An idea.

[Sigo2507]

There is a problem. Your time signiture becomes negative. You move through negative time (backwards).

Didn't you mean "imaginary time"? ("imaginary" as in the square root of -1).

[ruthless]

its all very interesting. i have alot of ideas, none will probably work though.

 

is there by any chance a such thing as a light vaccum? just wondering, was something im thinking about.

 

i really need to go back to school, ive got tons to learn lol

 

 

[ruthless]

i think i finally get it. just before light speed, the power to weight ratio is 0.1 so it has no more acceleration. is this correct darby?

 

 

[Sigo2507]

i think i finally get it. just before light speed, the power to weight ratio is 0.1 so it has no more acceleration.

I assume you meant 0, rather than 0.1?Yes. You're correct. The faster you go, the heavier your ship gets, and the same amount of power gives you less acceleration.

 

 

[ruthless]

"I assume you meant 0, rather than 0.1"

 

what i meant was right before light speed, the power to weight ratio is 0 to 1 meaning 0 power and 1 weight. in other words, no amount of known force can push it that hard.

 

 

[Sigo2507]

So you meant 0 : 1. Now I understand.

 

Since 0 : 1 is the same thing as 0, my previous answer still holds.

 

To be precise, the ratio never reaches 0. At the speed of light it would be 0, but you can't reach the speed of light. You simply get less and less bang for your buck, getting closer and closer to the speed of light.

 

There is a way to see this very intuitively. It is called "rapidity".

 

Rapidity is a measure of how fast an object is moving, and can be calculated from its speed. The rapidity scale is designed so that the same amount of power always give rise to the same increase of rapidity. Rapidity goes from zero (for an object at rest) to infinity (at the speed of light). At everyday speeds, rapidity and speed are virtually identical. At 0.50c (50% the speed of light), the rapidity is 0.55c. At v=0.80c, the rapidity is 1.1c. At v=0.99c, the rapidity is 2.65c. And at v=c (the speed of light), the rapidity is infinite.

 

It is rapidity, rather than speed, that behaves intuitively at high speeds.

 

Here is a simple example:

 

In everyday mechanics, speed is comulative. If you're riding a car going at 80 mph, and you're throwing a ball forward at 60 mph (relative to the car), the ball will go at 80+60=140 mph relative to the ground. Combining speeds is a simple matter of adding the numbers up.

 

In relativity this is not the case. If you're in a ship going at 0.80c (80% the speed of light) and you fire a torpedo at 0.60c (relative to the ship), the torpedo isn't flying at 1.40c. You obviously can't just add the speeds here, because 1.40c is faster than the speed of light.

 

So what do you do? You add rapidities instead of speeds:

 

A speed of 0.80c corresponds to a rapidity of 1.10c

 

A speed of 0.60c corresponds to a rapidity of 0.69c

 

Add them up, and you get the rapidity of the torpedo: 1.10c+0.69c=1.79c

 

Which you can convert back to ordinary speed if you wish: 1.79c => 0.946c

 

By the way, did you know that the calculator of Microsoft Windows can easily convert speed to rapidity and vica versa?

 

To convert speed to rapidity, type in the speed, and then press I,H,T.

 

To convert rapidity to speed, type in the rapidity, and then press H,T.

 

 

[experiment1]

Consider this one. Ok....light and sound must evidently be a part of each other since both are a part of frequencies. Frequencies can vary from fast and slow. Wouldn't it be interesting if our consciousness would allow us to see light and sound co-ordinate together a put on a show? Anyway....I feel the fast, higher frequencies go toward the future, and the slow, lower frequencies go toward the past. But......regardless of speed.......I feel the main thing is to allow our minds to accept the reality of traveling either to the past or to the future. I believe that the past, present, and future are all in the NOW.

 

 

[ruthless]

so let me make sure i understand. light is weightless, no matter the gravity?

 

 

[Darby]

Experiment,

 

Light and sound in one sense are fundamentally different. Sound, as we usually perceive it, is a change in air pressure that is sensed byt our ear drums. In another sense they are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum - nothing more than different frequencies in the totality of the spectrum of "light".

 

What do you mean by "fast" or "slow"?

 

Wave forms travel at the speed of light in a vacuum - or at the speed of light allowed in a specific medium, i.e. as allowed by the Index of Refraction in that medium.

 

EM waves forms propogate, in either case, toward the future. The only way for a wave form to propogate toward the past is for it to have a negative frequency (whatever that means). But in that case the wave form would be traveling in negative space (whatever that means).

