We can walk through walls, Reb? Call me gullible but by the post it doesn't sound like you're being sarcastic. :uhh:

 

Well, to be perfectly clear the odds of an object of our mass passing through through something like a brick wall ever having happened any time at any place in the entire history of our universe are pathetically slim, but if every single atom in your body were to properlly tunnel through the molecules of the wall in the correct path, it is possible.

 

 

 

So, yes, we "can", but trust me, it's never going to happen to you in your lifetime, nor in the history of the human race for that matter.

 

 

 

How is that possible? The laws of electrostatic forces deny it.

 

Here's an excerpt from my book that explains it (quantum tunneling) much better than I can:

 

 

 

The uncertainty principle also gives rise to a striking effect known as quantum tunneling. If you fire a plastic pellet against a ten-foot-thick concrete wall, classical physics confirms what your instinct tells you would happen: The pellet will bounce back at you. The reason is that the pellet simply does not have enough energy to penetrate such a formidable obstacle. But at the level of fundamental particles, quantum mechanics shows unequicocally that the wave functions- that is, the probability waves- of the particles making up the pellet all have a tiny piece that spills out through the wall. This means that there is a small- but not zero- chance that the pellet actually can penetrate the wall and emerge on the other side. How can this be? The reason comes down, once again, from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

 

 

To see this, imagine that you are completely destitute and suddenly learn that a distinct relative has passed on in a far-off land, leaving you tremendous fortune to claim. The only problem is that you don't have the money to buy a plane ticket to get there. You explain the situation to your friends: if only they will allow you to surmount the barrier between you and and your fortune by temporarily lending you the money for a ticket, you can pay them back handsomely after you return. But no one has the money to lend. You remember though, that an old friend of yours works for an airline and you implore him with the same request. Again, he can not afford to lend you the money but he does offer a solution. The accounting system of the airline is such that if you wire the ticket payment withing 24 hours of arrival at your destination, no one will ever know that it was not paid for prior to departure. In this way yo are able to claim your inheritance.

 

 

 

The accounting procedures of quantum mechanics are quite similiar. Just as Heisenberg showed that there is a trade-off between the precision of measurements of position and velocity, he also showed that there is a similiar trade off in the presicion of energy measurements and how long one takes to do the measurement. Quantum mechanics asserts that you can't say the particle has precisely such-and-such energy at precisely such-and-such moment in time. Ever increasing precision of energy measurements require ever longer duraction to carry them out. Roughly speaking, this means that the energy of a particle can wildly fluctuate so long as this fluctuation is over a short enough time scale. So, just as the accounting system of the airline "allows" you to "borrow" the money for a plane ticket provided you pay iy back quickly enough, quantum mechanics allows a particle to "borrow" energy so long as it can relinquish it within a time frame determined by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

 

 

 

The mathematics of quantum mechanics shows that the greater the energy barrier, the the lower the probability that this creative microscopic accounting will occer. But for microscopic particles facing a concrete slab, they can and sometimes do borrow enough energy to do what is impossible from the standpoint of classical physics- momentarily penetrate and tunnel though a region that they do not initially have the energy to enter. As the objects we study become increasingly complicated, consisting of more and more particle constituents, such quantum tunneling can still occur, but it is very unlikely since all of the individual particles must be lucky enough to tunnel through....

 

the elegant universe, p. 115

I could really, really recommend that book to anyone remotely interested in physics. String theory should be treated with a healthy dose of impartiality at the moment, it's a little far ahead of experimental verification, but Greene is a really fantastic author.

 

 

 

You can also watch the companion documentary on PBS for free here, (follow the link that says "Watch The Program").

I could really, really recommend that book to anyone remotely interested in physics. String theory should be treated with a healthy dose of impartiality at the moment, it's a little far ahead of experimental verification, but Greene is a really fantastic author.

 

 

 

You can also watch the companion documentary on PBS for free here, (follow the link that says "Watch The Program").

