# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?  (Read 3956 times)

#### ankur.jain

• First timers
• Posts: 1
##### Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« on: 01/02/2016 02:23:57 »
Hi,

Although, I used to be a student of science but there is one thing that still haunts me i.e. Time travel.

I understand that the time is just a unit that as human we introduced which is "he duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". I completely accept that this phenomenon can be dependent on a number of environmental variables and other fields which when changed would impact the period and gravity is one of those.

From above I understand that if a person on earth using an atomic clock matched to the other atomic clock with another person in space then eventually the atomic clock in space will slow down in relation to the one on earth hence 81 years on earth could be 80 years in space. Having said that I couldn't understand that is it possible that, if the person on earth takes 81 years to complete something then at the same speed the person in space will complete the same in 80 years? or will it be 81 years in space?

I reckon it should be 80 years in space considering time is relative and 80years in space will be equal to 81 years on earth. Similarly the span that the person has lived will be exactly the same on both sides with the only difference that their measuring scales are acting different because of gravity or may be other reasons.

If my assumption is true than I really fail to visualize the concept of time dilation.

« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 08:24:06 by chris »

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel in future?
« Reply #1 on: 01/02/2016 03:18:15 »
As I understand this, the faster one travels, the slower time passes.
For instance, lets say you wanted to travel to a star that is 1000 light years away. We'll call it "VULCAN"...

If you hop in your space ship and accelerate to, lets say 99.99999 percent of the speed of light, YOU would arrive at Vulcan in a very short time period of maybe a month or something like that according to YOUR watch.

However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years.

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel in future?
« Reply #2 on: 01/02/2016 04:11:14 »
However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years.
If what you say is true, that a person on Earth would only have to watch you travel for a bit over 1000 years, then why do you need time dilation? I mean when you arrive on Volcan which is 1000 light years away, then the light of your arrival would be coming from 1000 years in Earths past. Even if you could instanteneously teleported to Volcan, a person on Earth would have to watch Volcan for 1000 years to see you arrive.
This is not explaining clock rate (time dilation), just the slow speed of light. It seems like an illusion.
If Earth saw you arrive in just over 1000 years, then according to Earth you arrived not long after your departure, as anything it sees of Volcan is 1000 years in the past.
The light of your journey was stretched because of the limited speed of light. Not because of time dilation.
Sorry I'm struggling to understand the claim of time dilation in what is called relativistic space flight. And my doubts are centred around the statement you just made.
I have been trying to clarify this in another post as well.

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel in future?
« Reply #3 on: 01/02/2016 06:57:46 »
HAHAHA..  Relativity gives me a headache too...

Your trip to Vulcan will take ~1000 years to anyone observing your spaceship, except you.  Since your spaceship is moving so fast, time for you slows down.

If Earth called Vulcan on the sub-space instant communication system (probably made by Verizon )  and said you just left 5 minutes ago and your space ship was traveling very near the speed of light, Vulcan would have to wait ~1000 years for you to get there..   But to you, the trip would only take a very short time.

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #4 on: 01/02/2016 12:54:27 »
If you hop in your space ship and accelerate to, lets say 99.99999 percent of the speed of light, YOU would arrive at Vulcan in a very short time period of maybe a month or something like that according to YOUR watch.

However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years.
This is what my comment refers to. The claim that someone on "Earth" would watch you through a telescope for only a bit over 1000 years.
Not how long the trip seems to you although that's relevant. But making the statement that Earth watching you through a telescope take a bit over 1000 years means that when "Earth" watches you arrive, it is actually light that has taken 1000 years to get to Earth from Volcan. So according to the "Earth" telescope watcher you arrived 1000 years before they saw you arrive.
All the rest is meaningless until this is adequately explained.
If that statement is true then you have travelled 1000 light years in your quoted 50 years by both you and the telescope on Earth. It just took Earth a further 1000 years to confirm the fact, because that is how long it takes light to get to Earth from Volcan.
Where is the time dilation?

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #5 on: 01/02/2016 18:51:19 »

I shouldn't have posted the example in the way I did.. That was a poor way of trying to convey the information.
So lets modify and add a few things to make it easier.

