ruthless Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 i have a theory, and i was wondering if anyone could prove, or disprove it. i am trying to understand the whole light speed deal. my idea is that light travels very, very slowly. it is only percieved as fast because it is not bound by the rules of time. i am probably incorrect, but its ok, as i am just trying to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted June 2, 2007 Author Share Posted June 2, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Kakusagan Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 *** DELETED BY ADMINISTRATOR *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Kakusagan Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I bet your a emo too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 >Is this what you do all day with your time? Man you need a life. I hope your wife dies infront of you and your family.< This was completely uncalled for and you should apologize immediately for saying this and do like all the other debunked scam time travellers do and simply go away- you crossed the line with that comment. And for the record, your story IS full of holes. Yeah I know- "time to attack me too". Well take a month off, come back and reread all your posts and you will agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Kakusagan Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Lol what? I was the one who revealed myself...lol ofcourse my story was full of holes just found the blog and started typing random idiocy. lolol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Kakusagan Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Ok, ruthless. I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 You can't point out that your story is full of holes as an obvious fact in light of your story turning out to be nothing but full of holes. That is a sign of immaturity, which only makes you lose even more credibility. If your intention was to goof on us from day one, your first post would have been goofy. But it was not. From the outset you inferred you were "better than all of us" and when it turned out you were nothing but another simple fraud, you decided to turn ugly and attack everyone instead of walking away. Well I am here to tell you it's time for you to walk away. Now go before it gets even more embarrasing for you. Since you're so much better than all of us anyway, you should have no problem walking away, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Kakusagan Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Didn't you read the "Proof" post? It was set up that I was going to reveal myself 2-3 days before I even did it. Obviously it was pre-meditated. I made a prediction a polotical leader was going to get hurt on May 31st or June 1st and guess what? A DURRRRRRR IF IT DIDNT HAPPEN OBVIOUSLY I WAS GUNNA BE REVEALED A DURRRRR AND WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF IT HAPPENING? A DDURRRRRPPP A DURRRR ANYONE HOME? Ruthless just insulted me so I decided I would do it then and slap his face a little bit and make him feel bad about himself. So I think you either need common sense or some schooling little kid. LOLZZZZZZZZZZZ Oh I know I'm so embarrassed by guys on a time traveling blog insulting me. Why would I be embarassed by ANYTHING on the internet especially you losers? Lol I don't care what people think about me I'm not a punk like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 >It was set up that I was going to reveal myself 2-3 days before I even did it.< Perhaps you're missing the point. You can't point out that "you were only joking" in light of being exposed as a fraud. >Lol I don't care what people think about me I'm not a punk like you.< For someone who dosen't care, you sure seem to be keeping this lively "should you go away" debate going. It's called LASTWORDITIS- check it out on Wikipedia. "It's all over but for the crying" -Someone dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph_Kakusagan Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Are you threatening me? Because I can easily traingulate your IP and settle this another way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Please triangulate away, Dick Tracy. And post my home address here. Impress me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 >Ruthless just insulted me so I decided I would do it then and slap his face a little bit and make him feel bad about himself.< The two people I have the most respect for here are ruthless- for his honesty and open-mindedness and Darby- for the same reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Last nail in the coffin And oh yeah- Kakusagan: YOU LOSE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigo2507 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Ruthless, please elaborte more. Don't mind the trolls. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 Sigo- I can be your bestest friend on equal and humble terms or your worst enemy. We agree 99.999% of the time. You need to step away from the equasions and think bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmpet Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 >i am trying to understand the whole light speed deal.< The way I see it, the entire universe works normally at light speed. In other words, E=MC2. Us "mass-laden beings" are dragged down by, well, our mass and as such operate a less-than-light-speed-speeds. There was another thread (Sigo's thread) about God and I posit: it's harder to prove God does not exist than to prove God exists. Of course this brings us into the realm of metaphysics, but "every advance in physics is a step towards metaphysics". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigo2507 Posted June 2, 2007 Share Posted June 2, 2007 I can be your bestest friend on equal and humble terms or your worst enemy. We agree 99.999% of the time. You need to step away from the equasions and think bigger. I'm not here to make friends or enemies. I'm here to have a discussion, and my firstmost concern is the search for truth. I plan to use all my knowledge and experience to do so. And I certainly won't stop correcting obvious fallacies which are perpetueted by others.If you too are searching for the real, hard facts, you shouldn't have a problem with this. And let us keep this thread free of any more distractions. If JK posts on this thread again, please ignore him. He has three whole threads where we can play with him, which is more than enough. Back to you, Ruthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Kaku Sagan has his own thread(s) - this is ruthless' thread. Let's put Kaku Sagan on ignore so that ruthless' thread isn't hijacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 ruthless, Always keep the rules of special relativity in mind when you're thinking about how time applies