AndyT Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 heres one that a lot of people know,sorry for those that allready know it,. however,. say you was an alien sat on a planet 100 million light years away in a galaxy far far away,and looked at earth RIGHT NOW via a realy powerfull telescope,. you would see earth,. as it was ,. 100 million years ago. with dinosuars etc The sun is 8 ish minutes older when we see it. If you used a telescope it would still be the same age. You'd have to set off ftl to get to the sun as it emitted the light that we see now. I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 an atomic clock will not be that far out just going to space and back, atomic clocks measure time in a much greater detail than what we know as milliseconds well yes your right,however, 10 millisceconds or 10 million years,.there is no real difference as far as the effect go`s,. if it changes time., on a larger scale it would still work.,if you travelled fast enough away and far enough away and back again., at near on the speed of light. and the bending of space to travel faster all depends on what we invent first well we know light is bended becuase high gravity fields bend light,thus bending time (time & space are one and related ) high gravity fields coming from massive planets and black holes cause light to bend,.therefore time itself must be bended.. (was gonna say bent lol ) we know def now thyat black holes exist at the center of every galaxy,as it is black holes that created the galaxies in the first place.,this is new info thats just come out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 The speed of light is variable, it's certainly possible to travel faster than light... you didn't specify what medium the light is passing through after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 The sun is 8 ish minutes older when we see it. If you used a telescope it would still be the same age. You'd have to set off ftl to get to the sun as it emitted the light that we see now. I think. well thats the thing ysee,. lightspeed is constant,. looking thru a lense doesnt speed up the light reaching the lense,it only brings it closer,. so the image that you see thru the scope is still 8 mins old,. except that you can see more detail., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra-Brett Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 heres one that a lot of people know,sorry for those that allready know it,. however,. say you was an alien sat on a planet 100 million light years away in a galaxy far far away,and looked at earth RIGHT NOW via a realy powerfull telescope,. you would see earth,. as it was ,. 100 million years ago. with dinosuars etc YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 The speed of light is variable, it's certainly possible to travel faster than light... you didn't specify what medium the light is passing through after all. i dunno thorin,the speed of light is viewed as constant,its what all foundations of time,light and space is based upon, light is constant but can be bent giving the effect of light/time speeding up and slowing down,. an example is this,. supposing there was a star behind a galaxy.. and we tried to view that star - we would see it - however its light would be bent around the sides of the galaxy.,bending the light. but the lightspeed is still the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I've read up on this. To accelerate from standstill to the speed of light at a rate of acceleration (G) that the human body can survive, will take longer than a middle aged man has left to live. At the other end of the journey, the decelleration would take a similar amount of time for the passengers to survive intact. Scientist worldwide agree that this form of travel will remain impossible for commuters between Southampton and the Isle of Wight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Don't you have inertial damper fields in the boat world, Ewen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 i dunno thorin,the speed of light is viewed as constant No, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Like I said, you didn't specify what medium the light was traveling through. It's certainly possible to slow light down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supra-Brett Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I've read up on this. To accelerate from standstill to the speed of light at a rate of acceleration (G) that the human body can survive, will take longer than a middle aged man has left to live. At the other end of the journey, the decelleration would take a similar amount of time for the passengers to survive intact. Scientist worldwide agree that this form of travel will remain impossible for commuters between Southampton and the Isle of Wight. And hence someone has to invent human cryogencic stasis as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 No, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Like I said, you didn't specify what medium the light was traveling through. It's certainly possible to slow light down well i cant think of any Thorin ? realy i cant,once you see the light , you see the light,and to see the light it has to travel at lightspeed,.. for a moment there you had me stumped,. i was thinking,,hhhmm, maybe thru a prism or an inert gas.. but no,. lightspeed is lightspeed and there realy is no way of slowing lightspeed down., i respect your statement Thorin but i`ll need more pursasion to agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 well i stand corrected Thorin my apologies,i have been pawned http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html and http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392702 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 My goodness. All this AND that plane thread. Great stuff today and civil too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPRASUZUKI Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 No, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Like I said, you didn't specify what medium the light was traveling through. It's certainly possible to slow light down It slows down as the desinty of the media through which it passes imcreases. Refraction of light at the interface of water and air is good evidence of this. (If I remember my physics correctly:search:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren-K Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 to be honest, before we master time travel i think we will master teleportation, computers will develop to be so powerfull that eventualy they will be able to scan every molecule in a human body, store the information relating to its position and density.then via some form of molecular deconstrunction take the body apart,molecule by molecule then put it back together exactly as it was somewhere and sometime later - this process will open the doors to interstella travel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt k Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 No, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Like I said, you didn't specify what medium the light was traveling through. It's certainly possible to slow light down You mean like massive gravitational pull, like the kind caused by a neutron star? