| Author |
Point me in the right direction please.. |
kenetiks
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 21, 2001
Posts: 1130
From: Bandcamp
|  Posted: 2005-10-30 23:37
Thats a horribly skewed point of view. Since a star 30 billion light years away exploded and we only see it today, does that mean it didn't really happen untill right this moment?
Under no physical law I understand can this type of confounded idea occur.
Now let me say that I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but there are instances of things exceeding c. Perhaps you explained it wrong or I'm an idiot, but what you describe is only perspective of sight, not what happens. What you describe is a falsehood of optical illusions...I think...
_________________
|
Ramius
Fleet Admiral
Agents
Joined: January 12, 2002
Posts: 894
From: Ramius
| Posted: 2005-10-31 00:07
Ken, everything moves relative to something else. It is what you percieve. Time behaves the same way. Time is a medium which becomes manipulated, but only with respect to something else. If you want to know the actual mathematics behind what is happening, then you have to look at Lorentz transformations after a temporal coordinate system is created with an einstein synchonization prodecure.
Check out this page for some useful guides.
If you want the actual Lorentz transformation information of time dilation, then check out this and this
_________________
|
Bitopherous
1st Lieutenant
Joined: June 07, 2004
Posts: 264
From: Bottom of the pile
| Posted: 2005-10-31 15:24
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-30 23:37, kenetiks wrote:
Thats a horribly skewed point of view. Since a star 30 billion light years away exploded and we only see it today, does that mean it didn't really happen untill right this moment?
|
|
No, it means it happened thirty billion years ago, and the light carrying the "information" has just reached us. This is how astronomers can "see back in time," so to speak. Things we (they) see through telescopes happened long ago, and the light is just now reaching us from that time.
_________________
What's supposed to go here again?
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2005-10-31 16:18
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-31 15:24, Bitopherous wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-30 23:37, kenetiks wrote:
Thats a horribly skewed point of view. Since a star 30 billion light years away exploded and we only see it today, does that mean it didn't really happen untill right this moment?
|
|
No, it means it happened thirty billion years ago, and the light carrying the "information" has just reached us. This is how astronomers can "see back in time," so to speak. Things we (they) see through telescopes happened long ago, and the light is just now reaching us from that time.
|
|
/no idea what im talking about
sounds like that quantum uncertanty stuff, things are in a constant state of flux between 1 possible outcome and another and it doesnt resolve into 1 acutality untill someone observes it in that state.
the put a cat in a box with a gun tied to the radioactive decay of some atom, and the cat is both alive and dead in the box and doesnt acutaly become either alive or dead untill someone opens the box to check on the cat thing
_________________
|
Philky!
Joined: July 19, 2004
Posts: 90
| Posted: 2005-10-31 17:13
You want to learn about physics? Watch Star Trek and they will break it down into simple analogies for you.
_________________
|
Stall
Cadet
Joined: June 10, 2005
Posts: 18
From: Ontario
| Posted: 2005-10-31 19:23
but in the end all we have learnd are just theories to say the least
_________________
|
kenetiks
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 21, 2001
Posts: 1130
From: Bandcamp
| Posted: 2005-11-01 08:36
Bito I would think one such as you would recognize a sarcastic question.
My next responce to this thread is actually directed at rami.
I would like to get your input on the "Morton Effect".
It's from what understand, motion without movement of mass.
I'm going to try some experiments with it some time. If you want the results I'll put them up. That is if I ever get around to actually experimenting. 
It would be kinda fun to see this effect in action. 
_________________
|
kenetiks
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 21, 2001
Posts: 1130
From: Bandcamp
| Posted: 2005-11-01 10:10
Back to the original discussion. Time doesn't occur by simple perception. Perceived time is not the same as time.
Time is not information. It does not behave that way either. Just because of what your eyes see does not make it true.
The clock example is prime suspect. Just because you saw time stand still on the clock, doesn't mean that it did. Time went right on by for the people on earth as well as it did for the guy speeding away staring at the clock. If this is the actual basis for theories branching from SR then I can only pray for the world as it stands in the hands of our leading minds.