 

 

[Darby]

Experiment,

 

I didn't mean to be obtuse when I refered to negative frequencies or negative space. But the problem involved there is one of balancing an equation. The sign, negative or positive, of an element of a mathematical equation...if the formula is actually an "equation", i.e. both sides of the equals sign really are equal...means that if you change the sign of one side you have to find a way to change the sign of the other side of the equation so that it balances... so that is is really "equal" on both sides.

 

 

[jmpet]

Darby-

 

I have an observation on this comment-

 

>I didn't mean to be obtuse when I refered to negative frequencies or negative space.<

 

And this earlier comment-

 

>When you're standing still (zero velocity with respect to the inertial observer) you experience all time and zero space.<

 

It occured to me this morning that if you truly could stop/freeze time, you would quickly die. Why? Because if you truly stopped time, you stopped the movement of the universe... atoms would freeze and stop around you. You would find yourself surrounded by inert matter- the very air around you would be impossibly solid. You would push the air but (through the nature of 3D/insert physics formula here) you'd find the harder you tried to push the air around you, the harder it would push back. Why? Because time is standing still/movement itself is standing still.

 

You would inhale and inhale o2 molicules at absolute zero, which would quickly kill you. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between floating in the vacuum of space and standing in non-time. Do you agree and what the hell am I referring to- someone had to already have pondered this notion.

 

 

[ruthless]

"It occured to me this morning that if you truly could stop/freeze time, you would quickly die. Why? Because if you truly stopped time, you stopped the movement of the universe... atoms would freeze and stop around you. You would find yourself surrounded by inert matter- the very air around you would be impossibly solid. You would push the air but (through the nature of 3D/insert physics formula here) you'd find the harder you tried to push the air around you, the harder it would push back. Why? Because time is standing still/movement itself is standing still.

 

You would inhale and inhale o2 molicules at absolute zero, which would quickly kill you. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between floating in the vacuum of space and standing in non-time. Do you agree and what the hell am I referring to- someone had to already have pondered this notion. "

 

ive thought something along the lines of that, but a little different. i thought it might be like when a computer program locks up, and you have to restart. or everything blows up.

 

gives a whole new meaning to "its a little too quiet."

 

 

[TimeNot_0]

At the extremes like Absolute Zero (which is never reached) and at the other end where the mass becomes infinite along with the energy needed (again never reached) perhaps there is a Chronological Protection and Correction there. Thus one can never really stop the vibrations at the Absolute Zero end and one can not Correct or Change the Time Flavors at the Speed of Light end. So in the end, you can never absolutly know those inertial frames of reference because although you can get close, you are dealing with "zero" and "infinity".

 

 

[ruthless]

maybe stopping time is what caused the big bang

 

i have a question, how does physics handle lightspeed and weight? for instance, if you wanted to find the impact of an object that is going 1 tick before the speed of light and weighs 1 ton, and you slam it into a planet,would the math be accurate? and can physics comprehend ALL of the variables?

 

 

[jmpet]

>At the extremes like Absolute Zero (which is never reached) and at the other end where the mass becomes infinite along with the energy needed (again never reached) perhaps there is a Chronological Protection and Correction there.<

 

Agreed.

 

>Thus one can never really stop the vibrations at the Absolute Zero end and one can not Correct or Change the Time Flavors at the Speed of Light end.<

 

I disagree- after all, this is what a time machine does: alter the logical progression of time... it "time travels". I think when we figure out what we're all swimming in, we'll figure some new tricks- foremost time travel.

 

Say you froze time and took someone who is sitting on the roof of a building and carried him down to street level then started time- would he instantly splat when time started again? Why or why not?

 

 

[ruthless]

"I disagree- after all, this is what a time machine does: alter the logical progression of time... it "time travels". I think when we figure out what we're all swimming in, we'll figure some new tricks- foremost time travel."

 

i think what he's trying to say is, that the vibrations cannot be stopped, no matter what, for how would they restart? i akin it to a nuclear bomb in a way.

 

 

[TimeNot_0]

You never can stop time. Never! A time machine does not stop or alter time, you merely move in it like swimming in a river.

 

That is why those two extremes end points one can never reach, and although you could get close, you never ever get there.

 

Out of a programming book on physics:

 

Recall that the weight of an object is its mass times the acceleration due to gravity, g, which is 32.174 ft/s^2 at sea level (9.8 m/s^2).