 

Ya, I'd also like to add that the book also admits to the skepticism about string theory. Repeatedly the author shows himself to be very humble in admitting that it's still possible that Superstring theory is wrong (and that experimental physics is a little behind them :P ), and quite often he supplies the proper counterarguments to his points, even if the reader didn't think of them in the first place (of course, he supplies responses to the counterarguments).

 

 

 

So ya, great book, definitely recommend it.

Time travel is absolutely, undeniably impossible. Period.

 

 

 

Einstein himself states that it IS possible, and will come in due time.

 

 

 

Geniouses have been wrong (several times) before. Anyways, I just don't think it will ever happen :-X .

 

 

 

Some have also been right.

 

I guess it depends if you can actually put your plan into action. Think about the 1500's. The renaissance had great scientists/thinkers. Some thought ahead of what could be achieved with their current physical state. Non knew off nukes or even atoms. They took their imaginations further than possible. I wouldn't be surprised if some government was working on a secret project to work with time :

Sorry but I don't think thats right. Think about it.. if the sun were to blow up... you really think that we would wait 8 min for us to feel the impact? I think we would feel the impact as soon as it were to happen. we would all die in mili seconds and wouldn't even know. But that is just my theory (now no one become rich of my brain noob lol)

 

 

 

Sorry, but it is right.

 

 

 

Here's a couple of scenarios for you:

 

 

 

1. The Sun somehow goes supernova right this instant. That would roughly equate to a massive explosion, and explosions carry a number of different things. The first is the light from the fire or whatever, since nothing can travel faster than light, it actually would take 8 minutes to reach us. Repeat, we would not feel the effects instantly. When you look up into the sky at night you are looking into the past, you are looking at the light from stars which left thousands, maybe millions of years ago. Those stars could have long gone supernova but we won't see that until the light from the supernova reaches us.

 

 

 

2. The Sun somehow vanishes, completely disappears. Now, since the Sun's gravity is the only thing keeping us in orbit we'd stray off our orbit straight away right? Wrong, gravity cannot propogate faster than light. The loss of the Sun's gravity would not be felt until the light (or absence of) reaches us.

 

 

 

I was well aware of 1., but I simply can't get to believe 2. Is it true? My always-faulty logic doesn't let me accept the idea of 'gravity propagating slower than light'. Could you please elaborate on that?

Sorry but I don't think thats right. Think about it.. if the sun were to blow up... you really think that we would wait 8 min for us to feel the impact? I think we would feel the impact as soon as it were to happen. we would all die in mili seconds and wouldn't even know. But that is just my theory (now no one become rich of my brain noob lol)

 

 

 

Sorry, but it is right.

 

 

 

Here's a couple of scenarios for you:

 

 

 

1. The Sun somehow goes supernova right this instant. That would roughly equate to a massive explosion, and explosions carry a number of different things. The first is the light from the fire or whatever, since nothing can travel faster than light, it actually would take 8 minutes to reach us. Repeat, we would not feel the effects instantly. When you look up into the sky at night you are looking into the past, you are looking at the light from stars which left thousands, maybe millions of years ago. Those stars could have long gone supernova but we won't see that until the light from the supernova reaches us.

 

 

 

2. The Sun somehow vanishes, completely disappears. Now, since the Sun's gravity is the only thing keeping us in orbit we'd stray off our orbit straight away right? Wrong, gravity cannot propogate faster than light. The loss of the Sun's gravity would not be felt until the light (or absence of) reaches us.

 

 

 

Thought so. General Relativity predicts it, right?

Would you people stop saying it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light?? IT IS TOO POSSIBLE!!!

 

 

 

Theoretically all you need to do is move the entire universe around you faster than the speed of light.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I heard this on the science channel once. Although I understand the concept, I dont understand why that is. So actually, although it is theoretically possible to see into the past of the earth. Obviously I have to clarify what I'm saying, or what I'm saying right now will just sound like [cabbage]. What I mean, is that it is impossible for anybody to see back in time to the earth past the point at which they are at right now. This is because by the time anyone got to pluto, lets say, even if they traveled faster than the speed of light, it would seem like time sped up around them, because time would be going so much slower for them (and by that I mean time would seem like time is going faster for everybody, because of his immense speed). This means that by the time they got to pluto, even if they were moving faster than the speed of light, time around them would be going so slowly, that the light would reach the planet before they did. Maybe he misinterpreted something he read or heard, but that whole post was wrong.

