12
   

time travel paradox

 
 
validity
 
  1  
Fri 1 May, 2009 05:41 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Respectfully you are incorrect on every point,
I have no problem with being corrected, when justified.

Let the dissection begin <insert chainsaw sound here> Smile

validity wrote:
There is a significant difference between the time dilation of moving clocks and the time dilation of a clock in a lower gravitational potential.
There is changing distance between moving clocks and a static distance between two clocks in different gravitational potentials. Significant difference.

[quote=validity]I think you are mistakingly placing the moving spacecraft into the second category.[/quote] Your example has a spacecraft moving away form the earth ie changing distance relation. To describe the effect using a static distance effect is a mistake.

validity wrote:
In your post you describe "special shrinking". The correct term is length contraction.
Length contraction defined here define:Length contraction - Google Search "hit"
Special shrinking defined here define:special shrinking - Google Search "zero hit"

Alan McDougall wrote:
please check out mass/speed/time dilation on the web and come back I could give links but Justin likes us to preferably write our own stuff
I seriously doubt whether Justin minds linking, I am confident that Justin does mind plagiarism though. With this in mind, link that which describes your point and we can discuss the link.

Alan McDougall wrote:
Special shrinking is an accepted term in astrophysics, check it out
I did and found no such usage. Please provide evidence of its accepted usage in astrophysics.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Sat 2 May, 2009 01:13 am
@validity,
validity

I think all we are really differing on are systematics and just one factor.

Acceleration, mass increases with acceleration and I apologise for this one vital oversight by myself. Smile


A non- acceleration object no matter what it speed in relationship to is source would have the exact same mass as always, but time would move at an infinitesimal slower rate than its source. I think it is here we parted ideas?

In fact it was my mistake in mixing up speed and acceraltion , if not correct me, like you I am always ready to learn Smile

You have heard the term one G or 9G so long as an objects continues to accelerate so will its mass increase. This is where Newtonian and Einsteinian physics part.

Back to mass, if we could do the impossible and continues to smoothly accelerate up to the speed of light the object, would increase its mass as it goes, time would slow down (Relative to its source and unawares to the occupants) and it would reach a moment time when it would require all the energy in the universe and to TRY to go faster

Is mathematically and scientifically possibility by using this effect/affect of time slowing down on a space an accelerating space vehicle, relative its source planet, to return a million years later to the home world , the spacemen only having aged a decade or so.

Manipulation of this effect one could go into the future, never to return, and visit the Olympic games of the year 2200. At enormous cost and colossal energy

What could would happen is a mute point, some say the universe would be drawn , sucked into this now infinitely massive object and revert to a new singularity infinitely massive
validity
 
  1  
Sat 2 May, 2009 02:48 am
@Alan McDougall,
Hello Alan,

Lets not worry about the speed/acceleration thing, it is un-necessary extra baggage.

How would you measure the mass of the spacecraft on the launch pad and how would you measure the mass of the spacecraft while it is travelling at 0.9c? You need to do this to show that the mass of the spacecraft has actually changed.

Have you found a reference to the acceptage useage of the phrase special shrinkage in astrophysics?

Alan McDougall wrote:
Respectfully you are incorrect on every point, please check out mass/speed/time dilation on the web and come back I could give links but Justin likes us to preferably write our own stuff

Special shrinking is an accepted term in astrophysics, check it out
Linking a dictionary definition or an astrophysical use of a word is in no way against the rules of this forum.
xris
 
  1  
Sat 2 May, 2009 05:41 am
@Alan McDougall,
It is by faith in our founder and saviour of the Germanic peoples of Europe that his name Engelbert Bauer was saved from the assassin's bullet.We are fortunate that the Conspirators of this evil plot where uncovered and their leader Adolph Hitler was captured.The peoples of the world will forever be grateful to our leader who succeeded with the help of the Germanic nation in saving us from communism and American imperialism.Long live the Reich, long live the party.Long live Hans Bauer our beloved leader.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Sat 2 May, 2009 09:51 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
Hello Alan,

Lets not worry about the speed/acceleration thing, it is un-necessary extra baggage.

How would you measure the mass of the spacecraft on the launch pad and how would you measure the mass of the spacecraft while it is travelling at 0.9c? You need to do this to show that the mass of the spacecraft has actually changed.

Have you found a reference to the acceptage useage of the phrase special shrinkage in astrophysics?

Linking a dictionary definition or an astrophysical use of a word is in no way against the rules of this forum.


