12-1-2008, 03:53 AM | #21 | |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
assuming special relativity holds FTL leads to time travel but it also means you've lost causality, as effect can now precede cause. that's generally not a good thing
__________________
Patashu makes Chiptunes in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu/8bit-progressive-metal-fading-world http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Mechadragon/smallpackbanner.png Best non-AAAs: ERx8 v2 (14-1-0-4), Hajnal (3-0-0-0), RunnyMorning (8-0-0-4), Xeno-Flow (1-0-0-3), Blue Rose (35-2-0-20), Ketsarku (14-0-0-0), Silence (1-0-0-0), Lolo (14-1-0-1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee301/xiaoven/solorulzsig.png |
|
12-3-2008, 05:21 AM | #22 | ||
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 34
Posts: 666
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
I could be horribly wrong but i think it makes sense given your original theory. Quote:
A telescope could never be made to see Earth as you left it, because in our hypothetic situation we have travelled faster then the light that is present time . A powerful telescope cannot make light speed up and reach its lenses faster, it can only magnify the light that is there at the moment. You would be seeing "old light", as you put it, which could potentially be magnified to see a clear image (given a path of space debris was somehow cleared). It wouldn't be time travel, but just viewing the past.
__________________
...starting up again Public AAA #370 - evil approaches Tier Points - 329 (Tier 4) Best Non-AAA - Schmollbluk (rank 26) Worst Non-AAA - AIM Anthem(668) average rank - 109 Last edited by ryanisadouche; 12-3-2008 at 05:28 AM.. |
||
12-3-2008, 05:30 AM | #23 | |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
you need to understand the lorentz transformation for it and why it's a consequence of special relativity but: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharp...es/000089.html
__________________
Patashu makes Chiptunes in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu/8bit-progressive-metal-fading-world http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Mechadragon/smallpackbanner.png Best non-AAAs: ERx8 v2 (14-1-0-4), Hajnal (3-0-0-0), RunnyMorning (8-0-0-4), Xeno-Flow (1-0-0-3), Blue Rose (35-2-0-20), Ketsarku (14-0-0-0), Silence (1-0-0-0), Lolo (14-1-0-1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee301/xiaoven/solorulzsig.png Last edited by Patashu; 12-3-2008 at 05:32 AM.. |
|
12-3-2008, 06:31 AM | #24 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: in my house
Age: 33
Posts: 213
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
I do not belive that any interaction with the past is possible, because I belive that time is stable and consistant. If you were to fire an object at earth at 40X the speed we were traveling it would hit the earth in "real time". If we could comunicate instantaniously with earth then that signal would be going infinity miles an hour, but still you would only be speaking with people on earth in "real time". |
|
12-3-2008, 06:37 AM | #25 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,340
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Assuming we could "get ahead of light" and somehow wind up on the other side of old light from years past, I don't think we'd be able to see anything meaningful. I think such light would have been dispersed and manipulated to the point where, even with a powerful telescope, we'd be unable to make out anything at the level of detail required.
We can see the light from things occurring years and years ago -- including things that could have already gone nova by now, but I can't think of an example where we have seen light from the past from an object comparable in size to the earth with the same level of detail. Normally when we look at "old light," they're for large-scale things where any small-scale high-level detail loss via light dispersion is made up for by the sheer AMOUNT of light coming in that makes up the larger image which, from our planet, makes up for a detailed picture. I would assume that for high-level detail, the light from something as tiny as our earth would simply become too dispersed/mangled to see. I'd think of it as trying to view crappy pixel art at high resolution. It's still going to be crappy pixel art.
__________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0es0Mip1jWY Last edited by MrRubix; 12-3-2008 at 06:39 AM.. |
12-3-2008, 07:07 AM | #26 | |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
-special relativity holds true and -we can travel at superluminal speeds then -we can send signals back in time (time travel) it is a consequence of the theory deal w/ it note that we don't have any physically plausible methods of achieving superluminal speed
__________________
Patashu makes Chiptunes in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu/8bit-progressive-metal-fading-world http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Mechadragon/smallpackbanner.png Best non-AAAs: ERx8 v2 (14-1-0-4), Hajnal (3-0-0-0), RunnyMorning (8-0-0-4), Xeno-Flow (1-0-0-3), Blue Rose (35-2-0-20), Ketsarku (14-0-0-0), Silence (1-0-0-0), Lolo (14-1-0-1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee301/xiaoven/solorulzsig.png |
|
12-5-2008, 07:41 AM | #27 |
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 1,987
|
Re: "Time Travel"
About what you would see if you were moving faster than light, I agree with gausmaster in that you would simply not see the light you're moving away from. Even a beam of light that is 0.0000001mm away from your eye will never be able to reach your eye.