Ship leaves earth at the speed of light and goes to a planet 1000 light years away...  Observer watches it travel through space.    500 years later, the ship is at the half way mark, but the observer on earth wouldn't see it at the half way mark until 1000 years has past because, as you infer, it takes another 500 years for the image of the ship to come back to earth.    So, 1000 years passes and the earth observer sees the ship at the 1/2 way point..   The ship however, has already reached its destination.   If the ship headed back immediately, by the time the observer saw the ship reach its destination, the ship would be arriving back on Earth.

And now I need an aspirin.  LOL

#### Alohascope

• Full Member
• Posts: 74
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #6 on: 01/02/2016 20:13:51 »
Chance means you either have nearly endless opportunities as to what the future holds .. either that or there is no future until it happens.

The following users thanked this post: MurBob

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #7 on: 01/02/2016 22:02:44 »
If you hop in your space ship and accelerate to, lets say 99.99999 percent of the speed of light, YOU would arrive at Vulcan in a very short time period of maybe a month or something like that according to YOUR watch.

However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years.
This is what my comment refers to. The claim that someone on "Earth" would watch you through a telescope for only a bit over 1000 years.
Not how long the trip seems to you although that's relevant. But making the statement that Earth watching you through a telescope take a bit over 1000 years means that when "Earth" watches you arrive, it is actually light that has taken 1000 years to get to Earth from Volcan. So according to the "Earth" telescope watcher you arrived 1000 years before they saw you arrive.
All the rest is meaningless until this is adequately explained.
If that statement is true then you have travelled 1000 light years in your quoted 50 years by both you and the telescope on Earth. It just took Earth a further 1000 years to confirm the fact, because that is how long it takes light to get to Earth from Volcan.
Where is the time dilation?

Consider the astronaut in the spaceship is not looking ahead to Volcan, the astronaut is looking out of the rear window with a telescope at the observer on Earth who is looking back with a telescope.

The spaceship reaches a half way point of 500 light years, it takes 500 ly's for the light of the spaceship to reach earth, it takes 500 ly's of the light from earth to reach the spaceship, the net difference is zero, both the spaceship and earth observe 500 lys.

Now at this point the astronaut changes their view and looks ahead to Volcan, on Volcan an observer looks through a telescope at the oncoming spaceship and the spaceship observes back, it takes 500 lys for the light to travel from the spaceship to Volcan, it takes 500 Ly's for the light to travel from Volcan to the spaceship, no net difference observed.

Ok?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #8 on: 01/02/2016 22:12:21 »
Hi,

Although, I used to be a student of science but there is one thing that still haunts me i.e. Time travel.

I understand that the time is just a unit that as human we introduced which is "he duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". I completely accept that this phenomenon can be dependent on a number of environmental variables and other fields which when changed would impact the period and gravity is one of those.

From above I understand that if a person on earth using an atomic clock matched to the other atomic clock with another person in space then eventually the atomic clock in space will slow down in relation to the one on earth hence 81 years on earth could be 80 years in space. Having said that I couldn't understand that is it possible that, if the person on earth takes 81 years to complete something then at the same speed the person in space will complete the same in 80 years? or will it be 81 years in space?

I reckon it should be 80 years in space considering time is relative and 80years in space will be equal to 81 years on earth. Similarly the span that the person has lived will be exactly the same on both sides with the only difference that their measuring scales are acting different because of gravity or may be other reasons.

If my assumption is true than I really fail to visualize the concept of time dilation.

There is gravitational time dilation and relativistic dilation I think, two sorts, it is said that a body in motion relative to an observer in an  inertial reference frame that time slows down, to visualise this imagine a dripping tap, but when the tap moves the drip slows down.