Special shrinkage is a term used by astrophysicists and refers to the shrinkage of the object in its direction of motion at colossal speeds approaching C

I have no problem with contraction , I have always used special shrinkage, however




In the absence of gravity (a special-case scenario) intervals of time and/or length must depend on the speed of the system relative to the observer's frame of reference.



This led Einstein to his famous realization that matter and energy are in iterrelated and to the famous formula that expresses this relationship mathematically: E = mc. (E is equal to energy, m is mass and c [constant] is the speed of light.) Experiments have shown that an atomic clock traveling at high speeds in a jet does indeed tick more slowly than the exact same clock on the ground.


Below is an excerpt from a science Geek like us


http://www.perkel.com/nerd/relativity.htm





Matter and Energy

According to Newton, if one applies a constant amount of force on an object, it should accelerate at a constant rate, forever. However, we now have the speed of light barrier that things can't go any faster.



How does that work? Does one get up to the barrier and hit a wall? Do the cosmic traffic police pull you over and give you a ticket for breaking the light barrier?



What is it that stops you from going faster than light?
If an object became more massive as it's speed increased, then it would take more energy to increase the speed of the object.



Thus, if an object doubled in mass, it's acceleration would be half. As it gets closer to the light barrier, the rate the mass increases is such that at the speed of light the mass would increase to infinity, which would take an infinite amount of energy to make the object go faster than light.



Since it takes an infinite amount of energy to be at the speed of light, and we don't have infinite energy, then we never actually get there. It is more correct to talk about this in terms of "approaching" the speed of light and what happens as you get close rather than getting there.
[CENTER] The increase in mass limits and object from exceeding the speed of light. At the speed of light an object's mass would be infinite.

[/CENTER]

The idea that mass increases is a mathematical trick to make the laws of physics work. Normally, from a Newtonian perspective, adding a specific amount of kinetic energy to a fixed amount of mass would cause speeds in excess of light speed.



But with higher mass the speed is less and the energy level still works the same. You have more mass, less speed. Because of this there became an equivalence where a certain amount of mass is equal to a certain amount of energy.



That's our familiar E=MC^2 that we all heard about by don't understand. (The letter C represents the speed of light.) This equation describes the increase in mass that limits an object from crossing the light barrier. So, when Einstein decided that time wasn't constant, he discovered the conversion ratio between matter and energy and that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of matter.




As you can see, it looks like I know what I'm talking about here, but I don't fully understand it myself. If you are following me then you have an impression of the concept as well and yet still be thinking, I follow it, but I don't really get it. Well, that's where I'm at too, but because I think outside the box, I'm not going to let that stop me. I have a certain amount of "trust" in the smart people that they have figured this out and, for the purpose of this discussion, I assume these things to be true on the basis that they are commonly accepted. But I have to, at some point in the future, fill in the details.
The Relationship between Gravity and Time

Gravity is said (by those who understand this better than I do) to be caused by a distortion or a warping of space. Gravity is not a force that keeps objects in orbit, but that space itself is bent by objects with mass and that an object orbits because it is really following a straight line through bent space.



The greater the mass, the more space is bent.


But if space is bent, it has to be bent in at least a fourth dimension, which is likely to be that space is bent in time. If mass is really a thickness in quantum time, then the faster an object moves, and the more apparent mass it has because of that motion, the stronger the gravitational field.



Thus if gravity is bent space, as Einstein suggests, and space is bent in time, then as one becomes thicker in time the bending would increase proportional to the thickness. 10 times the thickness becomes 10 times the bending and 10 times the gravity.


However, if another object were moving at the same speed in parallel then it's is moving forward through time at the same rate and has the same thickness in quantum time.



Since both objects have the same quantum thickness, then they neither see any increase in either mass or gravity, but because of time dilation, the have near infinite speed. So from their point of reference, they see only an increase in kinetic energy.



The amount of warping of space in time is less because the effect of the warping of space is perceived in terms of warping relative to the thickness of one's quantum moment.




If the thickness of one's own quantum moment becomes the yardstick for which one perceives the bending of space in time, the effects of mass and gravity are inversely proportional to one's quantum thickness. If this is so, then observers moving at different speeds will measure mass and gravity differently based on their quantum time thickness.


And, if both mass and gravity are relative to quantum time, that would preserve the laws of physics at all speeds so that no one could calculate their own speed through absolute space by measuring their own change in mass and gravity. Their rate of motion through time cancels out their increase in mass and gravity due to the increase in quantum time thickness. What this means is that there is a time component to both mass and gravity.


