According to what i feel, time cannot be forzen in space. Reason is very simple. For time to travel, i feel that there must be a mass. In outer space, there is mass. Therefore, it is impossible for time to freeze.
Do you mean "Is there a place in the universe which looks to observers far away as if time is not passing in that region?"
The answer is yes, the event horizon of a black hole. As an object passes over the horizon, the gravitational red shifting makes the object appear, to someone very very far away, to be frozen in time, never changing (though the image fades over time). From the object's point of view though time passes normally (thus the difference between proper time and observers time).
The answer is yes, the event horizon of a black hole. As an object passes over the horizon, the gravitational red shifting makes the object appear, to someone very very far away, to be frozen in time, never changing (though the image fades over time). From the object's point of view though time passes normally (thus the difference between proper time and observers time).
QUOTE
For time to travel, i feel that there must be a mass. In outer space, there is mass. Therefore, it is impossible for time to freeze.
That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Opinion is only an opinion. Maybe in 100 years a guy could invent a time machine, who knows?
For example: The science says that the speed of light is constant. If you shine with a pocket lamp, the light shines with the speed of light. If you are shining the lamp while running, or if you shine the lamp while driving the car, the speed of light will stay the same.
The time dilation of Albert Einstein says that the time of a moving inertial system is shorter than the time of a standing inertial system.
t' = t (1 - v˛/c˛)^ 1/2
t' = the time the moving object goes through
t = the time for the unmoving system
v = the velocity of the moving object (relative to inertial system)
c = vacuum speed of light
So if v=c, t' would be 0
That would be the frozen time.
I don't really believe that this true and that people could really do timewalk, but that's the Einstein theory now which many people believe, so believe, too.
Of course, theory is only a projection of the truth and don't have to be true. According to Platon, the real reality in the reality is the depth of the reality.
So my postings don't need to be true, so please don't bully me.
For example: The science says that the speed of light is constant. If you shine with a pocket lamp, the light shines with the speed of light. If you are shining the lamp while running, or if you shine the lamp while driving the car, the speed of light will stay the same.
The time dilation of Albert Einstein says that the time of a moving inertial system is shorter than the time of a standing inertial system.
t' = t (1 - v˛/c˛)^ 1/2
t' = the time the moving object goes through
t = the time for the unmoving system
v = the velocity of the moving object (relative to inertial system)
c = vacuum speed of light
So if v=c, t' would be 0
That would be the frozen time.
I don't really believe that this true and that people could really do timewalk, but that's the Einstein theory now which many people believe, so believe, too.Of course, theory is only a projection of the truth and don't have to be true. According to Platon, the real reality in the reality is the depth of the reality.
So my postings don't need to be true, so please don't bully me.
QUOTE (admiral+Jun 21 2006, 10:32 AM)
but that's the Einstein theory now which many people believe, so believe, too.
Relativistic time dilation has bags of evidence, particularly in particle physics, so it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of experimental reality.
Relativistic time dilation has bags of evidence, particularly in particle physics, so it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of experimental reality.
yeah, the mechanic of Newton had also been experimental reality.
And you know theories are still theories.
All what students learn at high school is based on non-relativistic mechanic.
And we can also live on quite well with such a not-100%-right reality.
You know, Platon said that "the real reality inside the reality is the depth of the reality". It's wrong to add the air pressure/ gravity or airfriction or the friction of the tyre and the road if you want to calculate the velocity of e.g. a car.
That's my opinion why I think it's not very much of use, because we can live very well with the machanics of Newton, and I'm not a scientist, I'm a student, so I have to behave like a student.
This posting really contains no insult against anybody. (I had bad experiences in scientical discussions, so I always add this at the end. Please notice)
And you know theories are still theories.
All what students learn at high school is based on non-relativistic mechanic.
And we can also live on quite well with such a not-100%-right reality.
You know, Platon said that "the real reality inside the reality is the depth of the reality". It's wrong to add the air pressure/ gravity or airfriction or the friction of the tyre and the road if you want to calculate the velocity of e.g. a car.