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiceRocket Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Surely you mean Adam and Eve in the garden of eden? Scott =op If you're gonna believe the bible then human history is only about 6,000 years old. Back to time travel, I remember reading/hearing that in a way its already happened as the Russian bloke who spent most time on the Mir station has gone 1 second into the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilli Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 interesting subject Einstein's theories are symmetrical about time (i.e. they apply with time running forwards or backwards) but the universe we know has a fundamental arrow of time that no one yet has really been able to fully explain. also, Quantum Mechanics introduces non-locality where something can be everywhere and nowhere all at once, spooky action at a distance that transcends space and time. then there are things like the transactional model of QM that can be used to come up with theories for otherwise inexplicable phenomena such as inertia, which basically involves forwards and backwards time, symmetrically so it would appear that down at the quantum level, time travel is already possible - or that at least the normal rules of classical time/space (as we know it) do not apply. However my thoughts are that time travel would be impossible for any object obeying classical physics. Time is probably a construct observed only by things (such as people) stuck inside the confines of the universe and obeying classical physics. For classical objects, there's an inescapable link between space and time, you move through one and it affects how you move through the other. It appears the universe may well be deterministic, so at some level all of time is set out already - imagine a 4d solid block of space/time that exists where time is just another dimension. that doesn't mean time isn't real for us, it's very real and just as real as spacial dimensions, it also doesn't mean we can take short-cuts through it either - we operate within the universe and are confined by the arrow of time - from another perspective though, time may not really exist as we know it at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jezz Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 It was the one armed man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Don't you have inertial damper fields in the boat world, Ewen? Oh yes indeed. We offer them as customer upgrades, but it adds £278 billion to the list price. They tend to go for the monogrammed cutlery instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 interesting subject Einstein's theories are symmetrical about time (i.e. they apply with time running forwards or backwards) but the universe we know has a fundamental arrow of time that no one yet has really been able to fully explain. also, Quantum Mechanics introduces non-locality where something can be everywhere and nowhere all at once, spooky action at a distance that transcends space and time. then there are things like the transactional model of QM that can be used to come up with theories for otherwise inexplicable phenomena such as inertia, which basically involves forwards and backwards time, symmetrically so it would appear that down at the quantum level, time travel is already possible - or that at least the normal rules of classical time/space (as we know it) do not apply. However my thoughts are that time travel would be impossible for any object obeying classical physics. Time is probably a construct observed only by things (such as people) stuck inside the confines of the universe and obeying classical physics. For classical objects, there's an inescapable link between space and time, you move through one and it affects how you move through the other. It appears the universe may well be deterministic, so at some level all of time is set out already - imagine a 4d solid block of space/time that exists where time is just another dimension. that doesn't mean time isn't real for us, it's very real and just as real as spacial dimensions, it also doesn't mean we can take short-cuts through it either - we operate within the universe and are confined by the arrow of time - from another perspective though, time may not really exist as we know it at all! In other words, Einsteins odd-sock theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ewen Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Remember, when trains were first around everyone was certain that travelling over about 15mph would cause a person to go insane Great isnt it. We had a tour of a classic London hotel recently, and we were shown 'one of the worlds first lifts'. It looked like a popular expectation of Jules Vernes Time Machine, all velvet and brass lined, with a two seater sofa in it. The guide explained that it was for passengers who became distressed....there was always an attendant present in the lift, and on every floor next to the lift doors equipped with brandy / smelling salts as many people simply swooned with sheer terror when the lift started its unholy ascent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 Are you talking about paradox's and everything blowing up because of them. Nah, its just not possible full stop, you cant travel to something that has already happened! its gone... kaput, over the best use of time travel was by arnie Hmmm... I used to question the validity of Terminator, but this has confused the duck out of me!... http://www.mjyoung.net/time/terminat.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_have Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 If you put instant coffee in a microwave, do you go back in time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 If you put instant coffee in a microwave' date=' do you go back in time?[/quote'] As long as you add the correct amount of water, you get hot coffee, just don't put the spoon in the microwave, and stir afterwards... Add Milk and Sugar to taste... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.