And 12 Clicks .. why are you fucking around like this? Good ice cream, huh? ;-)
-
skype = "adultdatelink" -
Einstein could be wrong on this point as well.Originally posted by Colin
According to Einstein's Special Relativity, you can't go through the speed of light barrier. That is the essence of the equations.
We just know of nothing faster than light.
Or perhaps we do. If a black hole sucks in light, isn't the gravitational pull of a black hole *faster* than the speed of light?I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
well its the next day so I'd say the finish, like a good wine, is long.Originally posted by Colin
And 12 Clicks .. why are you fucking around like this? Good ice cream, huh?
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Sure, he could be wrong - from a certain point of view. Our physical theories of today are approximate anyway. Newton's theories were approximate. They worked perfectly for nearly everything anyone observed for hundreds of years. Einstein's equations though better aren't perfect either. They don't work perfectly well with quantum mechanics. Even the correction to the theoretical prediction for the perihelion of mercury is still not perfect and that was one of the crowning achievements of Einstein's theories.
However in regards to the initial statement that "the theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time", I don't think can be attributed to Einstein nor to his equations.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
yeah, I clarified that in page 2 (I think it was)Originally posted by Colin
However in regards to the initial statement that "the theory is that if you could travel at faster than the speed of light, you could travel through time", I don't think can be attributed to Einstein nor to his equations.
He does say that time slows @ speed. We're debating that.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
If a "light particle" (photon) is in a black hole it cannot escape because the black hole is so massive that the light particle doesn't have enough energy to escape. It is the black hole's mass bending space and time that prevents the particle from escaping.Originally posted by 12clicks
If a black hole sucks in light, isn't the gravitational pull of a black hole *faster* than the speed of light?
Despite the fact that no one has even been to a black hole it is intuitive in a sense. Celestial bodies have escape velocities which depend on the mass of the body. You have to be able to go a certain speed to leave the earth (without constant propulsion).
The next step is wondering if a body can be so massive that not even light could escape. The answer to that question has been called a "black hole". The French mathematician/astronomer Pierre Laplace actually thought of this in the late 1700s. I think there is an appendix in Hawking's first book with Laplace's conjecture for you Hawking fans. I don't have a copy.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
I think you're bullshitting everyone. ;-)Originally posted by 12clicks
We're debating that.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Originally posted by Colin
I think you're bullshitting everyone. ;-)
I think the ice cream was laced
M3server.com
VPS>Get your 2nd month free
Ded>$100 off your 2nd month
since 1996
icq-25135623
dannyh at~m3server DOT comComment
-
so in other words, the black hole's gravitational pull is *faster* than light.Originally posted by Colin
If a "light particle" (photon) is in a black hole it cannot escape because the black hole is so massive that the light particle doesn't have enough energy to escape. It is the black hole's mass bending space and time that prevents the particle from escaping.
And hey, I'm not bullshitting anyone
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
funny you should say that.Originally posted by dantheman
I think the ice cream was laced
The tamper resistant seal *was* missing.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
its all relative!
you people saying 1 minute is 1 minute arent thinking of relativity
what your saying only applies for "earth" time, and not about speed!
the fact is
if 1 person spends his life sitting down
and the other person spends all his life sprinting
when both of them die, the watch of the person who was sprinting all his life could be a few seconds earlier
and about that 8 minute- 7 minute thing
if you save 1 minute on a specific distance, that means that you were going @ (lets say) 10km/hour more
that is NOTHING compared to the speed of light so you wont even see a difference!
but theoretically, you went a few billiseconds into the futureComment
-
12 Clicks,
Don't you know ... 50 GFY posters can't be wrong!