 

When dealing with "mass" you have "mass properties" that include the mass, center of mass, and moment of inertia, as the linear and angular motion of a body and a body's response to a given force are functions of these mass properties. Linear motion refers to motion in space without regard to rotation; angular motion specifically refers to the rotation of a body about any axis (the body may or may not be undergoing linear motion at the same time).

 

If you wish to find out more then consider the book:

 

Physics for Game Developers by David M. Bourg

 

in the O'Reilly website.

 

http://www.oreilly.com/store/complete.csp

 

http://www.oreilly.com/store/complete3.html

 

 

[jmpet]

>You never can stop time. Never! A time machine does not stop or alter time, you merely move in it like swimming in a river.<

 

Okay, but we can still talk about if time did stop, right?

 

 

[ruthless]

thanks for the links timenot. its much appreciated.

 

 

[ruthless]

"Okay, but we can still talk about if time did stop, right?"

 

ok, if it did stop, how would it restart? if it were to only slow, then that would be understandable to restart, but to totally stop it, to stop all flow would be catastrophic in my humble opinion. which brings me to another thing i was thinking about:

 

do you believe the universe is still to light? if light had a mind, and could think rationally, how would it percieve the universe?

 

something else occured to me this morning. the human mind is more than capable of light speed i think and ill tell ya why: we can go back to the past mentally in an instant, within a twinkling of an eye. we may not be able to physically go, but i guarantee its alot faster than any time traveling machine that will ever be created.

 

 

[jmpet]

>ok, if it did stop, how would it restart? if it were to only slow, then that would be understandable to restart, but to totally stop it, to stop all flow would be catastrophic in my humble opinion.<

 

It was a mental exercise to stimulate the minds of this forum. I believe the correct answer is "depends on your definition of a time machine". This is lateral thinking.

 

>do you believe the universe is still to light?<

 

Too light? As in- "not enough mass"? That's what dark matter is for.

 

>if light had a mind, and could think rationally, how would it percieve the universe?<

 

Thinking light would see all times as one within the universe.

 

>something else occured to me this morning. the human mind is more than capable of light speed i think and ill tell ya why: we can go back to the past mentally in an instant, within a twinkling of an eye. we may not be able to physically go, but i guarantee its alot faster than any time traveling machine that will ever be created.<

 

I think it was Sagan who said we think no faster than "30-40 mph" (if you will) once you take into account the countless neurons that go into forming one thought. We may be able to remember the past in an instant, but we can't change it.

 

 

[ruthless]

"We may be able to remember the past in an instant, but we can't change it."

 

i disagree, i think that memories fade a little bit and distort some each time you think about it, so in a way you can alter the past. or at least in your own mind.

 

">do you believe the universe is still to light?<

 

Too light? As in- "not enough mass"? That's what dark matter is for."

 

i didnt mean "too." i keep thinking that light is actually slow and its on a different time scale, or perception of time than us. i think maybe it just seems fast to us because of how we perceive things. im probably wrong, but i keep thinking about it for some reason.

 

"I think it was Sagan who said we think no faster than "30-40 mph" (if you will) once you take into account the countless neurons that go into forming one thought. We may be able to remember the past in an instant, but we can't change it."

 

pitchers throw 100+ mph fastballs. i think that my mind is alot faster than my arm, but thats just my opinion, i could be wrong.

 

 

[jmpet]

>i disagree, i think that memories fade a little bit and distort some each time you think about it, so in a way you can alter the past. or at least in your own mind.<

 

I agree, but you're entering the realm of conjecture- we collectively remember what we want to remember. I was speaking more in terms of the universe- if nothing else, information is not lost- a photon of light will travel 10 billion light years and still be a photon of light, albeit distorted.

 

>i keep thinking that light is actually slow and its on a different time scale, or perception of time than us.<

 

If you're moving at light speed, you're moving at the speed of time (E=MC2). So to you- at light speed- time is standing still- in the realm of light speed there is no such thing as time. Just as to a fish, there is no such thing as "water".

 

Now how does the universe around you look to you- the light-speed-going entity you are? To you, all times happen at once, all over the place. In a manner of speaking, "time" is the first dimension, because without time/duration, even a point is unquantifiable.

 

I see a connection between this and accretion disks... can any of you brainiacs jump in here? Why does a black hole eating a galaxy form an accretion disk? Why is chaos so orderly??

 

 

[ruthless]

for some reason i think e=mc2 isnt time, i think it may just be time slowed alot. probably just a silly thought.

 

 

[ruthless]

how does this sound? time= speed times energy