0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
When he then heads back to Earth, his 3 year journey they will watch for the next 1,000,003 years as they essentially watch that traveler head 1,000,000 years into their past.
Now we on Earth can see the destination and understand that we are looking at it 1,000,000 years in it's past.
Quote from: Space Flow on 28/01/2016 06:22:45When he then heads back to Earth, his 3 year journey they will watch for the next 1,000,003 years as they essentially watch that traveler head 1,000,000 years into their past. No he is traveling into their FUTURE not their past. This is more pertinent. If a traveler has a velocity of 99.999...% the speed of light and that is his inertial motion then does this counter the effects of tidal forces when approaching a black hole. The acceleration due to gravity can add very little to the travelers velocity before his speed IS superluminal.
Quote from: Space Flow on 28 January 2016, 17:22:45When he then heads back to Earth, his 3 year journey they will watch for the next 1,000,003 years as they essentially watch that traveler head 1,000,000 years into their past.No he is traveling into their FUTURE not their past.
Considering that 1,000,003 years ago when the traveler left Earth, Earth could not see his destination as it resided 1,000,000 years in the future of the image they were looking at.
Our traveler covered that distance in under three years and Earth 1,000,003 years later in the year 1,003,003 visually confirmed that it took 3 years by Earth clocks for that traveler to get there.
When he arrives they will agree that he arrived on Earth in the Earth and their year 3006. They of course having witnessed this in the year 1,003,006.
Quote from: Space Flow on 28/01/2016 06:22:45Considering that 1,000,003 years ago when the traveler left Earth, Earth could not see his destination as it resided 1,000,000 years in the future of the image they were looking at.This is not unusual. When I set off to visit relatives 100 miles away my arrival is in our future when I set off. They can't see me setting off, I can't see them or their house.As the traveller moves towards the distant planet he will move through light which has left it more recently, at halfway the light will have left 500,000 yrs ago, and so on until he is in their present.Remember also that earth and the planet are in the same inertial frame, at rest relative to each other. So their present is our present, their year 3000 is our year 3000 (if they use the same numbering system), it just takes time for each to see the others present moments.Quote from: Space Flow on 28/01/2016 06:22:45Our traveler covered that distance in under three years and Earth 1,000,003 years later in the year 1,003,003 visually confirmed that it took 3 years by Earth clocks for that traveler to get there. No, it took 3 yrs by the traveller's clock, 1,000,003 by earth's clock.[An aside: I am going to use your 3yrs for both the travel time added to the time for light to travel the distance, and for the time experienced by the traveller. However, it would be quite a coincidence if they were the same. You have an accelerating journey so it isn't a simple calculation.]The traveller cannot get there faster than light, however his experience of the time taken will be less than the total journey time as seen by earth. This is because his clocks are measuring time differently from earth's clocks (although he doesn't perceive them to be) which is why he measures the speed of light to be the same as when he was at rest.So you need to adjust the time earth thinks the journey took, by the time dilation factor to see what the traveller experienced.Quote from: Space Flow on 28/01/2016 06:22:45When he arrives they will agree that he arrived on Earth in the Earth and their year 3006. They of course having witnessed this in the year 1,003,006.No, he will arrive back at earth in 2,003,006. It has taken him another 1,000,003 yrs to travel back. But his experienced, elapsed time is only another 3 yrs making 6 in all.The distant planet will see this in 3,003,006.
Quote from: Space Flow on 28 January 2016, 17:22:45Our traveler covered that distance in under three years and Earth 1,000,003 years later in the year 1,003,003 visually confirmed that it took 3 years by Earth clocks for that traveler to get there.No, it took 3 yrs by the traveller's clock, 1,000,003 by earth's clock.(An aside: I am going to use your 3yrs for both the travel time added to the time for light to travel the distance, and for the time experienced by the traveller. However, it would be quite a coincidence if they were the same. You have an accelerating journey so it isn't a simple calculation.)The traveller cannot get there faster than light, however his experience of the time taken will be less than the total journey time as seen by earth. This is because his clocks are measuring time differently from earth's clocks (although he doesn't perceive them to be) which is why he measures the speed of light to be the same as when he was at rest.So you need to adjust the time earth thinks the journey took, by the time dilation factor to see what the traveller experienced.
The only time dilation becomes an illusion of the geometry. Faster than light travel is possible.
Am I saying time dilation is an illusion?Unless I can debunk this view above, I don't know what I'm saying.Perfectly good experiments and a functioning GPS say that Time dilation is real.But when applied to something capable of continued acceleration in away from a starting frame of reference, there are two effects in observation. One the constant acceleration and two the look back time. You can only view distance by looking backward in time. But the observer traveling is not traveling backward in time. He will leave in Earths and destinations present and will also arrive in both their co moving present moments. What anyone is allowed to see and how they are forced to view it is a result of the finite speed of light and not necessarily a true reflection of reality.Our traveler traveled for three years. The Earth will receive the light of those three years spread over both the travel time and the look back time of this journey. The traveler never crossed any look back time, but light speed communication has no way to show that.The Lorentz transformations certainly work well in predicting observations, but are they only a mathematical approximation of the real geometry?Does the above way of looking at reality seem plausible? If not, how is it refuted?
Faster than light travel is possible. It just can not be seen to be faster than light.
I obviously misunderstood your scenario.Are you saying he travels faster than light? If so I will reread your scenario in a different light.
The other day, it cleared. It was the fact that no one was considering the look back time for the Earth observer........The travel time we are observing is an illusion brought about by the slow speed of light.When we factor that in, we would have to agree that the traveler actually arrived at his destination 1 million years ago
I can't agree that the traveller arrived at his destination 1m yrs ago.When the traveller leaves earth he is travelling into our future and the planet's future. Forget the yr 3000 etc, let's call now yr 0. We are currently receiving light from the planet 1m yrs ago (yr -1m), but it has taken 1m yrs to get here and they have aged 1m yrs since it left. They are also at yr 0 in sync with us.Take the example you gave of sound. We see the lightning and then hear the thunder, but the thunder isn't stuck at the time the lightning struck, time has moved on at that location and they have the same time as as the location where we hear the thunder.
So is your issue with the ability to verify the result?
In a sense I was hoping that someone would jump on this and point out how and why this superluminal rather than relativistic view is wrong.
Whatever problem you have with the scenario seems to be around whether or not you can verify the arrival, but that isn't necessary for a relativistic view so why should it be for a faster than light view?