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
If you drive your car into the "Like Whoa" building your car stops but not because the building was going faster.Originally posted by 12clicks
so in other words, the black hole's gravitational pull is *faster* than light.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Don't you know...12clicks is never wrong!Originally posted by Colin
12 Clicks,
Don't you know ... 50 GFY posters can't be wrong!I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
*cough* *cough*Originally posted by 12clicks
Don't you know...12clicks is never wrong!Comment
-
If you drive your car away from the "like whoa" building but nick is sucking thru a straw so hard that your car gets sucked into the building, his sucking is *faster* than your car.Originally posted by Colin
If you drive your car into the "Like Whoa" building your car stops but not because the building was going faster.
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
oh, you poor dear!Originally posted by 12clicks
Hey, some of my best friends are jews.
;-)))Comment
-
Are you playing by jungle rules, today? ;-)Originally posted by 12clicks
If you drive your car away from the "like whoa" building but nick is sucking thru a straw so hard that your car gets sucked into the building, his sucking is *faster* than your car.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
- Does this class count for college credit?
Comment
-
No, time is NOT relative. that's what Einstein got wrong. a minute is a minute no matter where it is measured.Originally posted by bdjuf
its all relative!
you people saying 1 minute is 1 minute arent thinking of relativity
what your saying only applies for "earth" time, and not about speed!
the fact is
if 1 person spends his life sitting down
and the other person spends all his life sprinting
when both of them die, the watch of the person who was sprinting all his life could be a few seconds earlier
and about that 8 minute- 7 minute thing
if you save 1 minute on a specific distance, that means that you were going @ (lets say) 10km/hour more
that is NOTHING compared to the speed of light so you wont even see a difference!
but theoretically, you went a few billiseconds into the future
go back to my 2 planets example. if they are formed the same day and they've been traveling for 1 million years but at different rates, are they both not 1 million years old?I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
if your in astrophysics and in a debate, you can use the arguments presented aboveOriginally posted by LeeNoga
- Does this class count for college credit?
Comment
-
12 Clicks,
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
No, I'm just living in a state of rightness.Originally posted by Colin
Are you playing by jungle rules, today? ;-)
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
yes, 1 million years old EARTH timeOriginally posted by 12clicks
No, time is NOT relative. that's what Einstein got wrong. a minute is a minute no matter where it is measured.
go back to my 2 planets example. if they are formed the same day and they've been traveling for 1 million years but at different rates, are they both not 1 million years old?
but if the clock was on the planets themselves
they would NOT be 1 million years old
we keep arguying the same thingComment
-
Where's the clock?Originally posted by 12clicks
No, time is NOT relative. that's what Einstein got wrong. a minute is a minute no matter where it is measured.
go back to my 2 planets example. if they are formed the same day and they've been traveling for 1 million years but at different rates, are they both not 1 million years old?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Reminds me of a high school debate club... Good times!
However, you said:
If you switch Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" ice cream a with pile of shit , you would doubt that 12clicks would be enjoying a bowl of it... Which comparing light to sound, it doing the same thing...Swap speed of sound with speed of light and you see why Albert Einstein is wrong
But I do realize some on GFY might not know the difference...
Looking for Opportunity!
Comment
-
Should have turned left at the stop sign. Now you are in a state of denial.Originally posted by 12clicks
No, I'm just living in a state of rightness.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
because you won't listen.Originally posted by bdjuf
yes, 1 million years old EARTH time
but if the clock was on the planets themselves
they would NOT be 1 million years old
we keep arguying the same thing
time marches on. your argument would mean that at a certain speed, there would be no aging. this is not true.
There is not now nor will there ever be a celestrial body that is moving so fast that it doesn't age.
time is a constant, it is not relative to anything.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
The clock is not relevant. does time not march on if there is no clock?Originally posted by Colin
Where's the clock?I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
you keep thinking that there is only 1 time!Originally posted by 12clicks
because you won't listen.
time marches on. your argument would mean that at a certain speed, there would be no aging. this is not true.