 

 

 

Aha! That means it is impossible to go that fast! They would be going so fast, that they would actually be going slower! Therefore even if you traveled faster than the speed of light, light would be going much faster, thus making you go slower than the speed of light! Aha! I've finally figured it out!

 

 

 

Wow, I never even thought about that. I understand what you said and yet I'm even more confused now.

 

Because he's, to put it bluntly, wrong.

 

 

 

I've got to go (and I'm pissed about having to retype the above response since I accidentally pasted over it when I meant to copy it), so I'll make this quick: You'd experience time slower as you approach the speed of light, so you'd never actually reach it, now matter how close to it you get. You can't pass the speed of light, because you'd lose so much from the time dimension as you closed in on the speed that you'd never reach it; you can get to 99.99...999% of the speed of light, but it's not possible to actually reach it, because you wouldn't experience time at all if you did.

 

 

 

I repeat guys: you can't surpass the speed of light. And for the record, you don't need to pass it to experience time slowing down. Every movement you make slows down your movement through time, even if only a very unnoticable small amount.

 

 

 

That what I just said. Only I explained it in more detail. And fuzzy hard to understand detail at that.

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

We can walk through walls, Reb? Call me gullible but by the post it doesn't sound like you're being sarcastic. :uhh:

 

Well, to be perfectly clear the odds of an object of our mass passing through through something like a brick wall ever having happened any time at any place in the entire history of our universe are pathetically slim, but if every single atom in your body were to properly tunnel through the molecules of the wall in the correct path, it is possible.

 

 

 

So, yes, we "can", but trust me, it's never going to happen to you in your lifetime, nor in the history of the human race for that matter.

 

 

 

There's as much of a chance now as in 10-million years.

I heard this on the science channel once. Although I understand the concept, I dont understand why that is. So actually, although it is theoreticly possible to see into the past of the earth. Obviously I have to clarify what I'm saying, or what I'm saying right now will just sound like [cabbage]. What I mean, is that it is impossible for anybody to see back in time to the earty past the point at which they are at right now. This is because by the time anyone got to pluto, lets say, even if they traveled faster than the speed of light, it would seem like time sped up around them, because time would be going so much slower for them (and by that I mean time would seem like time is going faster for everybody, because of his imense speed). This means that by the time they got to pluto, even if they were moving faster than the speed of light, time around them would be going so slowly, that the light would reach the planet before they did. Maybe he misinterpreted something he read or heard, but that whole post was wrong.

 

 

 

Aha! That means it is impossible to go that fast! They would be going so fast, that they would actually be going slower! Therefore even if you traveled faster than the speed of light, light would be going much faster, thus making you go slower than the speed of light! Aha! I've finally figured it out!

 

 

 

Wow, I never even thought about that. I understand what you said and yet I'm even more confused now.

 

Because he's, to put it bluntly, wrong.

 

 

 

I've got to go (and I'm pissed about having to retype the above response since I accidentally pasted over it when I meant to copy it), so I'll make this quick: You'd experience time slower as you approach the speed of light, so you'd never actually reach it, now matter how close to it you get. You can't pass the speed of light, because you'd lose so much from the time dimension as you closed in on the speed that you'd never reach it; you can get to 99.99...999% of the speed of light, but it's not possible to actually reach it, because you wouldn't experience time at all if you did.

 

 

 

I repeat guys: you can't surpass the speed of light. And for the record, you don't need to pass it to experience time slowing down. Every movement you make slows down your movement through time, even if only a very unnoticable small amount.