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #9 on: 01/02/2016 22:31:49 »
Ship leaves earth at the speed of light and goes to a planet 1000 light years away...  Observer watches it travel through space.    500 years later, the ship is at the half way mark, but the observer on earth wouldn't see it at the half way mark until 1000 years has past because, as you infer, it takes another 500 years for the image of the ship to come back to earth.    So, 1000 years passes and the earth observer sees the ship at the 1/2 way point..   The ship however, has already reached its destination.
OK now we have a new scenario to analyse.
You claim the ship is traveling at the speed of light which is not possible and doesn't fit into the math. So I will assume you meant at almost the speed of light.
You now claim that the Earth reference frame watches the ship uninterrupted for the whole journey of 1000 light years and according to your description the Earth reference frame now watches the ship travel for 2000 years to complete a journey of 1000 light years.
Now my math maybe a bit rusty but that says to me that the Earth frame only ever observes the ship traveling at half light speed.
Remember that the Lorenz transformation requires the Earth frame to witness the ship traveling at almost light speed. It has no place for allowing for the light to separately travel back within the relativity equations that I can find.
The solving of the lorenz transformation clearly gives an answer of a little over 1000 years observation time for Earth reference frame. Not travel time, "observation time".
The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.
What is going on here?

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #10 on: 01/02/2016 23:08:30 »
Quote
You claim the ship is traveling at the speed of light which is not possible and doesn't fit into the math. So I will assume you meant at almost the speed of light.

Thank you.  Since I am not capable of running the complex mathematics involved, I'd prefer to keep things at a comprehension level rather than a technical level when possible.  I do realize sometimes this is not practical.

Quote
You now claim that the Earth reference frame watches the ship uninterrupted for the whole journey of 1000 light years and according to your description the Earth reference frame now watches the ship travel for 2000 years to complete a journey of 1000 light years.
Now my math maybe a bit rusty but that says to me that the Earth frame only ever observes the ship traveling at half light speed.
Remember that the Lorenz transformation requires the Earth frame to witness the ship traveling at almost light speed. It has no place for allowing for the light to separately travel back within the relativity equations that I can find.
The solving of the lorenz transformation clearly gives an answer of a little over 1000 years observation time for Earth reference frame. Not travel time, "observation time".
The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.
What is going on here?

You're going to give me a headache thinking of this stuff!!!

So we know that it takes the ship 1000 years to get to its destination (=Fact)..   And since its impossible to see the ship at its destination until it arrives (=Fact), it will take an additional 1000 years for the image of the ship to return to the observer on Earth.   That's 2000 years.  So I would say yes, as the ship travels to its destination, it would appear to an observer to slow down.

Now, if the ship immediately left its destination for the return trip home, I think the reverse would be true as I understand it. The return trip would look very very fast to an observer on Earth.  As if the ship was traveling at much faster than light speeds.

The ship took 1000 years to get there, and 1000 years to get back.  I think the Earth observer would see the ship take 2000 years to get there, and come back almost instantly (very very very fast).  That is, based on my limited understanding of the concepts involved.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1777
• Thanked: 116 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #11 on: 01/02/2016 23:16:35 »
The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.
What is going on here?
You are using the word observe in 2 different contexts.
Relativity does not allow for the light travelling back from the destination because it is only considering travel time.
At a speed of almost light the ship will take just over 1000 yrs to reach its destination. The use of the term observer - on earth - should be read as meaning the time taken in the earth reference frame, which is considered to be at rest. If on arrival the ship sets off a bright light the light will take 1000 years to arrive on earth.
I think you are using the word observed to mean watched ie including time for light to get back to our eyes, which is not what was intended.

Edit: sorry MurBob our post crossed. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

The following users thanked this post: MurBob

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #12 on: 01/02/2016 23:17:11 »
Quote
You claim the ship is traveling at the speed of light which is not possible and doesn't fit into the math. So I will assume you meant at almost the speed of light.

Thank you.  Since I am not capable of running the complex mathematics involved, I'd prefer to keep things at a comprehension level rather than a technical level when possible.  I do realize sometimes this is not practical.

Quote
You now claim that the Earth reference frame watches the ship uninterrupted for the whole journey of 1000 light years and according to your description the Earth reference frame now watches the ship travel for 2000 years to complete a journey of 1000 light years.
Now my math maybe a bit rusty but that says to me that the Earth frame only ever observes the ship traveling at half light speed.
Remember that the Lorenz transformation requires the Earth frame to witness the ship traveling at almost light speed. It has no place for allowing for the light to separately travel back within the relativity equations that I can find.
The solving of the lorenz transformation clearly gives an answer of a little over 1000 years observation time for Earth reference frame. Not travel time, "observation time".
The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.
What is going on here?