There is not now nor will there ever be a celestrial body that is moving so fast that it doesn't age.
time is a constant, it is not relative to anything.
the time on your watch!
this is not true
Comment
-
Fine. By what method do YOU propose to measure the rate of expiration of time to verify your claim that they are both "1 million years old"?Originally posted by 12clicks
The clock is not relevant. does time not march on if there is no clock?
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Not true wizzy. I used sound and light as an example of us seeing things as they pertain to us.Originally posted by Wizzo
Reminds me of a high school debate club... Good times!
However, you said:
If you switch Ben & Jerry's "coffee heathbar crunch" ice cream a with pile of shit , you would doubt that 12clicks would be enjoying a bowl of it... Which comparing light to sound, it doing the same thing...
But I do realize some on GFY might not know the difference...
Time happends wether we see it, measure it, or not.
we measure the speed of lite by eye and sound by ear, neither is relevant to time.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
thats where your wrong! Its ALL ABOUT WHERE THE CLOCK IS!Originally posted by 12clicks
The clock is not relevant. does time not march on if there is no clock?
because time passes DIFFERENTLY depending on what speed you go at.
the reason that you are debating this, is because you refuse to accept the theory
Comment
-
and remember, I say everything as if the theory is true (wich it should be)
and you say everything as if the theory didnt exit!
of course we will ALWAYS disagree
Comment
-
There *is* only one time but not the one on your watch.Originally posted by bdjuf
you keep thinking that there is only 1 time!
the time on your watch!
this is not true
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
Then write a book to back it up. Surely proving Hawkings wrong in any area would be nothing less than groundbreaking work.Originally posted by 12clicks
Hawkings is wrongComment
-
Originally posted by Matt 26z
Then write a book to back it up. Surely proving Hawkings wrong in any area would be nothing less than groundbreaking work.
Comment
-
we know when the planets were born, everything else is equal in time after that.Originally posted by Colin
Fine. By what method do YOU propose to measure the rate of expiration of time to verify your claim that they are both "1 million years old"?
you don't need to measure one against the other just use the "="I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
I prefer to be groundbreaking on the internet.Originally posted by Matt 26z
Then write a book to back it up. Surely proving Hawkings wrong in any area would be nothing less than groundbreaking work.
the pay is better.
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
alsoOriginally posted by 12clicks
I prefer to be groundbreaking on the internet.
the pay is better.
Comment
-
This is unproven theory. It *might* have been proven that time measurement can be affected by speed but not time.Originally posted by bdjuf
thats where your wrong! Its ALL ABOUT WHERE THE CLOCK IS!
because time passes DIFFERENTLY depending on what speed you go at.
I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
everybody shut up,Originally posted by 12clicks
This is unproven theory. It *might* have been proven that time measurement can be affected by speed but not time.
Im gonna go take a shower now
well continue when I get back
NOT A REPLY UNTIL THEN!
edit: why the fuck did I quote 12clicks on this one
Last edited by Guest; 06-20-2003, 07:15 AM.Comment
-
i didnt read the whole thread but here is my contribution. i've studied the relativity theory (with the equations and everything) at school a few times.
here are some facts:
- nothing can travel at or faster than lightspeed
- the closer an object gets to the lightspeed, the heavier the mass becomes. thats why it takes more and more energy to accelerate the mass at higher speeds. this mass asymptotically reaches infinity at lightspeed, thats why its not possible to reach that speed.
- you don't jump in time, your time line just expands. if you are travelling fast enough to expand time twice, then one day for you will be 2 days for a static object. so its like travelling one day into the future but it takes one day to make this trip.
This is already being applied to small objects in huge accelerators in labs underground. For example the scientists want to analyze a radioactive molecule that breaks apart in 1 millisecond. But this time period is too short to get the neccessary data. So they create this molecule and accelerate it to very close to the lightspeed in the lab. So the millisecond for the particle actually becomes a minute long for the scientists observing the particle, so it is long enough for them to get the data they need. In other words, the particle travels in time 1 minute into the future, within its 1 millisecond lifespan. Or the particle got 1 millisecond older but the rest of the world got 1 minute older, etc..
