know all the technical points about this, they would have already known or gone to find out themselves. The point of this was to provide a little interesting aspect of a much larger topic.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;28951835]Time doesn't dilate as much as the OP states at 0.95c.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it does.
t= 5/(1-0.95^2)= 16 years
sdfnjkdsfkdsfnjkldsfkdsfjOH SNAP IM GOING TO RAPE SOME PEOPLES MINDS AT SCHOOL KBAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
[QUOTE=meppers;28960632]So how come Kirk and Spock don't age funny on the enterprise?[/QUOTE]
Because the enterprise doesn't [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive]travel[/url] anywhere near the speed of light.
[QUOTE=Trumple;28966364]I'm glad you see it the same way. If people WANTED to know all the technical points about this, they would have already known or gone to find out themselves. The point of this was to provide a little interesting aspect of a much larger topic.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
Yes, it does.
t= 5/(1-0.95^2)= 16 years[/QUOTE]
Hm, that's correct. (let's say i saw something else)
[QUOTE=Swebonny;28966876]Hm, that's correct. (let's say i saw something else)[/QUOTE]
Don't worry everyone makes mistakes
It's probably because I used the final ages rather than the difference, which made it not immediately obvious
So have you taken a further Physics course of some sort?
[QUOTE=Trumple;28966161]Not true...
Take for example a football of mass 1kg
The kinetic energy is one form of energy the ball has, given by 0.5mv^2
When stationary, the KE of the football is 0J (0.5x1x0)
When moving at say 10 m/s, the KE is: 50J (0.5x1x10^2)
Since E=mc^2
m= E/c^2
So at a greater velocity, the mass of the ball is larger. True, not much larger when you factor in gravitational potential energy etc. but it is larger.[/QUOTE]
You're gonna argue physics with aVoN? Good luck.
aVoN is right. The idea that something gains mass as it travels at faster speeds is a misconception.
The same thinking has led people to believe that photons have mass. They don't. Photons have INERTIAL mass, not gravitational mass. That being a photon does not influence anything gravitationally AT ALL (which is a characteristic of mass), however, it does carry momentum (which is something we attribute to something with mass and velocity).
If you tried to 'weigh' a photon (which I'm pretty certain would be impossible for a large number of reasons) you'd get a mass of 0, which would seem counter-intuitive to working backwards mathematically using the equation E = mc^2 as that would lead to you expect the photon has mass.
[QUOTE=Trumple;28966900]Don't worry everyone makes mistakes
It's probably because I used the final ages rather than the difference, which made it not immediately obvious
So have you taken a further Physics course of some sort?[/QUOTE]
Hard to say as the system in Sweden isn't like in UK or US. But my course book has quite a lot about relativity.
If you want to ask anyone about physics it's aVoN. He's like on his 5th year Engineering Physics or something.
[QUOTE=sltungle;28967101]You're gonna argue physics with aVoN? Good luck.
aVoN is right. The idea that something gains mass as it travels at faster speeds is a misconception.
The same thinking has led people to believe that photons have mass. They don't. Photons have INERTIAL mass, not gravitational mass. That being a photon does not influence anything gravitationally AT ALL (which is a characteristic of mass), however, it does carry momentum (which is something we attribute to something with mass and velocity).
If you tried to 'weigh' a photon (which I'm pretty certain would be impossible for a large number of reasons) you'd get a mass of 0, which would seem counter-intuitive to working backwards mathematically using the equation E = mc^2 as that would lead to you except the photon has mass.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. That's a good point...
But for something such as a ball, surely it works because of the increased kinetic energy?
[QUOTE=Trumple;28967436]Interesting. That's a good point...
But for something such as a ball, surely it works because of the increased kinetic energy?[/QUOTE]
But the problem there is that in the ball's reference frame it ISN'T moving, everything else around it just seems to be moving around the ball, so there'd be a discrepancy between mass in its frame of reference vs the frame of reference of an observer.
I'm pretty sure the energy of an object moving at relativistic speeds is given as: E = lambda*mc^2 to resolve that problem. The mass doesn't need to change, the lambda function clears that whole problem up.
[QUOTE=General Omega;28951620]I honestly see no reason to call it a mind fuck. It is simple enough to understand. Time is not uniform. The real mind fuck is when you start looking into the creation of the universe. After a while shit does not add up.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you can help me understand something I can't quite wrap my mind around then
You're sitting on a spaceship that's hovering right in front of a TV broadcasting antenna. Your ship accelerates in some direction away from the antenna very quickly. Assume you had some kind of inertial dampener bullshit installed that keeps you alive during the extreme acceleration. It takes your ship negligible time to reach a speed of 0.5c.
