Staredit Network

Well I did make a mistake on the 100 around but it was proving that while the person in the shuttle is going at that rate its like if time slowed down for him while the other is on earth in normal time that would age still much more then the one in the shuttle but since its impossible for any person to travel at that rate then pretty much whats the point in waiting for time travel.

Ever watch the history channel's episode on how William Shatner changed the world? It talks about how going faster than the speed of light is possible just completely illogical. So that your not actually moving, but space moves around you so you could travel without dieing from going that fast. Though he said the energy needed would be the same as the suns. Wormhole theory I think its when space gets bigger behind you and smaller in front of you or something like that.

This goes along with the space shuttle they are working on where you will be able to travel faster than the speed of light. The idea is that it dreates a space/time bubble aound it and moves the space/time in front of the object behind it, this is done to make the long 5 year journey cut into 5 feet.

Right. A little tiny bit is still infinitely bigger than nothing at all.

That is incorrect. The minimum number of times you'd have to go around the Earth at normal space shuttle orbital altitude would be about 13617700000. However, the basic principle is correct, that the one flying around would age more slowly than the one back on Earth. This is not a very good key to immortality, however, because your perception of time also slows down; from the point of view of the person flying around in space, they are aging at the normal rate.

Here's just a sorta random question: Is this why, when a car is moving fast, the wheels appear to be moving slower than they really are?

That doesn't make any sense. According to that theory, I could be facing North (for example), and there would be a small space in front of me. Then, if I turned around and looked South, the space to the North would increase in size.

OFF TOPIC: It's nice to see that I started a good discussion.

Fatal Exception I don't think it works the same way with air and land as it does with space. You can make something be able to go faster on land if you make the air more dense behind the object and more small in front of it. It would be more like blowing air though and making it go forward.

No.

If we say the car is moving at about 100 KPH, or 60 MPH, then the relativity dilation is 1.0000000000000044 and the car's wheels will appear to go 0.9999999999999956 times as fast as they actually are. For the human eye to see this difference would require more visual precision than seeing a mosquito sitting on the surface of the Sun, from Earth.

The actual reason that car wheels can appear to be moving slowly, or even backwards, is because of the refresh rate of the human eye. Our vision is not smooth, and we only see so many frames per second. When a car's wheels are rotating at the right speed and have some sort of radial pattern on them, the rate at which our eyes refresh make us see the pattern on the wheels after it has rotated almost precisely to be in the same position. The illusion is that the pattern on the wheel has just moved slightly, so that the car wheels appear to be rotating slower than they actually are, and sometimes in the other direction. It has nothing to do with relativity.

pfff. I can see them, theres lots and I can hear them talking to eachother. Something about taking over the world.

Also, do some people's eyes have faster refreshing times than others?

No. At least not very different. The cells in our eyes are all constructed very similarly from person to person, and anyone with some sort of mutation in the genes for that structure would probably render them blind before it gave them a different refresh rate. However, it is likely that some animals have different refresh rates than humans do; for example, it would make sense for a raptor to have a fast refresh rate in order to see movement more easily. I haven't looked this up, though, so I can't be sure.

So your saying that since the human eye cannot catch up to quick moving frames in order to replace them it skips some of them?

Just think about any kind of movie. They are but a set of pictures that are displayed at a higher rate than our eyes can see. That's why we can watch a movie and not a mere diashow
I think I once heard that for dogs the TV is a diashow...

There were so many people asking what this time dilation and so on is good for when it is so small. There are several situations when you get terribly wrong results when neglecting time dilation.
For example in space travel; you are likely to miss the moon if you don't care about time dilation. In case of Mars it's even worse.

Not really. See, compared to the refresh rate of the human eye, the motion of a car's wheel is effectively continuous. The illusion, known as the wagon wheel effect, occurs because the car wheel has rotated just enough for you to see some other part of the pattern on the hubcap right near the place where you just saw the original part.

Let's say you have a black wheel with a white dot in one place on the outside, rotating in front of you with its period equal to and coordinated with the refresh rate of your eyes. Every time your eyes receive an image, the dot will be in the same place, and you will see it remain stationary, even though it is actually rotating. Speed it up to exactly twice your refresh rate and the same thing will happen. However, it is unlikely to get precisely the same frequency. So if it's off just slightly, each frame you see will have the dot appear slightly behind or slightly ahead of the place where it was before (depending on whether the wheel is fast or slow). This makes the dot seem to move slowly around the wheel when in fact the wheel is rotating quickly. This is what happens with car wheels, only you're seeing the pattern on the hubcap rather than a white dot (and because the pattern usually repeats several times around the wheel, there are more possible speeds for the wheel that will still cause the illusion).

At least, that's the way I've always imagined it.

Yes, I believe it's about 24 frames every second.

I'm not sure that's true. Again, you can plug the numbers into the calculator and find out whether you really could miss planets due to time dilation. And it turns out that, traveling at 10 kilometers a second, the dilation is still only 1.0000000005563252. So for the diameter of Mars to be smaller than this margin of error, assuming that, say, you're traveling from the Sun (because the distance between Mars and Earth varies over time), it would have to be less than 795 meters wide. While this is finally getting into the area of significance, we're going to have to speed up by one or two orders of magnitude before it becomes possible to miss Mars (of course, the Moon is much easier to hit than Mars is), or even to miss low martian orbit.