You wouldn't totally see nothing though, because what our eyes pick up is more than the 180 degrees in front of us. We actually see about 10 degrees behind us on either side, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_field , so in those 10 degrees, we'd see light. As a side note, the light we would see if we looked forward would be at least twice as 'bright' because we'd be seeing at least twice as much of it in the same amount of time. I got into a discussion about this last night, and the other person said that we would be seeing light all distorted, and they gave an example which this morning I realized was incorrect. See, I've been thinking about this problem like light has individual particles. He was thinking about the light simply surrounding us, like, say, water in a stream. If we sit in a stream, we're surrounded by the water, just like if we sit in light, we're surrounded by light. Then he said, pretend we're moving in the stream, swimming downstream with it. At this point, if we're actively swimming in it, we're moving faster than the water is. Yet we're still surrounded by water, there's water touching us behind us. This stumped me for awhile, but there's one serious problem with this: the water changes speeds depending on where it can go. The moment we'd move in the water, the water comes flowing in behind us at a much much faster speed than it flows downstream. Light, however, doesn't do that, because we're saying we'd be travelling faster than its maximum speed. Last edited by Cavernio; 12-5-2008 at 07:51 AM.. |
12-5-2008, 08:05 AM | #28 | |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 34
|
Re: "Time Travel"
This is Gausmaster's new account.
Quote:
|
|
12-5-2008, 08:42 AM | #29 |
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 1,987
|
Re: "Time Travel"
The light sources inside the shuttle would still be emitting light that would bounce of the walls and other objects inside it, so there'd still be light 'trapped' inside and moving with you. My very first thought on this is that it would look the same as if we weren't moving, at least once we reached our travelling speed. I don't think we'd get any doppler effect or anything, because relative to the light, our movement hasn't changed at all.
As for light that enters in the shuttle, and then would say, touch the wall...uhhh...I dunno! I don't know enough about the properties of light to answer that really. It light were matter, then it'd get 'stuck' to the wall. But light's not matter, so I dunno. I suppose if it were still to get 'stuck' to the wall, then there'd be a serious problem, wouldn't there be? The shuttle would melt from the heat from all the trapped energy or something. This seems similar to another problem I was given in my grade 7 science class actually, one which I still don't think was answered properly at the time. (I'm not sure how it's similar, but it made me think of it.) You have an airtight jar on a scale with a fly sitting on the bottom. Does the scale pick up the weight difference if the fly takes up and is now hovering in the air? Now, I *think* I was told at the time that yes, it did pick up the weight difference, but I have no idea who actually tested this or not. If the jar isn't airtight, than I think it would notice the difference for sure. Also, there's the extra pressure of the air being beat down by the fly onto the scale which you'd have to take into account, right? Last edited by Cavernio; 12-5-2008 at 09:02 AM.. |
12-5-2008, 09:08 AM | #30 |
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 34
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Mythbusters did this. They concluded that there is an aberation picked up by the scale but that was caused by momentum differences.
source = http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/04/e..._truck_bi.html |
12-5-2008, 09:16 AM | #31 |
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 1,987
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Bah, you posted too fast! I can't edit my other post anymore now. Not all matter would stick to the wall, if it were elastic matter, it might not. If we could call light matter at all, would it not be like 100% elastic matter and also bounce back at light speed + shuttle speed? If this is the case, then again, because we're also moving, to us, the light would just be moving at light speed.
Last edited by Cavernio; 12-5-2008 at 09:44 AM.. |
12-5-2008, 04:32 PM | #32 |
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New York
Age: 45
Posts: 162
|
Re: "Time Travel"
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...EFE6A7EA479666
I love this show, its one of the few things I personally set our dvr here at home to record ( that and House :P ). A great walkthrough on Light and its speed, how the Universe can bend to accomedate the speed of light, how the Universe itself actually is expanding FASTER then the speed of light, and other neat stuff. Enjoy.
