I find it impossible to be able to go back in time! Yet! When reading discussion's on space/time, people say that you would go so fast through time , you could arrive before you left! I say Impossible!
"Time" as a description is - "how events unfold within a field" ( my description). Now, relativity states the fast you go through time, the slower your clock will tick. All that is happening here is, as you reach higher speeds pushing through space. The ship/ particle/field that you are in is experience increase in pressure, due to the increase in velocity moving through space. Much like a hull of a boat experiences greater pressure as the boats speed increases, due to the resistence of the water being applied.
So, just like in a race car. When the driver accelerate's you are thrown back and you find it hard to move, due to the pressure's of the field around you. So is the field moving through space, experiencing these pressure's. If you put a clock inside the field ( that is moving), it is more intense. Objects within in this field move slower under the same force as particles that move out side the field, due to the applied pressure.
Now, to my point! If time is being slowed down to to the pressure of moving through space. and we go faster and faster. We may be able to go so fast that we make the movement within the field stop totally / stopping the clock. Now we could go great distances and not age as much or not at all. Though we could only go to zero time. Is "time travel" , not just a fancy way of saying "suspended animation" over distance! To go back in "time", you would have to know what "negative time" is? We don't even know what a negative tempature is, -1 kelvin . Let alone " negative time".
Am I clear on "relativity" here! Or is there something I'm missing to this time travel stuff?
I may seem impossible to go back in time, but i am willing to bet that you can go forward in time. GR allows this. Now to build that hyper drive..
I just saw this today. There are those scientists who are seriously working on time travel:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32875575/ns/te...#sp-vi/32754722
(Choose video "Could time travel be possible?"
There are some brief sound bites here from certain physicists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32875575/ns/te...#sp-vi/32754722
(Choose video "Could time travel be possible?"
There are some brief sound bites here from certain physicists.
QUOTE
"Time" as a description is - "how events unfold within a field" ( my description). Now, relativity states the fast you go through time, the slower your clock will tick. All that is happening here is, as you reach higher speeds pushing through space. The ship/ particle/field that you are in is experience increase in pressure, due to the increase in velocity moving through space. Much like a hull of a boat experiences greater pressure as the boats speed increases, due to the resistence of the water being applied.
My own personal take on it is that how we perceive time is much the same as how we perceive motion. By comparing it to something else. It is this perception that makes it relative. Time doesn't change. A change in the environment the object in question is in can have a physical impact on the object itself. Example being a clock (even an atomic one) may work at a different speed if exposed to a strong gravitational field as opposed to a weak one, or if exposed to high speeds as opposed to slow speeds.
Somewhat of a confirmation of this is taking two atomic clocks in sync, leaving one stationary and taking the other on a fast trip. They will fall out of sync (the one on the trips slowed down). Is this a change in time due to speed? Or is it simply a change to how the clock operates due to a difference in physical environment.
It has been claimed that the closer to the speed of light the slower that time goes for the object traveling but how do we honestly know we are accelerating the object if it's all relative? Sure the clock going for a trip is going closer to the speed of light when compared to the the clock not moving but compare the motion of both clocks to other bodies and the results will be different. The clock that is supposedly not moving could really be the one moving closer to the speed of light than the one traveling.
The two clocks start out not moving compared to each other or the ground but the Earth is spinning, orbiting the sun, moving through the Galaxy, etc. Both the Clocks already start out moving so when you take one for a trip is it getting closer to the speed of light or farther? How can we really tell? If you take the same clock for multiple trips in multiple directions then surely one of those directions will result in it going faster than the one not on the trip. Then surely another direction will have it going slower than the one not on the trip. If the results are then the same (the one taken for a trip lags behind the one that isn't) despite the direction of travel then obviously time (or at least the perception of it) is slowing/changing for another reason altogether.
Joeb and H2O'
You are both saying the same thing. I believe (my own belief) that dilation is the key here to SR and GR equivalence. The faster you go the more dilated you are. The greater the size of the planet you are on the more dilated you are. When you stop accelerating and maintain speed its like being in the center of the planets dilation where the dilation is the greatest. "c" is maximum dilation which mass can not obtain that speed. The acceleration part of gravity is not where dilation is created, its just speed. You ask relative to what and I would have to say relative to your dilation. When you decelerate you create artificial gravity but you decrease your dilation. So Joeb you must be correct (in my belief) that something is causing resistance. In motion the electron has to go further to complete its cycle slowing down the clock (in my belief). trout has taught me that momentum of the photon needs to be added when you measure its speed in a moving ship. You have to add the two legs of a triangle in a ship. The distance the photon traveled is the hypotenuse of the distance traveled by the light and the distance traveled by the ship. A^2 + B^2 = C^2 the photon in a ship is traveling C^2. Some how that is related to the electrons increase in distance traveled per cycle to slow it down. It does not matter if it is a mechanical clock or atomic clock (my own belief) they run the same.
Chose your own truth in this. Not necessarily the belief of most physicists.