Suppose two space ships were traveling together at a speed so fast that their aging process slowed by a factor of two. They would be moving forward in time twice as fast as a nonmoving observer. Now suppose one of the space ships turned on a 100 watt light bulb. To the other ship it would appear to radiate 100 watts.



But if the bulb is aging half as fast, then it is putting out energy at half that rate to a nonmoving observer and appears as if it were a 50 watt bulb, do to time dilation.



Remember that power is the rate that energy is dissipated over time, so if you double time, you cut power in half. Power has a time component. Similarly, at those high speeds it would appear to a nonmoving observer that both mass and gravity increase by a factor of two. But to the moving observer both mass and gravity stay constant.



Like the light bulb, it would appear that gravity has a time component in that if you change the time reference, then you change gravitational attraction.



The time paradox and time can be hugely complex involving very complex maths, most of the physics must just be accepted by lesser mortals


Alan
validity
 
  1  
Sat 2 May, 2009 05:02 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Hello Alan,

Alan McDougall wrote:
Special shrinkage is a term used by astrophysicists and refers to the shrinkage of the object in its direction of motion at colossal speeds approaching C
Then it should be easy to find its usage. To show my point that the correct term used by astrophysicists is length contraction takes less than 1 minute by linking a textbook Relativity, Astrophysics and Cosmology - Google Book Search a website "devoted to our current understanding of and research in astronomy and astrophysics" The Astrophysics Spectator: Time Dilation, Length Contraction, Skewed Simultaneity, and the Twins Problem and an online astrophysical journal Search results

Please give me one minute of your time and show me the accepted useage of the term special shrinkage in astrophysics.

[quote=Alan McDougall]I have no problem with contraction , I have always used special shrinkage, however[/quote] If you said you have always used term special shrinkage, then I have no problem, but you claimed its accepted usage in astrophysics, to which I am interested in being shown.

Thankyou for the link. However it does not address the useage of special shrinkage or the question does the mass of a moving object actually change or appears to change.

How would you measure the mass of the spacecraft on the launch pad and how would you measure the mass of the spacecraft while it is travelling at 0.9c? Is a very important question in my mind. In order to determine a moving objects mass I would first need to catch up to it. But as I catch up to a moving object the relative velocity begins to decrease and so to does the apparent increase in mass begin to decrease. When I am travelling at exactly the same velocity as the moving object, the object is at rest. An object at rest does not increase its mass, according to E=mc2.

How would you determine if the mass increase is actual?
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Sat 2 May, 2009 05:31 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
The time paradox and time can be hugely complex involving very complex maths, most of the physics must just be accepted by lesser mortals


Alan
Just a comment but I dont think it wise to accept concepts you dont understand, especially on a field as imprecise as psyphics.

I dont see why, if space is bent, it must be bent in time.

I also dont see why it is impossible for things to move in the speed of light, if matter is made from the same thing as light, and light obviously doesnt needs infinite energy and mass to move in the speed of light Smile

That is like saying that one tennis ball can move on the speed of light, but a planet of tennis balls cant.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 01:46 am
@validity,
Validity

I mistakenly used "special shrinkage" instead of "spacial shrinkage", sorry for the blip in my finite memory





This shrinkage principle holds true for the perception of "length" and "distance." , from the perspective of an outside observer, as an object travels faster, its size begins to shrink in the direction of its motion



At first at an infinitesimal degrees, which is the reason why this effect has never been measured, even the maximum speeds we now achieve in our fastest space vehicles.


As the speed of light approaches and the object's time dilation effect increases exponentially, so also will its perceived size from an outside observer.



Once the speed of light is reached, however, the "object's size will become zero" to any observer if he/she could still observe it



Shrunk to zero or contracted, whatever!



It will become us thin as gold leaf and thinner to the outside observer and disappear.(my original comment)


peace
validity
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 02:25 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
I mistakenly used "special shrinkage" instead of "spacial shrinkage", sorry for the blip in my finite memory
No apology needed Smile just a link that shows the accepted astrophysical usage of the phrase spacial shrinkage.

Back to mass. I find discussion with someone who has a different view interesting. As the discussion challenges what we both think we understand. I am interested in

How would you measure the mass of the spacecraft on the launch pad and how would you measure the mass of the spacecraft while it is travelling at 0.9c?

I have suggested a means to measure the mass of the spacecraft, but it is unable to empirically determine if the mass of the spacecraft actually increases while in motion. What is wrong with my suggestion?

How do you suggest mass increase with velocity be empirically measured?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 01:09 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
No apology needed Smile just a link that shows the accepted astrophysical usage of the phrase spacial shrinkage.

Back to mass. I find discussion with someone who has a different view interesting. As the discussion challenges what we both think we understand. I am interested in

How would you measure the mass of the spacecraft on the launch pad and how would you measure the mass of the spacecraft while it is travelling at 0.9c?

I have suggested a means to measure the mass of the spacecraft, but it is unable to empirically determine if the mass of the spacecraft actually increases while in motion. What is wrong with my suggestion?

How do you suggest mass increase with velocity be empirically measured?


To empirically test the truth about mass increasing with speed and the accepted view of most astrophysics that the mass of an object would become infinite at C light speed, I think is impossible to do outside the equations of mathematic formula

Interesting I will mull it about, how would you prove or disprove this long held belief?

I think I know where you are going in this debate, the MATTER in the object approaching the speed of light is exactly the same as its was at its source?

But remember at near c this mass is now hugely compacted, thus its gravity is now that of a black hole, this exponentially increasing almost infinite gravity would begin to suck in or draw into itself all that surrounds it until it ultimately uses "all the energy of the universe", in its attempt to go beyond c.

It would/could become a colossal black hole, collapsing into a singularity?

The universe would revert to a singularity? maybe? starting a new different universe?

Speculation on my part but why not? Smile

---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

manored wrote:
Just a comment but I dont think it wise to accept concepts you dont understand, especially on a field as imprecise as psyphics.

I dont see why, if space is bent, it must be bent in time.

I also dont see why it is impossible for things to move in the speed of light, if matter is made from the same thing as light, and light obviously doesnt needs infinite energy and mass to move in the speed of light Smile

That is like saying that one tennis ball can move on the speed of light, but a planet of tennis balls cant.


Light actually cannot exceed the speed of light. I accept what you say, light is massless energy and it is this that enables it to go at the maximum speed limit of the universe

As to who and whom ran around the universe putting up warning signs Speed Limit 186 000 or you will be destroyed? It is just a proved law of physics

In the particle colliders like the "Large Hadron (proton) Collider" in Switzerland it is had been proved that even particles as infinitesimal minute as a proton cannot get up to c, no matter how huge the energy used to propel them up to this ultimate speed

They induce 200 megawatt into a single proton and smash it into another one in a head on collision. The time dilation effect is noticed, the protons actually arrive trillionths of seconds later than they should if there were no effect on time

Searching for the God Particle they are or the illusive graviton
nameless
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 01:45 pm
@xris,
Death and Time Traveling
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 02:10 pm
@validity,
Oh An important point about light speed I forgot to mention is that, "light cannot go slower than the speed of light in a vacuum", but science has been able to slow down light for instance in fiber optics for communications right down to 40 miles/hour or so

So the blanker term the speed of light can never be exceeded is not absolutely correct

---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 PM ----------



Interesting , however it is within the possibility of present science to develop a space vehicle that could be propelled up to colossal speed near to c.

Using this method an astronaut could reach the other end of the universe in less than a single life span, but when he come out of his stationary spaceship he will find an alien universe billions of years older than the one he left behind

If he could be observed he would appear frozen in time and it might take a million years for him to brush his teeth to the observer

But to him , everything is normal in his comfortably spaceship, except for the universe swirling around him outside his window like a crazed movie , everything outside rushing passed him at mindbogglingly unimaginable speed, all he would see is radiant energy.

If he could somehow look at the earth from his perceptive of slowed down time , he might be able to observe the whole evolution of life on the planet in one pico second
0 Replies
 
deadcolor
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 03:45 pm
@xris,
Everyone is right. :BRB:

I think the solution to the time travel paradox is to really not time travel at all, but create this sense of time travelling.

Of course, one can also use the time travelling techniques to reverse time travel paradox with the help of a meditation expert, a scientist with a perspective of vision TV, and a stable and radioactive source. The trick is to make sure all of the above requirements are used with the help of signs like the bass, the music clefs, and the treble clefs of the calculus signs to trigger the reaction of time reverse in a paradox. Then, one triggers a lost part of a particular person or thing and include that thing in the creation or dead person. Be careful of the side effects of the paradox and be careful of yourself. "Ruby Madness" is often the cause of this insanity after the visit with the twin paradox. As in Jimmy Neutron's Ruby Maddness Episode. I can't find a clip. I'm too lazy. Organizations can actually mimic the effects of a twin paradox and use their "twin paradoxes" and helpers to help others. What others are discussing is their "twin paradoxes" and sometimes guess what is a real twin paradox.

The time paradox is suppose to have no answers. If you solve it, you are other world-like, and another paradox appears. The way to understand it is to do as much calculus as you can and exercise as much as you can until you understand the twin paradox. I tried it and it worked. :whoa-dude:

Twin paradox: :bigsmile:
1. One location two twins
2. One twin travels through space and returns as a more experienced adult. The other aged significantly. Both twins can't remember each other. It's a twin paradox.
Is it fair? The twin had training. The other guy did not.
validity
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 05:24 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
To empirically test the truth about mass increasing with speed and the accepted view of most astrophysics that the mass of an object would become infinite at C light speed, I think is impossible to do outside the equations of mathematic formula
Precisely, how do you empirically show that the mass of the object actually increases. I think it is not physically possible. In the interest of the foundations of science, that is why I think it best to deal in energies and not its relativistic mass.

Alan McDougall wrote:
But remember at near c this mass is now hugely compacted, thus its gravity is now that of a black hole, this exponentially increasing almost infinite gravity would begin to suck in or draw into itself all that surrounds it until it ultimately uses "all the energy of the universe", in its attempt to go beyond c.
But remember from the frame in which this mass is at rest, it has not increased in mass and as such will not form a black hole.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Sun 3 May, 2009 11:30 pm
@validity,
validity wrote:
Precisely, how do you empirically show that the mass of the object actually increases. I think it is not physically possible. In the interest of the foundations of science, that is why I think it best to deal in energies and not its relativistic mass.

But remember from the frame in which this mass is at rest, it has not increased in mass and as such will not form a black hole.


You can form a black hole with a tiny amount of matter so long as you can compress , compact it enough , these mini black holes have been postulated by the British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking. You don't really need a lot of mass to create a black hole

It is true that it might have not increased its mass , but it has hugely almost infinitely increased its density

We are approaching consensus, but maybe not to the point of unanimity. Richard Feynman the great American physicists proposed with his Feynman Diagram , that it would be possible to send a particle into the past or into a parallel universe

I read all of this a long time ago so I am not absolutely sure I have it correct I will go and read it up again
validity
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2009 03:05 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
It is true that it might have not increased its mass , but it has hugely almost infinitely increased its density
It still wont form a black hole Smile

Alan McDougall wrote:
We are approaching consensus, but maybe not to the point of unanimity. Richard Feynman the great American physicists proposed with his Feynman Diagram , that it would be possible to send a particle into the past or into a parallel universe

I read all of this a long time ago so I am not absolutely sure I have it correct I will go and read it up again
Was it along the lines that an antiparticle is a particle moving backwards in time?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2009 04:01 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
It still wont form a black hole Smile

Was it along the lines that an antiparticle is a particle moving backwards in time?


Stephen Hawking says it will and you say it wont, maybe you are right and he is wrong Smile
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/graphics/blackholediagram.jpg











It might have been on that line, I remember reading about it in an autobiography of his life (Title Genius)

Richard Feynman was a colossal genius his maths and physics were right up with that of Einstein and it has perplexed me why Stephen Hawking is raved about, he is just not in that league

Have a look at the Feynman Diagrams here

Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quantum field theory http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg/180px-Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png Feynman diagram H
Feynman diagram





We have not discussed the possibility of using a wormhole to overcome the paradox. If you went from one side of the galaxy to the other, you would come out at the other side at nearly the same time you left. Sort of remain in galactic mean time
xris
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2009 07:04 am
@deadcolor,
deadcolor wrote:
Everyone is right. :BRB:

I think the solution to the time travel paradox is to really not time travel at all, but create this sense of time travelling.

Of course, one can also use the time travelling techniques to reverse time travel paradox with the help of a meditation expert, a scientist with a perspective of vision TV, and a stable and radioactive source. The trick is to make sure all of the above requirements are used with the help of signs like the bass, the music clefs, and the treble clefs of the calculus signs to trigger the reaction of time reverse in a paradox. Then, one triggers a lost part of a particular person or thing and include that thing in the creation or dead person. Be careful of the side effects of the paradox and be careful of yourself. "Ruby Madness" is often the cause of this insanity after the visit with the twin paradox. As in Jimmy Neutron's Ruby Maddness Episode. I can't find a clip. I'm too lazy. Organizations can actually mimic the effects of a twin paradox and use their "twin paradoxes" and helpers to help others. What others are discussing is their "twin paradoxes" and sometimes guess what is a real twin paradox.

