[Ultima]

ukmicky you aren't living up to your name; "miles" shouldn't that be km! metric, metric, metric! [] plus are miles an SI unit? I'd expect this from the US but not the UK! [:O][] Or are you of the older imperial generation? []

wOw the world spins?

[simeonie (OP)]

wow that is actually really cool ultima but...... that doesnt explain WHY it has to be infinite energy coz really there is no such thing as infinite energy is there?

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz

[kenshin]

Originally posted by diegostation

You don't have to beat the speed of light to travel in time. The more your speed gets closer to the speed of light the more you're traveling to the future. Just study Einstein's time dilatation

well! dont you think that we are going into future every moment?At higher speeds,time gets dilated and hence the rate at which we are going into future decreases.At v=c, time dilation is infinite and we always stay in present.So, as I see it, only way to go in past is to move faster then c.

[YaleL]

quote:Originally posted by chimera

quote:Originally posted by DoctorBeaver

 If the act of observing changes the state of that which is being observed then I suppose taking that to the Nth degree would allow for such a thing. It's not nice to think about though!

Now hold that thought: all forms of autopoiesis *are* struggling upstream in that exact fashion - any kind of 'order', self-imposed or not. Without constant fiddling it will fail.

So by turning things inside-out, you see some amazing Janus-faced similarity between supposedly orthogonally opposite things.

Also think on the statistic nature of entropy. In a simplistic realistic example with gas, there is the distinct statistic possibility of an exactly identical composition/configuration recurring given enough time, however small. This negates the idea of irreversibility, and effectively 'resets' time, since everything is back to where it was before, and whatever happened in between no longer of any interest, really.

On cosmic scales such total recycling would take near infinite time, though, but the chance is statistically not zero, and maybe more local 'resets' are a possibility, especially if chaos and order are something like different sides of the same coin.

Anyone able to tell me if Chimera is still active on this forum?

This Time
-- In Time

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by YaleL
Anyone able to tell me if Chimera is still active on this forum?

His last post was on 19th August 2005 – beyond that, I cannot say whether he continues to visit the forum or not.

George

[neilep]

quote:Originally posted by another_someone

quote:Originally posted by YaleL
Anyone able to tell me if Chimera is still active on this forum?

His last post was on 19th August 2005 – beyond that, I cannot say whether he continues to visit the forum or not.

George

I am afraid he met with a nasty car accident..HE is FINE !!...no worries....but it was such a close call that it completely changed his outlook on life. I am afraid his change of lifestyle is our loss.

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[RMorty]

Well as far as time travel goes, assuming that time is eternal. No one will ever accomplish it or we would have met somone from the future already because they could come to our time.  Right? Unless those people at the looney bin are telling the truth... lol.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by RMorty
Well as far as time travel goes, assuming that time is eternal. No one will ever accomplish it or we would have met somone from the future already because they could come to our time.  Right? Unless those people at the looney bin are telling the truth... lol.

Please explain what you mean by 'time travel'.

We are all travelling in time – what we cannot do is to jump discontinuously through time, but we cannot do that through space either.  The other thing we are not able to do is reverse the direction of time (at least on a macroscopic scale), and that is something different to space, where we can move both forward and backward.

George

[Radrook]

The faster we travel the slower we age. This conclusion is partially based on experiments done on the atomic and subatomic levels where these particles are accelerated to near light speed in a cyclotron and their normal decay duration is extended. So since we are made of atoms composed of subatomic particles the slowdown would cause us to age slower than people who are moving at the earth speeds we left behind. So on ship, we might feel we have travelled only a few days. But back on earth, decades might have gone by. The closer to light speed we come the slower our time passes in relation to those on earth. So those who attempt such a trip would have to carefully way the consequences of their choice.

BTW
One thing to keep in mind, is that we don't know the physical effects of near light or faster than light speeds on the human body. In any case, the acceleration would have to be gradual in order to prevent inertial forces from killing us by having us slam against the ship's wall.

Isaac Asimov pointed out in one of his books that hull friction caused by dust and gas would also have to be taken into consideration.  True, these are tenuous but at light speed they become significant to the point of causing hull breach. There is also the impracticality of coming back to family members who have aged while we remain relatively young.