They can never get the particles to the lightspeed itself because its not possible as it gets heavier and heavier.
Now this experiment is being done at several labs around the world and Einsteins theory holds. I dunno how you can debunk it when it works in practise.
As far as going faster than lightspeed, it is not possible. But according to some theories it is possible to reach a destination quicker than light by taking some sort of "shortcut" because the lightbeam doesn't neccessarily take the shortest path. But this doesnt mean you are travelling faster than lightspeed.
Comment
-
so in other words, the black hole's gravitational pull is *faster* than light.
And hey, I'm not bullshitting anyone
ht.
12Clicks.... interesting point here......
If you think about it, motion causes gravity. The early rotates on its axis, causing a gravitational pull = to 9.8 meters / second sqaured.
Any object which travels faster than that rate, + a little lift flys. Gravity pulls on the object until the speed of that object is less than 9.8 m / s squared at which point it hits the earth.
Think of throwing a baseballl, when you first throw it, it fly's but then as it slows, it falls to the earth. The path of a base ball is curved arch.
Now apply that to light. In order for light to bend or be affeted by gravity, the gravitational pull would have to be stronger than the speed of light. Otherwise, light would not be affected by the pull much like a baseball is not affected by gravity when its intial veolicty is greater than 9.8 meters / second sqaured.
To me this means like 12 clicks said that the black whole must be traveling faster than the speed of light in order to generate enough gravity to bend light. The fact that matter becomes infinelty massive as it reaches the speed of light would then also explain the mass of a black whole.
However, if this is all true, then we should be able to time travel through black wholes.
Interesting thought 12 clicks.... going to read about todayComment
-
very goodOriginally posted by Lane
i didnt read the whole thread but here is my contribution. i've studied the relativity theory (with the equations and everything) at school a few times.
here are some facts:
- nothing can travel at or faster than lightspeed
- the closer an object gets to the lightspeed, the heavier the mass becomes. thats why it takes more and more energy to accelerate the mass at higher speeds. this mass asymptotically reaches infinity at lightspeed, thats why its not possible to reach that speed.
- you don't jump in time, your time line just expands. if you are travelling fast enough to expand time twice, then one day for you will be 2 days for a static object. so its like travelling one day into the future but it takes one day to make this trip.
This is already being applied to small objects in huge accelerators in labs underground. For example the scientists want to analyze a radioactive molecule that breaks apart in 1 millisecond. But this time period is too short to get the neccessary data. So they create this molecule and accelerate it to very close to the lightspeed in the lab. So the millisecond for the particle actually becomes a minute long for the scientists observing the particle, so it is long enough for them to get the data they need. In other words, the particle travels in time 1 minute into the future, within its 1 millisecond lifespan. Or the particle got 1 millisecond older but the rest of the world got 1 minute older, etc..
They can never get the particles to the lightspeed itself because its not possible as it gets heavier and heavier.
Now this experiment is being done at several labs around the world and Einsteins theory holds. I dunno how you can debunk it when it works in practise.
As far as going faster than lightspeed, it is not possible. But according to some theories it is possible to reach a destination quicker than light by taking some sort of "shortcut" because the lightbeam doesn't neccessarily take the shortest path. But this doesnt mean you are travelling faster than lightspeed.
Comment
-
Regarding black holes, I'm not sure how much has been discovered lately, but... I can see some of you are thinking with using Newtons equations. What Einstein did was to prove that Newtons equations do not hold since time is relative. But we still use them since they are almost perfectly accurate in our world with very slow speeds (compared to light).
First they said that gravity is an acceleration, not a force. Regardless of the size of the object, it will accelerate at the same speed. (eg. 9.8 m2/sec on earth). This is when the mass of the falling object is not significantly big compared to the big mass (planet) creating the gravitational field. When the falling object actually is big enough, the acceleration changes as well (i believe it gets smaller).