You are both saying the same thing. I believe (my own belief) that dilation is the key here to SR and GR equivalence. The faster you go the more dilated you are. The greater the size of the planet you are on the more dilated you are. When you stop accelerating and maintain speed its like being in the center of the planets dilation where the dilation is the greatest. "c" is maximum dilation which mass can not obtain that speed. The acceleration part of gravity is not where dilation is created, its just speed. You ask relative to what and I would have to say relative to your dilation. When you decelerate you create artificial gravity but you decrease your dilation. So Joeb you must be correct (in my belief) that something is causing resistance. In motion the electron has to go further to complete its cycle slowing down the clock (in my belief). trout has taught me that momentum of the photon needs to be added when you measure its speed in a moving ship. You have to add the two legs of a triangle in a ship. The distance the photon traveled is the hypotenuse of the distance traveled by the light and the distance traveled by the ship. A^2 + B^2 = C^2 the photon in a ship is traveling C^2. Some how that is related to the electrons increase in distance traveled per cycle to slow it down. It does not matter if it is a mechanical clock or atomic clock (my own belief) they run the same.
Chose your own truth in this. Not necessarily the belief of most physicists.
Dear H20: Tick tock, wheel of knowledge unlocks, right now I watch PBS signal from Wisconsin across Lake Michigan here into Michigan; South Pole water falls as snow, thin as a Hersey Bar Thick of ice, but North Pole is that mostly water?
Antarctica Ecosystem, Krill? Education today is not trivial. Thanks to global communications that travel near the speed of light in a vacuum or at your measuring bench (even your brain now).
It took me some time, decades and more, to appreciate Antarctica collects solar wind's positrons, H+, and Arctic, solar wind's electrons. As the Earth's molten, mostly iron core, too hot to sustain itself a magnetic field, has a relatively thin Zirconium Silicon Dioxide layer, highly magnetic, highly compressible, that Internet Literature states sustain an earth's magnetic field that shifts poles.
The model that Albert Einstein reports his father gave him when Albert received that magnetic compass did trigger a mind we now study along with others reporting their observations.
Time is part of space, leaving its notch or nit-ch, and here's my pitch: don't get stuck in a ditch, shoved into a grave, made a slave, so reach out a hand, join the band that wraps and gains, shares and complains, all the while integrates small and great, taking time to debate.
A single Continent forms at the Magnetic South Pole, grows larger with the relatively heavier positrons from mostly the Sun's solars winds, one cycle per 125 million years, while once about each 100 thousand years, the Ice Ages grind and polish the crusts that form, with maybe 4 billion years in Earth making.
Meanwhile the South and North Pole shift as testified by the evidence that the Earth is expanding and it's crust must expand with it.
While telescopes, Earth and Satilite bound, continue to astound, looks like an infinity of oscillating black hole like physics is operative.
While we debate, it not too lake to appreciate the complexity and new growing understandings.
Back to the new physics, that growing recycling, best rm
Antarctica Ecosystem, Krill? Education today is not trivial. Thanks to global communications that travel near the speed of light in a vacuum or at your measuring bench (even your brain now).
It took me some time, decades and more, to appreciate Antarctica collects solar wind's positrons, H+, and Arctic, solar wind's electrons. As the Earth's molten, mostly iron core, too hot to sustain itself a magnetic field, has a relatively thin Zirconium Silicon Dioxide layer, highly magnetic, highly compressible, that Internet Literature states sustain an earth's magnetic field that shifts poles.
The model that Albert Einstein reports his father gave him when Albert received that magnetic compass did trigger a mind we now study along with others reporting their observations.
Time is part of space, leaving its notch or nit-ch, and here's my pitch: don't get stuck in a ditch, shoved into a grave, made a slave, so reach out a hand, join the band that wraps and gains, shares and complains, all the while integrates small and great, taking time to debate.
A single Continent forms at the Magnetic South Pole, grows larger with the relatively heavier positrons from mostly the Sun's solars winds, one cycle per 125 million years, while once about each 100 thousand years, the Ice Ages grind and polish the crusts that form, with maybe 4 billion years in Earth making.
Meanwhile the South and North Pole shift as testified by the evidence that the Earth is expanding and it's crust must expand with it.
While telescopes, Earth and Satilite bound, continue to astound, looks like an infinity of oscillating black hole like physics is operative.
While we debate, it not too lake to appreciate the complexity and new growing understandings.
Back to the new physics, that growing recycling, best rm
I think in fact that since we cannot know the future, some of these approaches may either teach us something valuable or continue towards a successful development.
And of course some may not.
In any apparent case for now I want to choose one single strong advocacy for each approach (wherever/if a current presentation is available).
And of course some may not.
In any apparent case for now I want to choose one single strong advocacy for each approach (wherever/if a current presentation is available).
You might not actually exist though. That couldn't possibly be good.
But hey, tell me when you figure out how OK?
But hey, tell me when you figure out how OK?
How what?
On topic,
GR, and SR, are also 'time-reverse symmetric'.
Thermodynamics is NOT time-reverse symmetric, nor is the standard model where time-reverse asymmetry is usually called the "CP-violation", and is mostly associated with the so called weak nuclear force.
Dispell the 'Myth' and wollah... you have time-travel
On topic,
GR, and SR, are also 'time-reverse symmetric'.
Thermodynamics is NOT time-reverse symmetric, nor is the standard model where time-reverse asymmetry is usually called the "CP-violation", and is mostly associated with the so called weak nuclear force.
Dispell the 'Myth' and wollah... you have time-travel