That's my opinion why I think it's not very much of use, because we can live very well with the machanics of Newton, and I'm not a scientist, I'm a student, so I have to behave like a student. This posting really contains no insult against anybody. (I had bad experiences in scientical discussions, so I always add this at the end. Please notice)
True, much of our lives can be lived without leaving the wonderful world of classical physics, but more and more our technology is leaving classical physics and relying on quantum or relativistic effects. Newton's version of things was shown to be insufficent in 1918 and no doubt there'll be an experiment at some point to show Einstein needs updating.
GPS satellites use relativity to correct for time dilation effects. Semiconductors use quantum mechanics to model electron flow. Nuclear power stations use quantum mechanics to keep reactions going.
Not everyone needs to know about physics, most people live their lives without having to worry about non-commuting variables or time dilation but someone's got to know about them if we're to keep advancing technology and understanding (wether the advance of technology is a good or bad thing is a matter of debate).
QUOTE
And you know theories are still theories.
It's important to realise that that doesn't mean it's a random guess. Name any experiment involving gravity and relativity predicts it with amazing accuracy, so it's an experimentally checked theory. Something like autodynamics, an attempt to replace relativity by some people, doesn't match experiment at all, so it's not a theory in the scientific sense, more an incorrect hypothesis. People often use "It's only a theory" to refute evolution, but it's called that because scientists know it'll be improved over time, it's not set in stone. If it had no experimental evidence it'd be the hypothesis of evolution. Anything called 'law' is a misnomer and the result of history rather than scientific viewpoints.GPS satellites use relativity to correct for time dilation effects. Semiconductors use quantum mechanics to model electron flow. Nuclear power stations use quantum mechanics to keep reactions going.
Not everyone needs to know about physics, most people live their lives without having to worry about non-commuting variables or time dilation but someone's got to know about them if we're to keep advancing technology and understanding (wether the advance of technology is a good or bad thing is a matter of debate).
First you have to know where time would freeze. That is at the surface or event horizon of a black hole. If you reach the event horizon you will be falling at light speed. The end of time and reaching light speed go hand in hand. What is the timerate inside then? And what keeps matter from accelerating faster than light in the even stronger gravity inside the black hole?
Yeah you are right, Nick!
What would happen if we could travel to the black holes and if we could resist the high gravity of it...
What would happen if we could travel to the black holes and if we could resist the high gravity of it...
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 21 2006, 10:07 PM)
If you reach the event horizon you will be falling at light speed.
No you won't. Just because the gravity is strong doesn't mean that you'll be accelerated to light speed.
No matter the gravity, you cannot be accelerated to light speed and just because the space-time curvature is so much light cannot escape doesn't mean that the 'gravity' of the black hole at it's event horizon is extreme. The surface gravity for a Schwarzchild black hole is (in natural units) g = 1/4M, where M is the black hole mass. For a HUGE black hole the gravity at it's event horizon is hardly noticable, yet light cannot escape. It's a strange result.
No you won't. Just because the gravity is strong doesn't mean that you'll be accelerated to light speed.
No matter the gravity, you cannot be accelerated to light speed and just because the space-time curvature is so much light cannot escape doesn't mean that the 'gravity' of the black hole at it's event horizon is extreme. The surface gravity for a Schwarzchild black hole is (in natural units) g = 1/4M, where M is the black hole mass. For a HUGE black hole the gravity at it's event horizon is hardly noticable, yet light cannot escape. It's a strange result.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 22 2006, 04:45 PM)
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 21 2006, 10:07 PM)
If you reach the event horizon you will be falling at light speed.
No you won't. Just because the gravity is strong doesn't mean that you'll be accelerated to light speed.
That's what the theory has to say: where time ends matter has reached light speed. They go hand in hand if you see. If you say you can't reach light speed you are saying that gravity theory as it stands is wrong and that is my very point.
Freefall acceleration adds up like the addition of velocities; except it is addition of freefall accelerations. Falling must be relativistic if matter is not to reach light speed. And time cannot end. that is guaranteed.
No you won't. Just because the gravity is strong doesn't mean that you'll be accelerated to light speed.
That's what the theory has to say: where time ends matter has reached light speed. They go hand in hand if you see. If you say you can't reach light speed you are saying that gravity theory as it stands is wrong and that is my very point.
Freefall acceleration adds up like the addition of velocities; except it is addition of freefall accelerations. Falling must be relativistic if matter is not to reach light speed. And time cannot end. that is guaranteed.