 

 

 

I don't think so... :-k

 

 

 

Light is obviously subject to the dimension of time as the light we see from stars and planets can be anywhere from months to years old. We also have measurements like light-years. If light wasn't subject to time, then it would be instantaneous (did I spell that right?). I'm not sure if we can break the speed of light (now), but I don't deem it an impossibility.

Would you people stop saying it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light?? IT IS TOO POSSIBLE!!!

 

 

 

Theoretically all you need to do is move the entire universe around you faster than the speed of light.

 

Wow, contradiction party central right here.

 

 

 

Because he's, to put it bluntly, wrong.

 

 

 

I've got to go (and I'm pissed about having to retype the above response since I accidentally pasted over it when I meant to copy it), so I'll make this quick: You'd experience time slower as you approach the speed of light, so you'd never actually reach it, now matter how close to it you get. You can't pass the speed of light, because you'd lose so much from the time dimension as you closed in on the speed that you'd never reach it; you can get to 99.99...999% of the speed of light, but it's not possible to actually reach it, because you wouldn't experience time at all if you did.

 

 

 

I repeat guys: you can't surpass the speed of light. And for the record, you don't need to pass it to experience time slowing down. Every movement you make slows down your movement through time, even if only a very unnoticable small amount.

 

 

 

That what I just said. Only I explained it in more detail. And fuzzy hard to understand detail at that.

 

I can see what you're getting at, I just don't think you phrased it right- you never surpass the speed of light, you might feel like you have (which is what I believe what you're saying), but you can't actually surpass it.

 

 

 

We can walk through walls, Reb? Call me gullible but by the post it doesn't sound like you're being sarcastic. :uhh:

 

Well, to be perfectly clear the odds of an object of our mass passing through through something like a brick wall ever having happened any time at any place in the entire history of our universe are pathetically slim, but if every single atom in your body were to properly tunnel through the molecules of the wall in the correct path, it is possible.

 

 

 

So, yes, we "can", but trust me, it's never going to happen to you in your lifetime, nor in the history of the human race for that matter.

 

 

 

There's as much of a chance now as in 10-million years.

 

I'm just speaking realistically here :P .

 

 

 

I mean, think about it. Sure, single elementary particles sometimes gather enough energy to pass through the wall, but an entire organism? Realistically speaking, it's just not possible- every atom in your body has to get enough energy to pass through the wall, and not only that, but they all have to pass through in such a way that the entire system connecting them is retained. "Possible" but... you're going to need God's help accomplishing something like that.

 

 

 

I don't think so... :-k

 

 

 

Light is obviously subject to the dimension of time as the light we see from stars and planets can be anywhere from months to years old. We also have measurements like light-years. If light wasn't subject to time, then it would be instantaneous (did I spell that right?). I'm not sure if we can break the speed of light (now), but I don't deem it an impossibility.

 

Um, I'm not sure what point your trying to counter here :-s .

 

 

 

If it's the thing about photons not aging (sorry if I'm reading your post wrong), the reason they don't age is because there is a limit on their speed, and thus all movement in the time dimension is diverted to the three spacial dimensions. So, it's not "subject to time" in the fact that photons don't age, but in the same way they a person frozen in time is still able to be moved from point A to B, so do photons move at c regardless of the fact that they don't age.

 

 

 

Me, I deem it an impossibilty for anything in this universe to surpass the speed of light, but I'm not much of an optimist anyways.

According to sources, sources, cosmic rays are slamming into the atmosphere at 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light. If that isn't proof that you cant break the sound barrier using normal means (aka without moving the entire universe), I dont know what is. Oh wait. Yah I do. Math is proof :P . But this is physical evidence.

According to sources, sources, cosmic rays are slamming into the atmosphere at 99.99999999999999999999% the speed of light. If that isn't proof that you cant break the sound barrier using normal means (aka without moving the entire universe), I dont know what is. Oh wait. Yah I do. Math is proof :P . But this is physical evidence.

 

-_-'.

 

 

 

Of course disregarding the fact that it's impossible, both realistically and philosophically, to move the universe (as it's the universe for Christ's sake, you can't move it unless there's something outside of it), if everything but you were to be moving, it still wouldn't be able to pass the speed of light. It's matter too ya know.