You're going to give me a headache thinking of this stuff!!!

So we know that it takes the ship 1000 years to get to its destination (=Fact)..   And since its impossible to see the ship at its destination until it arrives (=Fact), it will take an additional 1000 years for the image of the ship to return to the observer on Earth.   That's 2000 years.  So I would say yes, as the ship travels to its destination, it would appear to an observer to slow down.

Now, if the ship immediately left its destination for the return trip home, I think the reverse would be true as I understand it. The return trip would look very very fast to an observer on Earth.  As if the ship was traveling at much faster than light speeds.

The ship took 1000 years to get there, and 1000 years to get back.  I think the Earth observer would see the ship take 2000 years to get there, and come back almost instantly (very very very fast).  That is, based on my limited understanding of the concepts involved.

This doe's not sound correct,

t=1000years

so let us add a distance and speed.

s=1035 mph

d=  9089230000   mile

From Earth to Volcan 1000 years

From Volcan to Earth 1000 years

Where are you getting 2000 years from?

« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 23:22:38 by Thebox »

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #13 on: 01/02/2016 23:25:22 »

This doe's not sound correct,
t=1000years
so let us add a distance and speed.
s=1035 mph
d= 24902000 mile
From Earth to Volcan 1000 years
From Volcan to Earth 1000 years
Where are you getting 2000 years from?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your numbers.   Were did you get 1035 mph? or 24.9 million miles?

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #14 on: 01/02/2016 23:32:15 »

Edit: sorry MurBob our post crossed. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

No problem..  Glad you chimed in.. And thank you..   This is fun!

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #15 on: 01/02/2016 23:36:39 »

This doe's not sound correct,
t=1000years
so let us add a distance and speed.
s=1035 mph
d= 24902000 mile
From Earth to Volcan 1000 years
From Volcan to Earth 1000 years
Where are you getting 2000 years from?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your numbers.   Were did you get 1035 mph? or 24.9 million miles?

1035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles,  and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,

so if I did my calculation correct, your distance is 24.9 million miles relative to 1035 mph. But I edited since to 9089230000   mile which I still have to double check.

365*24902*1000=9089230000 mile

added - yes the new value

v=1035 MPH OR 0.28821759259 MILE /S  0R APPROX 463M/S

« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 23:50:04 by Thebox »

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #16 on: 02/02/2016 00:07:59 »
1035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles,  and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,
so if I did my calculation correct, your distance is 24.9 million miles relative to 1035 mph. But I edited since to 9089230000   mile which I still have to double check.
365*24902*1000=9089230000 mile
added - yes the new value
v=1035 MPH OR 0.28821759259 MILE /S  0R APPROX 463M/S

Sir, I don't think you're in the right forum thread.    What does any of this have to do with traveling at near light speed to another planet?

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1777
• Thanked: 116 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #17 on: 02/02/2016 00:14:45 »

I'm sorry, I don't understand your numbers.   Were did you get 1035 mph? or 24.9 million miles?

Good question

1035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles,  and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,
I hope that enlightened you.
Form your own judgement on validity!

Edit: ha, did it again. Collision.
The Box regularly gets his posts moved to new theories, and if he keeps interrupting this thread he will find his posts split off.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #18 on: 02/02/2016 00:25:15 »
1035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles,  and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,
so if I did my calculation correct, your distance is 24.9 million miles relative to 1035 mph. But I edited since to 9089230000   mile which I still have to double check.
365*24902*1000=9089230000 mile
added - yes the new value
v=1035 MPH OR 0.28821759259 MILE /S  0R APPROX 463M/S

Sir, I don't think you're in the right forum thread.    What does any of this have to do with traveling at near light speed to another planet?

My apologies, I am unable to discuss this with you any further or talk to you to be social.