__________________
" Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, Creeps in this petty pace from day to day To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. " ~ W.S |
12-5-2008, 06:26 PM | #33 | |
FFR Player
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
In other words, it's not really meaningful to say "would this happen if we could travel past the speed of light," because if we could travel past the speed of light, then information can too, and really the entire discussion becomes a bit pointless. EDIT: Whoops, for some reason I thought that I was responding to the most recent post in this thread, rather than the first post... sorry if I broke the flow... Last edited by QED Stepfiles; 12-5-2008 at 11:13 PM.. Reason: whoops |
|
12-6-2008, 04:29 AM | #34 | |
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 41
Posts: 1,987
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
|
|
12-6-2008, 05:49 AM | #35 | |
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
Incidentally, wormhole travel: does this fall under the category of superluminal? Your own speed would not be greater than the speed of light, but you'd still be able to arrive at a destination before light.
__________________
|
|
12-6-2008, 06:21 AM | #36 | |
FFR Simfile Author
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
it's superluminal with respect to an outside observer but not for the wormhole traveller itself
__________________
Patashu makes Chiptunes in Famitracker: http://soundcloud.com/patashu/8bit-progressive-metal-fading-world http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Mechadragon/smallpackbanner.png Best non-AAAs: ERx8 v2 (14-1-0-4), Hajnal (3-0-0-0), RunnyMorning (8-0-0-4), Xeno-Flow (1-0-0-3), Blue Rose (35-2-0-20), Ketsarku (14-0-0-0), Silence (1-0-0-0), Lolo (14-1-0-1) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee301/xiaoven/solorulzsig.png |
|
12-7-2008, 12:55 AM | #37 |
FFR Player
|
Re: "Time Travel"
well since this is all speculation, I found a video you might be interested in watching.
this man is a genius. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-prt5d6m6s |
12-7-2008, 01:44 AM | #38 |
Very Grave Indeed
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Whether you think he's a genius or not, a clip about futurists has nothing really to do with what we're discussing here.
|
12-7-2008, 02:56 AM | #39 | |
FFR Player
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Quote:
One thing i think is important to keep in mind with this whole theory (obvious impossibilities aside) is that you all refer to the analogy of seeing a star that may have already went through a super nova and its 'old light'. When you try to apply this logic towards trying to see 'old light' i think that its important to realize that, unlike a star, the earth does not give off light going at light speed. It is reflected light from our sun. As small of a difference as this may be, you would have to consider the fact that if you try to look at light coming off from the earth it might go less than the speed of light. As a point of clarification, we can actually slow light through different mediums. So then would it not be possible that the light coming off of the earth would be going at speeds that are less than the speed of light in a vacuum? Of course thinking in terms of it as either going through the atmosphere or at least touching it enough to use the particles it hits letting it slow down. Also, im a little shaky on the whole subject of 'looking back at the earth' after speeding away from it at faster than the speed of light. To be able to see that specific planet wouldnt you have to have a direct connection of light to it so you can actually 'see' it? To explain, of course you would have light still hitting you from different directions, but i was always under the impression that to see something through a telescope you have to have its specific light hitting you already. If you have breached the light that is reflected off of the earth (of course only considering you got outside the original light reflected off of the earth at its creation) then you wouldnt be able to see the earth at all. One last thing, simply enough, if you were moving at extremely fast speeds AWAY from the earth, why would it matter if that somehow allowed you to see it in its previous states? I mean, you wouldnt be able to communicate with it (for radio waves and the like travel MUCH slower), and you wouldnt be able to even get back to it without the light catching back up and it making no difference anyway. To think of it realistically, look at the theory of relativity. Time moves relative to the observer right? So time would seem to move at different rates for someone on the earth as opposed to someone living on, lets just say, jupiter. Outsides the bonds of our earth we would be trying to time everything according to the system we use ON the surface of the earth which simply would not be the universal system of all the bodies in the universe. Our measuring system in accordance with the rest of the universe would feel rather useless for no matter how fast you are traveling through space, time will always feel different. Thus, time travel in essence would be a virtually useless argument outside the bonds of our own time system, or rather outsides the bonds of time relative to wherever you are. |
|
12-21-2008, 06:55 PM | #40 |
FFR Player
|
Re: "Time Travel"
Although I'm not saying that the OP's theory is possible, it would be much more efficient to just look at a clear, reflective surface from far away (like a man-made mirror and placed there or otherwise). It wouldn't require a rocket and you could look twice as far into the past, I think.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|