They start broadcasting an episode of your favourite TV show from the antenna immediately when your ship starts accelerating. Your ship has a TV dish modified to catch the signal despite it being out of its normal frequency due to your speed difference.
How long does it take on your end to catch all the video they aired? The episode on Earth lasts one hour.
1. You're moving away from them. The signal should redshift, which means that its wavelength gets longer, which means the video gets longer.
2. You're moving very fast. According to the information given in the OP, it should take you less time to catch the entire episode as you experience less time than Earth does.
1. is used to, for example, calculate the orbits of binary star systems
2. is used to explain why certain particles have been observed to travel farther than they should, given their speed and average lifetime
Are they not contradictory?
Another thing I don't quite understand is this: can gravity keep orbits stable? If gravity can't act immediately between two masses, circular orbits at least shouldn't remain stable as gravity doesn't pull the objects exactly towards the barycenter.
[QUOTE=Trumple;28967986]Don't quote me on this, but I think the speed of light remains constant from where ever you measure it.
Say for example you are moving at the speed of 0.5c parallel to a beam of light/radio waves. If you were to measure the speed of said waves relative to you then the speed would be c again. I think this is due to the fact that electromagnetic waves have no mass.[/QUOTE]
Yes that is true
edit: Whoa man, we broke the time
[QUOTE=ThePuska;28967834]Perhaps you can help me understand something I can't quite wrap my mind around then
You're sitting on a spaceship that's hovering right in front of a TV broadcasting antenna. Your ship accelerates in some direction away from the antenna very quickly. Assume you had some kind of inertial dampener bullshit installed that keeps you alive during the extreme acceleration. It takes your ship negligible time to reach a speed of 0.5c.
They start broadcasting an episode of your favourite TV show from the antenna immediately when your ship starts accelerating. Your ship has a TV dish modified to catch the signal despite it being out of its normal frequency due to your speed difference.
How long does it take on your end to catch all the video they aired? The episode on Earth lasts one hour.
1. You're moving away from them. The signal should redshift, which means that its wavelength gets longer, which means the video gets longer.
2. You're moving very fast. According to the information given in the OP, it should take you less time to catch the entire episode as you experience less time than Earth does.
1. is used to, for example, calculate the orbits of binary star systems
2. is used to explain why certain particles have been observed to travel farther than they should, given their speed and average lifetime
Are they not contradictory?[/QUOTE]
Don't quote me on this, but I think the speed of light remains constant from where ever you measure it.
Say for example you are moving at the speed of 0.5c parallel to a beam of light/radio waves. If you were to measure the speed of said waves relative to you then the speed would be c again. I think this is due to the fact that electromagnetic waves have no mass.
[QUOTE=Trumple;28966161]Not true...
Take for example a football of mass 1kg
The kinetic energy is one form of energy the ball has, given by 0.5mv^2
When stationary, the KE of the football is 0J (0.5x1x0)
When moving at say 10 m/s, the KE is: 50J (0.5x1x10^2)
Since E=mc^2
m= E/c^2
So at a greater velocity, the mass of the ball is larger. True, not much larger when you factor in gravitational potential energy etc. but it is larger.[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. Mass is a measure how much matter something contains. Making something go faster cannot make it suddenly gain mass (unless you're giving it more matter).
General relativity is an even bigger mindfuck. Two people are in free fall towards a planet. One is half as far away from it as the other. They each see the other one gaining velocity and distance relative to their own frames. Neither is accelerating.
What.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ThePuska;28967999]Another thing I don't quite understand is this: can gravity keep orbits stable? If gravity can't act immediately between two masses, circular orbits at least shouldn't remain stable as gravity doesn't pull the objects exactly towards the barycenter.[/QUOTE]
No orbit is stable under general relativity. The system gives off energy in gravitational waves and the orbital distance of one body around another decays over time.
[editline]3rd April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trumple;28966161]Not true...
Take for example a football of mass 1kg
The kinetic energy is one form of energy the ball has, given by 0.5mv^2
When stationary, the KE of the football is 0J (0.5x1x0)
When moving at say 10 m/s, the KE is: 50J (0.5x1x10^2)[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with E = mc^2. E = mc^2 is an approximation only valid when the Lorentz factor is ~1. Even then, it's momentum that's increasing as velocity increases, not mass.
I will not believe anything in this thread unless JohnnyMo1 approves of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