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #19 on: 02/02/2016 05:19:36 »
You're going to give me a headache thinking of this stuff!!!
Good why should I be the only one with a headache. LOL
And yes welcome to the forum.
You are using the word observe in 2 different contexts.
Relativity does not allow for the light travelling back from the destination because it is only considering travel time.
I thought the whole point of relativity is the fact that the speed of light has to stay constant for all observers. That was what drove Einstein to think of all this time dilation and length contraction. If nothing can be seen to exceed the speed of light from any reference frame, then time and space have to be seen to change to make sure this remains so. Nowhere in any of that does it actually state that the speed of light can't be exceeded.
In our thousand light year to Volcan trip, relativity as I understand it states that the Earth reference frame will see the ship traveling at a significant number of decimal places after 0.999....% the speed of light so will watch the trip last for a bit over 1000 years. If you want to give me an exact ship travel time, I can and will do the calculations and tell you exactly what speed will be seen by Earth and how long Earth will watch till the ship arrived. I mean that is not hard.
Yet relativity relies for the proof of time dilation on what is seen by the frame watching the ship and what that frame sees. The whole point of the Lorenz transformation is to explain why the Earth frame sees a longer travel time than the ship itself experiences.
Lets remember that the ship itself has to accelerate. From the ship's point of view, if it is capable of sustained 1g acceleration, for every second that goes by after departing Earth orbit, it is going 9.81 metres per second faster than it was the second before. In under one year (353.7 days), it has accelerated to the speed of light relative to the Earth. That does not mean that it hits some sort of barrier that says you will accelerate no more. You can in your own reference frame on the ship keep accelerating and every test you can possibly do will confirm that for every second that goes past you are going 9.81 metres per second faster than you were the second before.
Earth restricted to watching you at the speed that light can carry the information of your position back, will of course see you edging closer to the speed of light, but can never see you traveling at or over light speed. Light can not carry such information. It's not fast enough.
But does it really mean that the ship doesn't travel faster than light? Does it?
I think where this strange thought experiment of mine is taking me, is to the realization that;

Relativity does not actually disallow superluminal travel. It doesn't even make the claim.
What it does claim is that nothing can be "seen" to travel faster than light from any reference frame, by any means available to Electromagnetic information transfer. The rest of your "observed" reality will always adjust to make this so.

That is actually a totally different thing!
« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 05:32:00 by Space Flow »

#### MurBob

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 24
• Thanked: 3 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #20 on: 02/02/2016 06:20:58 »
. Nowhere in any of that does it actually state that the speed of light can't be exceeded.
I'm going to open my mouth and probably stick my foot in it.. but here goes anyhow.
There isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Even a tiny itsy-bitsy particle like an electron would require more energy than what is available in the universe.   I'm no mathematician, but isn't this what E=MC2 means?

Trivia: Did you know that even Einstein had to hire a guy to help him with the math?

Here are two things that are very easy to understand and can not be argued with.
1) It takes the ship 1000 (and a bit) years to get there..   2) It takes the photons that make up the image of the ship at its destination, 1000 years to get back to Earth.

That's 2000 years...  no way around that.    The one that I had a problem with was understanding the return trip.. but I got that figured out too finally.

I should have taken up music..  so much easier...

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #21 on: 02/02/2016 07:19:57 »
I'm going to open my mouth and probably stick my foot in it.. but here goes anyhow.
There isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Even a tiny itsy-bitsy particle like an electron would require more energy than what is available in the universe.   I'm no mathematician, but isn't this what E=MC2 means?
Sticking our feet in it is part of the fun.
OK let me attack this from a different angle.
If E=Mc˛ is interpreted to really say that you gain infinite mass at the speed of light, then whatever your method of constant 1g propulsion system is, would also have to be outputting infinite energy as all your propellant has itself gained infinite mass.
It is a mistake to consider that E=Mc˛ really raises your rest mass at all. Everything past the rest mass is kinetic energy and that is relative to any other observer with a different relative speed to you.
Just remember that every reference frame apart from one's own because of the limited speed of light is distorted in some way.
The only thing that can be stated with any certainty is that every reference frame in the entire universe is unique. No two can ever agree to the N th degree about everything. And that is because we use Electromagnetic Radiation as a means of information transfer. that necessarily means that everything is gaged against the backdrop of the speed of light.

And the speed of light is damn slow...

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #22 on: 02/02/2016 08:00:37 »
Something like this?

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1777
• Thanked: 116 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #23 on: 02/02/2016 11:23:23 »
I'll see if I can put together a diagram with thoughts.