If you do any kind of relativistic integral to compute the speed an object will be moving if it falls from rest at infinity to the event horizon, I 100% guarentee it will not give you the speed of light as an answer. Try computing it for a Schwarzchild black hole.
Escape velocity is NOT the same as the speed you attain from falling from infinity in relativistic motion (it may well be in Newtonian theory). Surface gravity (the quantity known as Kappa) and space-time curvature do not uniquely define one another, as shown by the fact kappa = 1/(4M) for the Schwarzchild black hole. As M-> infinity, the surface gravity at the event horizon -> zero, despite the escape velocity being that of light for any value of M.
This is not because 'gravity theory is wrong', it it 'gravity theory' (ie relativity) itself which predicts it. Just because this doesn't square with common sense doesn't make it wrong (look at most of quantum mechanics!).
Escape velocity is NOT the same as the speed you attain from falling from infinity in relativistic motion (it may well be in Newtonian theory). Surface gravity (the quantity known as Kappa) and space-time curvature do not uniquely define one another, as shown by the fact kappa = 1/(4M) for the Schwarzchild black hole. As M-> infinity, the surface gravity at the event horizon -> zero, despite the escape velocity being that of light for any value of M.
This is not because 'gravity theory is wrong', it it 'gravity theory' (ie relativity) itself which predicts it. Just because this doesn't square with common sense doesn't make it wrong (look at most of quantum mechanics!).
So what are you saying?
I am saying that where time ends for falling matter it reaches light speed. Its as simple as that. Can you explain how time could end in any other way?
I didn't think so.
I am saying that where time ends for falling matter it reaches light speed. Its as simple as that. Can you explain how time could end in any other way?
I didn't think so.
time is motion of particles and bodies into space
space is made out of quanta of space QS.
time do not run in space on its own, it runs only as a motion
so space itself is a-temporal
in space time freeze YES
see more
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7908
space is made out of quanta of space QS.
time do not run in space on its own, it runs only as a motion
so space itself is a-temporal
in space time freeze YES
see more
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7908
I don't think mass alone is enough to create any events detectable as time. Realistically you can't perfectly isolate anything, so I don't think it would be possible to 'stop' time for an object but assuming you could truly keep a particle isolated without any interactions with anything else, then that would be the same as stopping time for it, IMO, but it seems impossible to do in reality though you could slow interactions and come close.
But something to consider here is that time would still be passing for an observer of this (though they couldn't directly observe the particle without interacting with it as far as I know) and whatever is kept isolated wouldn't be able to sense that time was stopped and so as soon as the particle interacted again later, then for it time would be passed (my assumptions), so there is no 'first person' viewpoint available for stopped time, so it's more of a definition game that couldn't really be proven I guess ... an observer could decide time was stopped for something else, but it seems hard to know for certain. Even light itself, which would appear to be frozen in time as it travels through space would likely only see a series of events as it interacts with other objects instead of "realizing" it wasn't experiencing any time travelling between these.
Time is an all around poorly understood subject. It's intuitive but exactly what innate mechanisms we use for references isn't entirely clear ...
Actually, I think amrit is correct that travel through space alone doesn't create time. It's interacting with the non-spaces that creates it. If a mass in 'aging' through internal actions, then those create time but motion along doesn't do this.
But something to consider here is that time would still be passing for an observer of this (though they couldn't directly observe the particle without interacting with it as far as I know) and whatever is kept isolated wouldn't be able to sense that time was stopped and so as soon as the particle interacted again later, then for it time would be passed (my assumptions), so there is no 'first person' viewpoint available for stopped time, so it's more of a definition game that couldn't really be proven I guess ... an observer could decide time was stopped for something else, but it seems hard to know for certain. Even light itself, which would appear to be frozen in time as it travels through space would likely only see a series of events as it interacts with other objects instead of "realizing" it wasn't experiencing any time travelling between these.
Time is an all around poorly understood subject. It's intuitive but exactly what innate mechanisms we use for references isn't entirely clear ...
Actually, I think amrit is correct that travel through space alone doesn't create time. It's interacting with the non-spaces that creates it. If a mass in 'aging' through internal actions, then those create time but motion along doesn't do this.
QUOTE (aaronoh+Jun 21 2006, 08:28 AM)
According to what i feel, time cannot be forzen in space. Reason is very simple. For time to travel, i feel that there must be a mass. In outer space, there is mass. Therefore, it is impossible for time to freeze..