I find so many fields branching from this one theory that it simply boggles the mind. Not that it's a bad thing. However, I find alot of things not really flawed, but perhaps misunderstood.
It would seem that in attempting to explain something that appears one way that people have simply taken some things for granted.
Call me uneducated if you wish, but lightspeed will be broken, regardless of how much Dr. Who-flung-the-chunk PhD. rants about it being impossible.
History is full of such examples where the scientific community is so self-invlolved it lacked common sense and rebuffed evidence even after it was proven.
Some other things I find still not explained, gravity for one. Light itself for another. And then there are magnets.
Perhaps the answers will be found in electromagnetism. I can thoerize all I want I guess, I just find inherant misunderstanding in all areas I have found so far.
_________________
|
kenetiks
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 21, 2001
Posts: 1130
From: Bandcamp
| Posted: 2005-11-01 10:19
Jumping off to a highly improbable scenario here.
I would like to ask what will happen when some amature actually build something that will do FTL flat? Someone gonna tell him/her it's impossible?
The only reason I ask this question is due to the topic of space exploration being allowed to individuals for the first time. We just had the first private space flight awhile back. Although the system that was used wasn't so much experimental as conventional.
My guess? Some kid in his garage is gonna make a whole lot of people look stupid. But thats just my opinion.
But thats impossible you say! Relativity prevents it!
I agree, the physical laws of the universe should absolutely conform to whats on a piece of paper.
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-11-01 13:58
The special and general theories of relativity are two of the most precise, reliable and extensively tested theories we have. FTL is only theorised to be even vaguely possible by particles that cannot fall below FTL; tachyons I believe (although they might be the ones that go backwards in time, I forget).
That's not to say the light barrier can't be bypassed in some way (WHs etc).
It also doesn't mean that we understand it fully, one method being looked at for resolving the darkmatter problem involves a reformulation of GR at large scales, although things don't look promising for the hypothesis. And there is still the huge gapping hole that is making GR work with QM, which is being addressed by idea's such as superstings and quantum-loop gravity amongst a plethera of other 'grand unified theories', all of which again highlights our lack of a fuller understanding.
But, as we currently understanded it, the light barrier can not be broken when working with the theory of relativity. Notice that doesn't exclude the possibility that there is more to it that we currently know. But scientists today won't be made to 'look stupid' in the future that's for sure. I mean, do you think Newton was stupid because he didn't quite describe gravity as precisely as we know it today?
_________________
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2005-11-01 14:18
Quote:
|
On 2005-11-01 10:19, kenetiks wrote:
the physical laws of the universe should absolutely conform to whats on a piece of paper.
|
|
i think most people will say that its whats on the piece of paper that shouldnt absolutly conform to the physical laws of the universe. but it could go either way
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-11-01 15:29
I just found this video lecture on relativity by Fermilab which might prove useful for anyone who can't be bothered to read through pages and pages of explanations.
_________________
|
kenetiks
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 21, 2001
Posts: 1130
From: Bandcamp
| Posted: 2005-11-01 15:33
I didn't mean to say that current scientists would be proved "Stupid" actually.
And actually SR only holds true for what we know. And still offers no explanation of what we do not know.
Either way, this is the same arguement that rages across scientific circles even today.
I can only hope that science will be more open minded as to not be open minded.
c Will be broken, it's only a matter of time, and no theory will stop that.
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-11-01 15:51
Quote:
|
On 2005-11-01 15:33, kenetiks wrote:
And actually SR only holds true for what we know. And still offers no explanation of what we do not know.
|
|
 How would we know even if it did? Hehe
_________________
|
Ramius
Fleet Admiral
Agents
Joined: January 12, 2002
Posts: 894
From: Ramius
| Posted: 2005-11-01 16:33
Kenetiks, you are looking as if we think of General Relativity and Special Relativity as religious canon. They're not. In fact, general relativity fails on the microscopic level. There are problems, and people are fine with modifying a theory to accept new information. Thats the point of a theory, is that it can be adapted to try to explain new data or new phenomena. They are the best models we have to work with.
I definitely think you are wrong when you say science isn't being open minded. It is the business of being open minded.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