 

 

 

Oh, and you meant "light barrier", not sound barrier, right :P ?

I don't think so... :-k

 

 

 

Light is obviously subject to the dimension of time as the light we see from stars and planets can be anywhere from months to years old. We also have measurements like light-years. If light wasn't subject to time, then it would be instantaneous (did I spell that right?). I'm not sure if we can break the speed of light (now), but I don't deem it an impossibility.

 

Um, I'm not sure what point your trying to counter here :-s .

 

 

 

If it's the thing about photons not aging (sorry if I'm reading your post wrong), the reason they don't age is because there is a limit on their speed, and thus all movement in the time dimension is diverted to the three spacial dimensions. So, it's not "subject to time" in the fact that photons don't age, but in the same way they a person frozen in time is still able to be moved from point A to B, so do photons move at c regardless of the fact that they don't age.

 

 

 

Me, I deem it an impossibilty for anything in this universe to surpass the speed of light, but I'm not much of an optimist anyways.

 

 

 

You did read it wrong, no worries you do make good points, but they are completely unrelated to mine. I was referring to:

 

 

 

You'd experience time slower as you approach the speed of light, so you'd never actually reach it, now matter how close to it you get. You can't pass the speed of light, because you'd lose so much from the time dimension as you closed in on the speed that you'd never reach it; you can get to 99.99...999% of the speed of light, but it's not possible to actually reach it, because you wouldn't experience time at all if you did.

 

 

 

^That little part right there. Wasn't talking about photons aging, but how they don't experience "time". Time is in quotations because people can agrue about time being subjective, but my point is that light does take "time" to get from point A to point B, so breaking the speed of light doesn't mean breaking the "time" barrier (or dimension or whatever time has).

^That little part right there. Wasn't talking about photons aging, but how they don't experience "time". Time is in quotations because people can agrue about time being subjective, but my point is that light does take "time" to get from point A to point B, so breaking the speed of light doesn't mean breaking the "time" barrier (or dimension or whatever time has).

 

I actually phrased that badly, I believe :-k . It is of course true that one would be essentially frozen in time if they were to reach the speed of light, but the reason why one can't reach the speed of light is because it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach such a speed, not because one would be frozen if they did. Eh, bad place to use the word "because" I guess :-w .

 

 

 

For me, there's no real talking about breaking the "time" barrier though, because essentially it really can't be done :P .

 

 

 

But when you start talking about time, speed, distance, all that stuff when you get into general relativity, quantum mechanics, any kind of complicated physics, it gets very confusing when one mixes up the definitions for said terminology #-o .

I actually phrased that badly, I believe :-k . It is of course true that one would be essentially frozen in time if they were to reach the speed of light, but the reason why one can't reach the speed of light is because it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach such a speed, not because one would be frozen if they did. Eh, bad place to use the word "because" I guess :-w .

 

 

 

For me, there's no real talking about breaking the "time" barrier though, because essentially it really can't be done :P .

 

 

 

But when you start talking about time, speed, distance, all that stuff when you get into general relativity, quantum mechanics, any kind of complicated physics, it gets very confusing when one mixes up the definitions for said terminology #-o .

 

 

 

I like mixing up terminology. :D

 

 

 

I don't understand how we'd need an infinite amount of energy? If light travels with that kind of energy why don't we stop wasting our time and find out how to harness if for ourselves, like greedy little humans should.

Sorry but I don't think thats right. Think about it.. if the sun were to blow up... you really think that we would wait 8 min for us to feel the impact? I think we would feel the impact as soon as it were to happen. we would all die in mili seconds and wouldn't even know. But that is just my theory (now no one become rich of my brain noob lol)

 

 

 

Sorry, but it is right.