There is interesting info at the following site:
http://www.crystalinks.com/timetravel.html [nofollow]

[bostjan]

I'm travelling forward in time right now.  So yeah, time travel is real.
But you cannot move faster than light.  If you could somehow make space appear and disappear, then you could travel at any speed less than the speed of light through a smaller space, but if you were moving space somewhere else, it would take time to do that as well, and there is no known way to move empty space.

Any negative mass stuff moving faster than light would probably not interact with us in any way, like a parallel universe or something, except you would never ever see it nor feel it, so it's essentially not there.

[Radrook]

quote:Originally posted by simeonie

I am wondering though..... you probably could move faster than the speed of light but whatever is moving that fast you wouldn't be able to see because the light wouldn't reflect off it because it couldn't keep up. Plus I really doubt we will be able to go the speed of light.... EVER. Also does anybody know what "warp speed" is from Star Treck? Is that supposed to be the speed of light or something?


Simon
Trust me I am a doctor!

Warp is the bending of space so that two distant points are forced closer to one another making the trip shorter. Take a piece of paper and place a grasshopper on one edge. The time it takes for it to leap from one edge to other is-let's say, one-second.  Now bend the paper so that its edges are now closer together. You have just warped the paper and the grasshopper can now traverse the distance quicker.
That's what is meant by warp when applied to space travel.

[M]

When traveling faster than the speed of light, an object behind you will appear to recede in time then "disappear" when you outrun the first light reflected or emitted by the object. Conversely, objects in front of you will appear to move forward in time until you reach them. This is not "time travel," however.

[lightarrow]

quote:Originally posted by simeonie

why is the speed of light infinite energy?

A body with non zero rest mass (rest mass = the mass it have when it's still) requires an infinite amount of energy to be accelerated to the speed of light, because: E = m*c^2/SQRT[1-(v/c)^2]

E is the total energy of the body
m is its rest mass
v is its speed
c is the speed of light

As you can see, when v approaches c, v/c approaches 1 (and (v/c)^2 too) so the term inside the square root approaches zero (and the square root too), so E approaches infinity (the less the number under a fraction, the greater the result).

Now, where this infinity comes from?

The fact is that in practice the speed of light is infinite. What I mean: when a body's speed is not much, our definition of speed: v = space/time is a good definition, but when the body's speed is very high (that is, near the speed of light) our definition is not good anylonger, because space and time are not (enough) independent each other anylonger.

If you were inside a space-ship moving faster and faster, you would see planets, stars, approaching you in greater and greater amount, without any limit, that is, the number of stars you would see passing by you in one second, e.g., would approach infinity.

Of course we are assuming the average number of stars in a volume of space is constant, but this doesn't change the essence of the concept.

[Zeig]

IFyou go faster than light i'm pretty sure you would go back intime. when they tested E=MC2 they droped a bomb from a plane at normal flight speed and another at a much much more rapid speed and the faster bomb acuay went off eighther1. somthign seconds later or.0 somthing seconds later. but the point is they were made to go off after so long after being droped and the faster oen was late. This atleast is what i can remember from hearing it or where ever i found out about it.

[M]

No, and it's relative: fixed receding objects would appear younger (as if we or they were moving back in time) and fixed approaching objects would appear older (as if we or they were moving forward in time).  Neither we nor the objects under consideration would actually move in time, however.  Only objects newly occurring before we reach them would cause an apparent increase in the numbers of objects ahead (and we would see them only when we encounter the leading edges of their respective light waves).  Objects behind us would appear to decrease in number only as we travel beyond the leading edges of their respective light waves.  As an aside, in this simple model, the possibility of leading objects appearing to decrease in number is self-evident and self-explanatory.  As far as I can see, however, lagging objects remaining fixed behind us would never appear to increase in number so long as we travel away from them at greater than light speed.

[simeonie (OP)]

one guy who was up in space or something for too long apparently went through time travel for like a fraction of a second or something, it in guiness book of records and can find out more exact if i go get book