The Nature is more tricky... Try to explain, what you can see on the animation bellow:
The Nature is more tricky... Try to explain, what you can see on the animation bellow:
nature is not tricky at all
nature is simple
our mind is tricky
nature is simple
our mind is tricky
The faster you travel, the slower your time goes. To stop tiem you must travel exactly at the speed of light, that is frozen time.
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 14 2006, 02:24 PM)
nature is not tricky at all
nature is simple
That's for sure but you must have a very open child-mind (which is highest form of it) to SEE because eye is even most tricky than mind.
So motion is not time in space - time is dynamics of all cosmic levels themselves.
nature is simple
That's for sure but you must have a very open child-mind (which is highest form of it) to SEE because eye is even most tricky than mind.
So motion is not time in space - time is dynamics of all cosmic levels themselves.
Yes time dilation and freezing is possible
as i discovered thru my own research
as i discovered thru my own research
Who are you talking too?
They all went home!
They all went home!
QUOTE (savvys84+Apr 22 2012, 04:20 AM)
Yes time dilation and freezing is possible
as i discovered thru my own research
Frozen time is why this dip responded to a 6 year old post.
as i discovered thru my own research
Frozen time is why this dip responded to a 6 year old post.
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 23 2012, 06:23 AM)
Frozen time is why this dip responded to a 6 year old post.
@Alex - nothing will make you happy. You miss the old forum, and then complain if someone post to an old thread. Don't worry be happy.
@Alex - nothing will make you happy. You miss the old forum, and then complain if someone post to an old thread. Don't worry be happy.
QUOTE (Robittybob1+Apr 23 2012, 05:09 AM)
@Alex - nothing will make you happy. You miss the old forum, and then complain if someone post to an old thread. Don't worry be happy.
It's forum etiquette. You don't revive old posts for no reason, especially not to answer half-decade-old questions.
It's forum etiquette. You don't revive old posts for no reason, especially not to answer half-decade-old questions.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 22 2006, 04:45 PM)
No you won't. Just because the gravity is strong doesn't mean that you'll be accelerated to light speed.
No matter the gravity, you cannot be accelerated to light speed and just because the space-time curvature is so much light cannot escape doesn't mean that the 'gravity' of the black hole at it's event horizon is extreme. The surface gravity for a Schwarzchild black hole is (in natural units) g = 1/4M, where M is the black hole mass. For a HUGE black hole the gravity at it's event horizon is hardly noticable, yet light cannot escape. It's a strange result.
I know this old . I am just seeing it for the first time . This puts the image of a boat just before it falls off a waterfall . Like dragging the bottom of the river while water rushes by. I know it is not the same , but that was the image I got from Alphies quote . Drag comes to mind and light is not subject to the drag
No matter the gravity, you cannot be accelerated to light speed and just because the space-time curvature is so much light cannot escape doesn't mean that the 'gravity' of the black hole at it's event horizon is extreme. The surface gravity for a Schwarzchild black hole is (in natural units) g = 1/4M, where M is the black hole mass. For a HUGE black hole the gravity at it's event horizon is hardly noticable, yet light cannot escape. It's a strange result.
I know this old . I am just seeing it for the first time . This puts the image of a boat just before it falls off a waterfall . Like dragging the bottom of the river while water rushes by. I know it is not the same , but that was the image I got from Alphies quote . Drag comes to mind and light is not subject to the drag
What do you all think it would take to blow up a big black hole ? What could could you use for trigger , or a primer ? I bet that would be one big bang !! Yohza!
QUOTE (Whistleblower+Apr 23 2012, 04:48 PM)
He just deletes all 'inconvenient' references to his unconscionable bhaviour and then says the whistleblower is harassing readers of the board.
No, he is just hoping that someone who was rightfully banned will eventually be an adult and quit sulking about it. Barring such maturity, the moderator has an obligation to keep banned members from trolling the forum.
No, he is just hoping that someone who was rightfully banned will eventually be an adult and quit sulking about it. Barring such maturity, the moderator has an obligation to keep banned members from trolling the forum.