So when something is falling into a blackhole, it gets very close to the lightspeed and its mass increases tremendously, creating a big gravitational force in itself. This causes the atoms to collapse. The protons and electrons bind and form neutrons. Now the object is only made of neutrons, so its pure matter with no spaces, since no electric force exists within itself. The center of the blackhole is made of same type of object. When this falling object gets so heavy and since the time is also expanding, the acceleration actually drops, and i believe thats why it probably doesnt reach lightspeed. (since acceleration is relative with time).
I'm not 100% sure of all that, but nobody actually knows what exactly happens withing the black holes. And nobody will ever be able to observe it either, its always gonna stay as a mystery within theories and equations.Last edited by Lane; 06-20-2003, 07:44 AM.Comment
-
this is not a fact.Originally posted by Lane
i didnt read the whole thread but here is my contribution. i've studied the relativity theory (with the equations and everything) at school a few times.
here are some facts:
- nothing can travel at or faster than lightspeed
really? then how heavy is a light particle?Originally posted by Lane
- the closer an object gets to the lightspeed, the heavier the mass becomes. thats why it takes more and more energy to accelerate the mass at higher speeds. this mass asymptotically reaches infinity at lightspeed, thats why its not possible to reach that speed.
this is just woeds on a page. no proof.Originally posted by Lane
- you don't jump in time, your time line just expands. if you are travelling fast enough to expand time twice, then one day for you will be 2 days for a static object. so its like travelling one day into the future but it takes one day to make this trip.
show us a link before I argue itOriginally posted by Lane
- This is already being applied to small objects in huge accelerators in labs underground. For example the scientists want to analyze a radioactive molecule that breaks apart in 1 millisecond. But this time period is too short to get the neccessary data. So they create this molecule and accelerate it to very close to the lightspeed in the lab. So the millisecond for the particle actually becomes a minute long for the scientists observing the particle, so it is long enough for them to get the data they need. In other words, the particle travels in time 1 minute into the future, within its 1 millisecond lifespan. Or the particle got 1 millisecond older but the rest of the world got 1 minute older, etc..
They can never get the particles to the lightspeed itself because its not possible as it gets heavier and heavier.
show your work, otherwise its not true. I think they are excellerating these particles for a different reasonOriginally posted by Lane
Now this experiment is being done at several labs around the world and Einsteins theory holds. I dunno how you can debunk it when it works in practise..
this just isn't true.Originally posted by Lane
As far as going faster than lightspeed, it is not possible. But according to some theories it is possible to reach a destination quicker than light by taking some sort of "shortcut" because the lightbeam doesn't neccessarily take the shortest path. But this doesnt mean you are travelling faster than lightspeed.I'm not a dinosaur, I'm a crocodile. I've seen dinosaurs come and go and I'm left unimpressed.Comment
-
There are no clocks on any other planets (that I know of).Originally posted by bdjuf
yes, 1 million years old EARTH time
but if the clock was on the planets themselves
they would NOT be 1 million years old
we keep arguying the same thing
Is time standing still everywhere but Earth? o.O<a href="http://www.adultcontent.co.uk">Adult Content UK - Great British Content</a>Comment
-
Depends on how you define "heavy" and/or "mass".Originally posted by 12clicks
how heavy is a light particle?
It has relativistic mass like this:
E = mc^2
m = E/c^2
You can get into contradictory definitions of these things really quickly because what we are talking about is models and measurements performed in particular ways (i.e. wave/particle duality is a good example).Last edited by ADL Colin; 06-20-2003, 08:43 AM.
skype = "adultdatelink"Comment
-
Originally posted by 12clicks
Time has no relationship to people. Time passes regardless of what a person does.
Wrong!
Your are basing your theory on a false statement...
and that statement should have been your conclusion since your are debating Einstein theory... a theory that is the opposite of your opening statement....
Time as a relation to people/object if those people/object are travelling at the speed of light...Comment
Comment