#### puppypower

• Hero Member
• Posts: 536
• Thanked: 40 times
##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #24 on: 02/02/2016 13:17:03 »
The only thing that can be stated with any certainty is that every reference frame in the entire universe is unique. No two can ever agree to the N th degree about everything. And that is because we use Electromagnetic Radiation as a means of information transfer. that necessarily means that everything is gaged against the backdrop of the speed of light.

The energy is how we measure relative change in the universe. However, although this tells us many things, this method does not completely deal with the matter of universe. It deals with reference, but not substance. For example, say we had a ship of mass M and we used X energy to accelerate it to a terminal velocity V. Special relativity, in the ship reference, will define changes in time, distance and relativistic mass; proportional to its mass and the energy used to propel it.

From an earth reference, if this ship was heading toward us, or was heading away from us, we will see something different in terms of the light that come off it; blue shift or red shift. Yet, in the ship reference, it does not matter if it is coming or going to the earth. It will not see two different things. It will see one thing in both directions in its own reference.

If we use the twin paradox, the twin on the ship, coming or going to the earth, will age slower, even if the rocket appears to red shift or blue shift, going and coming. They don't cancel in a round trip. In this example, there is a preferred reference; moving twin who used real energy, and not relative observational energy.

This is why Einstein used three terms in Special relativity; time, distance and mass.  General Relativity also implies a specific amount of mass density. But there is a tendency to dismiss the mass term, and define everything in terms of space-time, which does not always work. It adds a wrong assumption that does not close the energy balance; tangible energy used.

I have traced the source of this problem to the way we measure time. Time moves spontaneously in one direction, to the future. Time does not cycle, and time does not return to where it began. Yet clocks cycle and return to where they began; 12 midnight. Even atomic clocks use an atomic cycle; vibration/wave. Cycling is what energy does. Cycling is not what time does.

The net affect is we measure/parallel a one directional phenomena; time, with a cyclic tool that better describes energy. We approximate a time line with a sine wave. This may seem trivial, but it leads to conceptual flaws further down the line.  A faulty foundation premise is like a rotten beam that supports a house. The bean will crack and the house will sag.

Let me give an analogy, so you can see the potential problems that can and will arise. We can theoretically measure temperature using a hydrometer; used to measure humidity. Temperature is an artifact of atomic and molecular collisions, while humidity is a measure of how much water is in the air. These two things do not express the same phenomena. However, the amount of water in the air, will be fixed for any temperature. If we know the amount of water in the air, we also know the temperature. It only requires a conversion factor which we can build into the hydrometer dial.

Say we alter the pressure in the room, around our hydrometer. More pressure will squeeze water out of the air; condenses into liquid water. Since the amount of water drops, the hydrometer reading will fall and therefore telling us the temperature just fell. However, we don't feel anything different. We conclude there much has been a virtual temperature drop.

On the other hand, if we had a real thermometer, we would notice the temperate did not change. The wrong tool has shown a change. We see something that is not really there, even though hydrometer/thermometer says it is there. After careful thought we  figure out that what has changed was the pressure. After running further test we can see that pressure directly impacts the  temperature reading, therefore they much be governed by similar things, But conceptually these are two different things. This is what I would see. Yet the assumption will work, if built into the hydrometer, even though it is wrong. If you accept that, the mind is now wandering, due to a conceptual disconnect. This implies there will be no preferred temperature. Temperature all depends on whether we measure on the mountain or sea level. But if we used a proper thermometer, one system works for all. There is preferred temperature, which will be called preposterous.

This is like the space ship that had been propelled, whose reference appears relative to the blue or red shifts; moving toward or away from us on earth.  The twin stays younger either way. This is all due to using a tool that is not paralleling the phenomena of time. Time can only go one way and not two ways. That should be a dead giveaway, but is not seem.

Time is more conceptually related to entropy than it is to energy. The second law says the entropy of the universe has to increase, just like time. Both go one way in terms of a spontaneous direct. Energy cycles. plus and minus, which is not what time does. When the clock slows or speeds up we are seeing what sine wave of energy does, not what the arrow of time is doing.

« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 13:33:33 by puppypower »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Theory of Relativity. How can one travel into the future?
« Reply #24 on: 02/02/2016 13:17:03 »