 

 

 

Here's a couple of scenarios for you:

 

 

 

1. The Sun somehow goes supernova right this instant. That would roughly equate to a massive explosion, and explosions carry a number of different things. The first is the light from the fire or whatever, since nothing can travel faster than light, it actually would take 8 minutes to reach us. Repeat, we would not feel the effects instantly. When you look up into the sky at night you are looking into the past, you are looking at the light from stars which left thousands, maybe millions of years ago. Those stars could have long gone supernova but we won't see that until the light from the supernova reaches us.

 

 

 

2. The Sun somehow vanishes, completely disappears. Now, since the Sun's gravity is the only thing keeping us in orbit we'd stray off our orbit straight away right? Wrong, gravity cannot propogate faster than light. The loss of the Sun's gravity would not be felt until the light (or absence of) reaches us.

 

 

 

Thought so. General Relativity predicts it, right?

 

 

 

Yeah exactly.

 

 

 

I've forgotten the proper history of it, but I think Newton's theory does actually predict that gravitational discrepencies would be felt instantly, but Einstein's reconciles that with the unsurmountable speed limit, c.

 

 

 

I'm slightly hesitant to say that nothing can travel faster than light, because recent experiments in quantum mechanics, especially the EPR paradox and non-locality show that maybe something, messages between photons or whatnot might go faster than light could travel, but you'll have to read about the effects yourself, it gets pretty weird. Suffice to say we, as humans will never travel faster than light. As Reb keeps saying, for any kind of mass to approach light-speed you need more and more energy, and once you reach the speed of light you need an infinite amount of energy. The only reason photons travel at that kind of speed is because they are massless.

Ok, I'd love someone to explain this to me. According to the old (Newtonian) Mechanics, a constant force on an object yields a constant acceleration, right? So, let's say there were only two things in the universe: The earth and a pound of lead, both in opposite places of the universe. The lead weight would start to slowly fall to the Earth (and viceversa, although at a much lower rate), accelerating with time. What stops the object from reaching light-speed?

 

 

 

[Edit] In fact, thinking thoroughly, acceleration increases linearly while the distance between the object decreases, and that means that the speed will increase in a quadratic way.

Ok, I'd love someone to explain this to me. According to the old (Newtonian) Mechanics, a constant force on an object yields a constant acceleration, right? So, let's say there were only two things in the universe: The earth and a pound of lead, both in opposite places of the universe. The lead weight would start to slowly fall to the Earth (and viceversa, although at a much lower rate), accelerating with time. What stops the object from reaching light-speed?

 

 

 

You've kind of misinterpreted Newton's laws there.

 

 

 

A constant resultant force yields a constant acceleration, i.e. if you had a car travelling at 30mph and you applied a force of say 2000N it might accelerate to 40mph where it would reach it's terminal velocity for that force supplied. To get it to reach 50mph you need to supply even more force.

 

 

 

So, in your analogy the gravitational potential energy that causes the two objects to move closer together is a constant, and will actually decrease as they come closer (because it's being converted to kinetic energy, and energy is conserved). So they won't reach the speed of light.

 

 

 

Hope that's clear :)

Einstein taught us this Energy = Mass x Speed of light^2

 

 

 

this basically means that the faster you go, the more energy you need (makes sense, don't it?) And that amount of energy approaches infinity as you begin to get close to light speed. It requires infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light, unless that mass is 0 (which is nothing)

 

 

 

Einstien also taught us that time slows down as you move faster (this has been proven) and eventually stops, when you hit light speed.

 

 

 

So what the germans appearently did is make something that uses infinite energy to stop time.

 

 

 

they need to share it with me! :D

 

 

 

Ok, I'd love someone to explain this to me. According to the old (Newtonian) Mechanics, a constant force on an object yields a constant acceleration, right? So, let's say there were only two things in the universe: The earth and a pound of lead, both in opposite places of the universe. The lead weight would start to slowly fall to the Earth (and viceversa, although at a much lower rate), accelerating with time. What stops the object from reaching light-speed?