to a situation involving velocities approaching light speed. All inertial observers will measure a photon's velocity in a vacuum to be 300,000 kps regardless of what their velocities might be with respect to each other. If you could catch a ride on a photon (travel at the speed of light) you're correct. Time, your clock stops ticking with respect to the inertial observers (though it appears unaffected from your perspective). You observe their clocks to have stopped (and they, like you, observe no problem with their clocks). If you look at this a bit deeper you see that light speed isn't a barrier. It's a boundry - the boundry in terms of spacetime as the break-point between space and time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 If you look at this a bit deeper you see that light speed isn't a barrier. It's a boundry - the boundry in terms of spacetime as the break-point between space and time. I probably should expand on this idea for you.When you're standing still (zero velocity with respect to the inertial observer) you experience all time and zero space. That is, you move forward in time but have no movement in space. Your situation is completely "timelike". As you start accelerating you begin to move more slowly in time (with respect to the observer) and more quickly in space. Your movement in spacetime is becoming more "spacelike". At the speed of light the observer sees your clock stop. At this point your movement is neither spacelike nor timelike - it is "lightlike" (you simultaneously occupy all of time and space in your universe - you're infinitely "smeared out" in spacetime. If you could move even faster your movement switches from being timelike (sub-light velocities) to "spacelike". You move faster through space than a photon can move in space. There is a problem. Your time signiture becomes negative. You move through negative time (backwards). But something else also ocurs that no one ever talks about. Your space signature also switches to negative. You begin to move through "negative space". And no one knows just what that means. It is a truth of symmetry in the mathematics of special (and general) relativity but that's just the math. The math doesn't define what negative space is. It might be another universe, it might be some form of space that we have never encountered or it might be just a solution to the math that has no meaning in the "real" world. It could also mean that if the solution is "another universe " that the conditions of that universe are such that both time ans space have negative signitures with respect to our universe and you end up traveling forward in both space and time in a "normal" fashion that you experience in this universe, i.e. you are in a tachyon universe. But in that universe to slow down you have to add energy and to speed up you have to lose energy. At zero energy you accelerate to infinite velocity. At infinite energy you slow to light speed. General relativity is so complex in its math that no one has been able to solve it during the past 90 years since Einstein first published it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 "General relativity is so complex in its math that no one has been able to solve it during the past 90 years since Einstein first published it. " i find it all very interesting. i am starting to think that maybe more is known about it than i thought. but im not sure. i have a question, may sound silly. why is light speed so hard to achieve? i also wonder about other things, like how gravity bends light, etc. so if we caught light in a bottle, would it be considered time in a bottle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darby Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 i have a question, may sound silly. why is light speed so hard to achieve? It's not at all a silly question.There are several ways to approach the answer but one approach that we're familiar with is helpful. You remember E = mc^2 from Einstein's special relativity. That manner of expressing the equation is for a mass at rest. When we accelerate the mass it takes an energy input. When velocities begin to approach half the speed of light the equation has to be expressed in its full relativity form... E = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 The divisor is the clue. At low velocities you are dividing by ~1. But as velocity (v) begins to approach the speed of light the divisor starts to approach zero. The value of the mass (m) in the equation starts to zoom toward infinity. Therefore the energy required (E) to accelerate the mass (m) also also begins to approach infinity. Every time you input energy into the system to acelerate it the energy is tansformed into mass, which is exactly what E=mc^2 states. The next energy input has to not only attempt to acelerate the "original" mass but it also has to accelerate the additional mass. A property of mass is inertia - defined as the property of mass to resist acceleration. It's a no win situation. You eventually get to the point where you have a near infinite mass which isn't quite traveling at the speed of light and which requires an additional near infinite input of energy to eck out an infinitesimally small increase in velocity. The inertia of the mass is almost infinite. To get it "over the top" so that you reach light speed requires an infinite amount of energy to be input, but that energy is resisted by infinite inertia. No amount of energy will be sufficient to overcome that last bit of inertia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share Posted June 4, 2007 very interesting. a few more questions if i may: how is the speed of light measured? and do you think there is maybe another way to reach the speed of light? like an avenue that physics hasnt explored, or some abstract idea? for instance, look at the universe as if it were a CAD program, using the standard XY coordinate. could physics take advantage of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigo2507 Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 and do you think there is maybe another way to reach the speed of light? Perhaps there's a way to JUMP OVER the speed of light boundary. Relativity does not prohibit particles to travel faster than light. It only prohibits them to travel AT the speed of light (unless they are massless, like photons).Of-course, you can't jump over the light boundary by simple acceleration. Darby already explained why this is impossible. It is, however, concievable that there are other ways to do so - ways which are unknown to current science. By the way, travelling faster than light is not the same thing as travelling backwards in time. The two concepts are closely related, though. If you have access to faster-than-light technology, time travel becomes trivially easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts