Einstein

Brandon9000 wrote:

Completely correct in all respects, but the question was about a manned vehicle of some kind.

Hmmm, I didn't interpred the phrase, "If you are traveling at x speed" to mean a manned vehicle. I interpreted it as a reference to "something" traveling at x speed.

Anyway... Smile

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

How reasonable is it to assume that....If you are traveling at x speed that is faster than the speed of light....between your starting point....Then you travel...Putting you in two places at the same time?

I assumed that "you" meant a person, but even if not, the idea of "different time dimensions" referred to in the original question requires additional definition to be able to be discussed.

0 Replies

my apologies. I was a little undereducated during the prior posting. I have done some research and have a more specific question. Since matter can be neither created nor destroyed and energy is constant per frame if reference then traveling back in time and killing your grandfather may not have an effect on the future (if it were possible to break to accelerate past the speed of light). How could one undo matter and energy that has already been done? If this holds true for time travel then a new future would have to begin at that moment. To think a bit deeper, if you traveled back and changed nothing there would still have to be a split in time dimensions because the undeniable fact that you are there changes the amount of energy and matter in the frame of reference.

0 Replies

Think of it like pushing a boulder through space, but as it gets faster and faster, it also gets bigger and heavier (more massive). And since it gets heavier, you have to push harder and harder to make it go any faster. Near the end, as you get close to light speed, the boulder starts to get ridiculously large and heavy... planet size... star size... solar system size... galaxy size... and beyond. Eventually it gets so massive that you can't acquire the energy necessary to push it any more.
I read that as objects approach higher speeds, they appear shorter from a different frame of reference. But if you are traveling at the same frame of reference then the object will remain constant. I am assuming this is pertaining to objects moving at a constant. But for an objects speeding up the mass will increase to infinity causing you to require an infinite amount of energy to continue to accelerate that object? (by the way I am referring to objects with mass) Why?

0 Replies

how do you get the dashes around the other persons quote

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

how do you get the dashes around the other persons quote

Press the "quote" button, and then look at the way the system brackets the HTML with the quote markers. Then work with the raw HTML to create the post you want. There is a preview button to check out the post you are working on.

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

I read that as objects approach higher speeds, they appear shorter from a different frame of reference. But if you are traveling at the same frame of reference then the object will remain constant. I am assuming this is pertaining to objects moving at a constant. But for an objects speeding up the mass will increase to infinity causing you to require an infinite amount of energy to continue to accelerate that object? (by the way I am referring to objects with mass) Why?

There is a difference between relativistic mass and absolute mass. You also need to remember that time is distorted by velocity (energy), just as space is distorted. The various distortions contrive to return a relative view which never changes (this is the nature of 'relativity') from the perspective of the entity involved in the system.

For example, if you were to accelerate an object to an extreme velocity, it's mass in relation to its size would become equally extreme, and at some point, it would become a black hole. And yet, an object can not become a black hole in one reference frame, and yet not a black hole in another. The difference between the two states is determined by relativistic mass versus absolute mass.

I can't explain this very well, but you can find lots of complex math on this by putting "relativistic mass" into google. Smile

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

Since matter can be neither created nor destroyed and energy is constant per frame if reference then traveling back in time and killing your grandfather may not have an effect on the future (if it were possible to break to accelerate past the speed of light). How could one undo matter and energy that has already been done? If this holds true for time travel then a new future would have to begin at that moment. To think a bit deeper, if you traveled back and changed nothing there would still have to be a split in time dimensions because the undeniable fact that you are there changes the amount of energy and matter in the frame of reference.

I'm sorry. Your question is still not specific enough to address easily.

You are proposing scenario's which may not be possible in reality, so it's virtually impossible to offer a meaningful answer.

Given the ambiguity of the scenario, there are a wide range of possible results, all equally speculative.

Perhaps if you start by framing a specific question, we can at least pare down the possible results to a few meaningless guesses as to the imaginary outcomes. Smile

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

my apologies. I was a little undereducated during the prior posting. I have done some research and have a more specific question. Since matter can be neither created nor destroyed and energy is constant per frame if reference then traveling back in time and killing your grandfather may not have an effect on the future (if it were possible to break to accelerate past the speed of light). How could one undo matter and energy that has already been done? If this holds true for time travel then a new future would have to begin at that moment. To think a bit deeper, if you traveled back and changed nothing there would still have to be a split in time dimensions because the undeniable fact that you are there changes the amount of energy and matter in the frame of reference.

What do you mean when you refer to "undoing" matter and energy? If what holds true for time travel? A new future would have to begin at what moment, and where do you get this fact from? What do you mean by a split in time dimensions, and why do you think it would occur? When physicists refer to dimensions, they simply mean axes in a mathematical Cartesian coordinate system. For instance, in Special Relativity, it is useful to use a four dimensional coordinate system, in which three axes represent the three spatial dimensions and one represents time, or more precisely, ict, where i is the square root of negative 1. You misunderstand the meaning of the term "frame of reference." A frame of reference is a mathematical coordinate system with a particular motion. Basically, nothing you've said has any point of contact with anything in real Physics.

0 Replies

Hence that is why I am asking questions. But telling me that nothing I am saying has any relevance to real physics does not help me find my answers. I am sure that you are far more advanced than me with these concepts, but remember that we all must learn to crawl before we can walk.

0 Replies

I assume that you are familiar with the grandfather clause. What do you think about the possible implications of traveling back to kill your grandfather?

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

I assume that you are familiar with the grandfather clause. What do you think about the possible implications of traveling back to kill your grandfather?

Hard to say. There is no theory I know of to explain how you could travel back in time, and the details of such a theory would be the basis for most conclusions about how it would work in practice.

0 Replies

all hypothesis that I have read so far deal with instantaneous velocity. I now understand why this is completely hypothetical, but I am still curious as to what others think.

0 Replies

What are you saying is hypothetical? What do you mean by "this?" Where did you hear about it? I have not heard of any actualy physics that deals with the topics you are referring to. Just as one does not perform brain surgery without knowledge of medicine, one does not theorize about physics, at least not seriously, with no knowledge of the actual sienctific theory that people have spent centuries working out.

0 Replies

You can not equate performing brain sergury to thinking about physics. In this sense I would only being thinking about brain surgery, not performing it.

0 Replies

If you are not interested in what I am saying then stop replying. If you are interested then tell me what is wrong with what I am thinking, not that it is just wrong. I know that I am not qualified to debate on this issue nor would I enter one. I simply have a lot of questions. I see no harm in trying to find my own answers, no matter how many absurd ideas I come up with. This is the process of learning, especially in a science forum. One must sometimes encounter many wrong answers before the right one becomes clear.

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

all hypothesis that I have read so far deal with instantaneous velocity. I now understand why this is completely hypothetical, but I am still curious as to what others think.

Hi MMattin,

I think the problem is that you're starting with certain assumptions (which we either aren't familiar with, or disagree with), and then asking us to speculate on them. I can't speak for Brandon, but I have a hard time expanding on things which to me seem unsupported to start with. It makes me feel like I'm being led down a dead end street, and then being asked how long I think it will take before we reach our goal.

Most people on the science threads are happy to answer questions and explaining things, but it might help if you start by giving us web links to the things which you are using as foundations to your questions. Then if we can see where you're getting your ideas, maybe we can explain why (and if) we don't agree with them.

For example, I've never heard of "instantaneous velocity", so I hardly know where to start with exploring your idea. I'm also not convinced that time travel is even possible, so it's pretty hard to say what would happen if it happened.

Maybe if you rephrased your question to something like, "I've heard of something called 'instantaneous velocity' from web site blahblahblah, and I think it means blahblahblah, do you agree?"... then you might get a more productive answer.

Just at suggestion.

0 Replies

Very good insight. I will do a better job of framing my questions. Everything that I am writing is strictly hypothetical, and I am no genius on this topic. With that said I am also very young and can move in any direction with my life. My interest in this subject far surpasses my knowledge at the moment. Because of the lack of friends that wish to engage in discussions about these topics I find myself looking in forums like these to only discuss my ideas. I do not wish to tell anyone here that they are wrong in their assumptions, I am using it as a guide to help me understand the concepts of what I am learning. I do not mind being wrong, nor corrected. But this subject has dominated my thoughts to the point that I have trouble sleeping at night or concentrating on anything else for that matter. Though my ideas may come across as absurd, I am trying to work my way through the process. And everything that you guys have told me so far has been very helpful in furthing my learning on the subject, but I hit walls when I am told that this is just wrong with no reason of why. Why is the question that drives me, and I would assume every scientist. The irony of this subject is that the more you learn the more questions arise. But please continue to help me feel through this for my resources on this subject are limited.

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

The irony of this subject is that the more you learn the more questions arise.

Agreed.

When you ask us questions, are you more interested in learning the standard accepted models of science and physics, or are you more interested in our speculation beyond the standards?

I would suggest that you should try to understand the standard (and accepted) answers to things before trying to explore beyond them. Others might suggest the opposite, because they feel that preconceived notions limit creative thought. But the choice is yours.

What would you like to know?

0 Replies

mmattin1 wrote:

...but I hit walls when I am told that this is just wrong with no reason of why....

I sympathize with your desire to understand, however, I have not, as you say, simply stated that you are wrong with no explanation of why. In almost every case, I have asked questions, designed to obtain clarification, which you have chosen to ignore, rather than answer. These questions were designed to guide your inquiries into a form in which they could be addressed. You are correct when you say that what you are doing is closer to thinking about brain surgery than performing it, but an even closer parallel would be making incorrect assertions about brain surgery, using medical terms incorrectly, the definition of which is widely available, and asking questions to which it is very difficult to attach a meaning. For example, in one case you say, "If this holds true for time travel then a new future would have to begin at that moment." You are here making an assertion about physics with which you are wholly unfamiliar. One shouldn't make assertions about rather complicated topics one is unfamiliar with. Most of us who have taken the time to slowly learn what is known on these subjects, are not tremendously sympathetic to people who begin to make pronouncements about them without first studying them.

This forum is a good place to raise the issues you are raising, and you should probably continue to do so if you are curious, but why can you not buy a high school Physics book and learn about the subject that you are apparently so curious about? Not to say that you are not welcome to raise your questions for discussion, but the actual body of knowledge which you are referring to is available in libraries and book stores to be examined by anyone. My response here is coming out sounding less nice than I want it to, for which I am sorry, but, in fact, I am interested in the topic you are discussing, and have strong opinions about its study. I am not suggesting you not ask these questions. To my way of thinking, I am responding to your questions.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know