The time paradox is suppose to have no answers. If you solve it, you are other world-like, and another paradox appears. The way to understand it is to do as much calculus as you can and exercise as much as you can until you understand the twin paradox. I tried it and it worked. :whoa-dude:

Twin paradox: :bigsmile:
1. One location two twins
2. One twin travels through space and returns as a more experienced adult. The other aged significantly. Both twins can't remember each other. It's a twin paradox.
Is it fair? The twin had training. The other guy did not.
Are you telling us you solved it and you are from another planet..:perplexed: which twin are you?

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 AM ----------

Alan McDougall wrote:
Stephen Hawking says it will and you say it wont, maybe you are right and he is wrong Smile
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/graphics/blackholediagram.jpg










It might have been on that line, I remember reading about it in an autobiography of his life (Title Genius)

Richard Feynman was a colossal genius his maths and physics were right up with that of Einstein and it has perplexed me why Stephen Hawking is raved about, he is just not in that league

Have a look at the Feynman Diagrams here

Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quantum field theory http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg/180px-Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png Feynman diagram H
Feynman diagram





We have not discussed the possibility of using a wormhole to overcome the paradox. If you went from one side of the galaxy to the other, you would come out at the other side at nearly the same time you left. Sort of remain in galactic mean time
Don't do that Alan i clicked on that link and it gave me a migraine...
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2009 09:21 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
Are you telling us you solved it and you are from another planet..:perplexed: which twin are you?

---------- Post added at 08:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 AM ----------

Don't do that Alan i clicked on that link and it gave me a migraine...


XRIS at least it gives one an idea of the enormous intellect of Richard Feynman he was a member of the Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb


I make no claim to understand this unimaginably complex maths He was a Nobel Prize winner, he also helped solve the reason for the space shuttle Challenger disaster, which happened in January, 1986, I can remember it like yesterday

He took the O rings that were supposed to seal each section of the rocket booster that joined it to another booster at the booster joints.

He simply took a sample of these rubber O rings used in the shuttle and put them in icy water for a few minutes and showed all the rocket scientists that when very cold rubber becomes hard brittle and fractures like glass.

This caused the joins to leak and the whole Shuttle to explode after some 70 seconds of flight. A hasty redesign of the O rings followed

The morning of the flight was freezing, but management pushed the Engineers to approve the flight and go down in history as the worst space tragedy in history up to that point in time

Columbus came after, it exploded during the return due to the heat tiles falling off and the aluminum frame of the shuttle melting and causing the vehicle to burn up at some 30 000 feet

Sorry if you know the story , off topic but why not add a little history for those interested in space flight?

Alan is my name and astronomy is my game.

I have been an amateur astronomer for many years, have my own 10 inch Newtonian German Equatorial mount reflector telescope and my main focus was viariable stars, standard candles also known as Cepheid variables , the reason we search the skies for these stars is that they all radiate at the same brightness.

So just like a candle that all burn and give out the same amount of light , if we move a candle a certain distance from us it will dim and by this dimming effect we can calculate how far it is from us

The very same logic maths is used to calculate stars in the near vicinity of a variable star

There are Cepheid galaxies as well
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2009 05:21 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Light actually cannot exceed the speed of light. I accept what you say, light is massless energy and it is this that enables it to go at the maximum speed limit of the universe

As to who and whom ran around the universe putting up warning signs Speed Limit 186 000 or you will be destroyed? It is just a proved law of physics

In the particle colliders like the "Large Hadron (proton) Collider" in Switzerland it is had been proved that even particles as infinitesimal minute as a proton cannot get up to c, no matter how huge the energy used to propel them up to this ultimate speed

They induce 200 megawatt into a single proton and smash it into another one in a head on collision. The time dilation effect is noticed, the protons actually arrive trillionths of seconds later than they should if there were no effect on time

Searching for the God Particle they are or the illusive graviton
Thank you for your clarifications.

Alan McDougall wrote:
We have not discussed the possibility of using a wormhole to overcome the paradox. If you went from one side of the galaxy to the other, you would come out at the other side at nearly the same time you left. Sort of remain in galactic mean time
I dont really see a paradox on it, the fact that they were born twins doesnt means they are logically bound to be alike forever.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/10/2024 at 09:04:34