QUOTE (Guest+Apr 23 2012, 05:09 PM)
Oh, rpenner and his sycophantic parrots are allowed to act like spoilt children complete with infantile ego and prejudices, and are allowed to avoid answering the actual points of questions by simply by being allowed to run way from them and when that is no longer tenable then the questioner and the question is made to 'conveniently disappear' as if they never were?
You don't get it. You've lost any right to pose questions, and all by your own doing, TWICE! Be a man. Get over it, instead of ranting like a spoiled child.
You don't get it. You've lost any right to pose questions, and all by your own doing, TWICE! Be a man. Get over it, instead of ranting like a spoiled child.
QUOTE (Terms of use+)
This agreement governs your access to Physforum.com (http://Physforum.com) ("Physforum.com" or "we") facilities, message boards, and services (collectively the "Service"). In consideration for your right to use the Service, you agree as follows:
SERVICE PROVIDED
...
Physforum.com is not obligated to monitor the Service, but may do so and may remove or edit any message or adjust your access to the Service. Messages that Physforum may, in its sole discretion, elect to remove or edit include without limitation those which violate the "Restrictions" enumerated herein.
Be an adult and live with the agreement you entered into by using this service. Oh wait, I forgot, you are a troll, with absolutely no compunction against demonstrating your lack of integrity.
SERVICE PROVIDED
...
Physforum.com is not obligated to monitor the Service, but may do so and may remove or edit any message or adjust your access to the Service. Messages that Physforum may, in its sole discretion, elect to remove or edit include without limitation those which violate the "Restrictions" enumerated herein.
Be an adult and live with the agreement you entered into by using this service. Oh wait, I forgot, you are a troll, with absolutely no compunction against demonstrating your lack of integrity.
QUOTE (Whistleblowing+Apr 23 2012, 07:36 PM)
Unless you UNban RealityCheck, the forum and any passersby will be continuously made aware of your unconscionable and anti-science-discourse conduct.
Extortion by trolling. Is that the kind of person you REALLY are?
Extortion by trolling. Is that the kind of person you REALLY are?
QUOTE (Guest+Apr 23 2012, 08:23 PM)
First you claim that only "approved" posters can ask science questions on a science site!
I never said "approved". But sure, in the sense that they may be a legit poster who hasn't already squandered all of their chances/warnings before being permanently banned.
What rights? Show me in the user agreement or terms of use where you are guaranteed ANY rights. You've subverted a legitimate banning and are now violating your own agreement.
What rights? Show me in the user agreement or terms of use where you are guaranteed ANY rights. You've subverted a legitimate banning and are now violating your own agreement.
Only UNbanning RealityCheck will redress the unfair treatment....anything short of that is just reinforcing your and rpenner's tactics of prejudicially and unscientificallt removing rights from a genuine poster who asked questions from which you and others ran away and then resorted to deleting/banning for your own ends and then blaming the victim.
I answered much more of your nonsense than was probably reasonable. Just because you've refused to accept answers doesn't mean they weren't given.
I've yet to see any request, which would imply accepting the answer to such a request. What I have seen is threats to continue to troll indefinitely if you don't get you way.
I never said "approved". But sure, in the sense that they may be a legit poster who hasn't already squandered all of their chances/warnings before being permanently banned.
QUOTE
Now you call speaking up for one's rights and whistleblowing in the open forum "extortion" and "trolling"?
What rights? Show me in the user agreement or terms of use where you are guaranteed ANY rights. You've subverted a legitimate banning and are now violating your own agreement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now you call speaking up for one's rights and whistleblowing in the open forum "extortion" and "trolling"? |
What rights? Show me in the user agreement or terms of use where you are guaranteed ANY rights. You've subverted a legitimate banning and are now violating your own agreement.
Only UNbanning RealityCheck will redress the unfair treatment....anything short of that is just reinforcing your and rpenner's tactics of prejudicially and unscientificallt removing rights from a genuine poster who asked questions from which you and others ran away and then resorted to deleting/banning for your own ends and then blaming the victim.
I answered much more of your nonsense than was probably reasonable. Just because you've refused to accept answers doesn't mean they weren't given.
QUOTE
No extortion. Just fair request to regain the rights so unconscionably taken away...
I've yet to see any request, which would imply accepting the answer to such a request. What I have seen is threats to continue to troll indefinitely if you don't get you way.
Wow, this is just getting pitiful.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.