Good point. As a matter of fact, it is often possible to see something similar to the wagon wheel effect if you take a video of a TV or computer screen. Although this might depend on the type of camera being used; a digital camera would show it, but an actual optical film camera might not.

I don't think theres a way to travel into the past, but if we manage to go alot faster than the speed of light we can see into the past. If your 2707 light years away from earth and you pick up this super duper super telescope and look at earth you will see it as it was 2707 years ago.

There is another theory about going into the future besides time dialation it has to do with having your molecules stop. You could not do this to a human but it's been believed you can do this by compressing something enough till its molecules stop. You would crush and freeze a human by doing this because as molecules go slower things start to get colder, and obviously you would be crushed from the pressure.

Not to spoil your fun talking about spinners and the like, but there are a few things that I would like to say, then you can go back to spinners lol










No, blackholes do not stop time. Time was invented by us. Sure it makes sence that as the sun crosses the sky, we make a mesurement for it. People like to know what is going on in the world around them..... so they try to ogranize everything so they can feel in controle.





Umm... Thats almost like MY theory on how to fly. (Whitch is throw yourself at the ground and miss)

Time dose not store anything in it, cus its not realy there. It is a measurement.



But if you could go back in time, the doffie cup would have never fallen...



That is the universal question. If you meet yourself, and you were 5 min in the past or whatever, will time loop forever for you.





Umm...... If there is a God, I'm sure he'd know how to do it...... Cus he created everything and all..... you know..... Being GOD

Yes, black holes stop our knowing of time. Its the only way to explain it. If you were to watch an object fly into a black hole, you would see them forever, they would never disappear to your eye even after it had already been crushed or whatever a black hole does to stuff.

Black holes trap light. without light, you cannt see anything, becuse light is not reflecting off ot the object . That is why they are BLACK holes......

This is at the point of horizon, the last point where light cannot be seen anymore, this is why you never see them travel on past that. So they are stuck at the event horizon forever because no more light of them moving on can be seen. Your wrong.

I disagree with what McAfee said about us creating time. Time is simply a unit of measurement. Just like we measure distance with meters, kilometers, etc., and how we measure volume and weight with various units. Time exists, plain and simple. There is a very simple sequence of before and after that we can all agree exists. We humans have just devised a means to measure units of it. Our creation of measurements does not mean we created time itself. That's like saying we created distance, volume, weight, etc., which is not true. We've merely devised a system that we all agree on so everyone will know what eachother's talking about when it comes to naming measurments.

Well this time or no time discussion is not really done yet. There are thories that time - the fact that things are different now than they were before - is not a steady flow, but does only exist in time-points, for example.

Imo time is just the changing of properties of our universe. But: the fact that we are able to use repeating changes at constant rates to measure "time" proves that it is a good way to interpret the universe.
Every unit of measurement is made up by us, though.

No. Because the older version of you that went back in time would still go on and do normal stuff after the other version had left in the time machine five minutes later.

However, that doesn't mean a dependancy loop isn't impossible. For example, the you that came back in time could tell the other you to go into the time machine, when otherwise you wouldn't have gone. Or, for a somewhat more complicated example, you can read a Heinlein short story called All You Zombies.

He might well be able to turn our universe back, but turning his own universe back could be a lot harder (for him, anyway).

That's not actually true. Time is still moving at a fairly quick pace even at the event horizon, so the object would be able to pass the event horizon and vanish from your view before its time stopped. Now, not to confuse anyone, but as a matter of fact it is impossible for a black hole to stop time within our viewpoints, because it takes infinitely long for the collapse to be complete and reach infinite gravity. So no true black hole can exist in our universe, all we see are 'big' black holes that are still busy collapsing (and will be forever, from our point of view). The only way to see a black hole reach the singularity point is to fly into it.

Agreed. In order for us to be able to measure the interval between events, there has to be some kind of sequence, because the events that occur are by no means arbitrary.

I disagree with this. If no light of them moving is coming back to you, how is light of their former state coming back at you infinitely? If they're not there, there's nothing for light to bounce off of, and no image for our eyes/brain to register.

And funny as Black Holes are, you'd be torn into pieces when entering the nearer regions of the Black Hole's surrounding area - unless you are exactly 0 metres long That is because the gravity is so much stronger at the point of your vessel (lets assume you're not flying there with your paraglider) that is nearest to the Black Hole than it is at the other end of the vessel

Whatever a "true Black Hole" is... Theoretically the mass would collapse until it becomes a singularity. But then we have an infinite energy density, which would case a ton of troubles... But we can't find out anyways... It's too bad we found relations in physics that prevent us from knowing everything

Wasn't this whole black hole thing already been explained by steven hawkins? I might be wrong, because I can't remember for sure. But I believed he pointed out that energy does not go into blackholes. They more like, go through them.