 

 

 

The amount of energy the moving object (the lead) gets in its movement is propotionet (or however you spell it) to the mass propelling them(the earth). this basically means that the mass must be equal to or greater than infinity. The infinite mass would literally tear the essence of gravity (not going to explain it without pictures). In which case the effects are unknown

 

 

 

Also, the mass can only be moved if it is within a certain distance from the object (quite big if its something big, like the sun). Meaning, the mass would have a limited amount of area to accelerate to light speed, before it is either taken into an orbital pattern, or collides with that object (that would look cool though). The infinite mass required to accelerate the object to light speed would also cause all other objects in the universe (us too) to pull toward it. This would cause numerous problems, which would mean our destruction.

 

 

 

The germans just got told by a high school Sophmore :D

sorry, accidently double posted.

I'm quite confused on if you will slow down or not when you travel really fast. In the book it gives an example where the person who travels experiences times faster, rather than slower :? , and then it tells a little bit later that whenever you move fast, you experience time slower, like how the moun could live 20millionths of a second instead of 2.

 

 

 

:-s

I've forgotten the proper history of it, but I think Newton's theory does actually predict that gravitational discrepencies would be felt instantly...

 

Correct :P .

 

Einstein taught us this Energy = Mass x Speed of light^2

 

 

 

this basically means that the faster you go, the more energy you need (makes sense, don't it?) And that amount of energy approaches infinity as you begin to get close to light speed. It requires infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light, unless that mass is 0 (which is nothing)

 

That equation has nothing to do with what you just said.

 

 

 

I'm quite confused on if you will slow down or not when you travel really fast. In the book it gives an example where the person who travels experiences times faster, rather than slower :? , and then it tells a little bit later that whenever you move fast, you experience time slower, like how the moun could live 20millionths of a second instead of 2.

 

 

 

:-s

 

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about :-s . You slow down you passage through time the move you accelerate and increase your speed, if you were wondering that in the first sentence.

 

 

 

This is the elegant universe, right? If so, do you have a page number or two so I can find what you're referring to, namely that example in your second sentence?

 

 

 

Oh, and it took me a second to realize this... but if you meant to say muon (for some reason I thought "moon" :lol: ), the second family version of the electron, the reason that it lasts 20 millionths of a second (if i recall) is that it's hard to sustain- it's very unstable when made in the lab. Don't think that has anything to do with general relativity.

You've kind of misinterpreted Newton's laws there.

 

 

 

A constant resultant force yields a constant acceleration, i.e. if you had a car travelling at 30mph and you applied a force of say 2000N it might accelerate to 40mph where it would reach it's terminal velocity for that force supplied. To get it to reach 50mph you need to supply even more force.

Maybe I'm just misreading that? If the resultant force is 1N in any given direction, the object will accelerate.

 

 

 

And accelerate.

 

 

 

And accelerate.

 

 

 

And accelerate.

 

 

 

Newton's Law; An object is either in rest or in constant motion when the resulting force is 0. To maintain a constant speed of 40mph you _are_ however applying a constant force, but sheer friction is providing an equal amount of force in the opposite direction. In an example with a universe filled with only a planet and a lead ball, we have no friction - blatantly ignoring the fact that the vacuum of deep space isn't really empty, and at high enough velocities even the occasional helium particle is going to count as friction (heck, so does photons).

 

 

 

 

 

But yes, it would not reach the speed of light. The energy added to the kinetic energy of the lead ball by acceleration would eventually just go straight into the mass of the lead ball.

 

 

 

edit: Fixed glaring error involving the phrase "it would not reach the speed of light". Lol.

:|

 

 

 

1) The big bang, you know the thing where the entire universe exploded? Yea, well that had a bit of of energy behind it wouldn't you say? The galaxy fragments exploded outward at ~99.999% the speed of light. Let me rephrase that. The energy of the entire universe exploding... was not enough to break the speed of light. Good luck with that one Germans.

 

 

 

2) Please stop using E=mc^2 as the formula for light speed, it has nothing to do with it. E=mc^2 is the rest mass energy equation, more commonly knows as the equation that tells you how much energy a nuclear weapon gives off when a mass "m" is detonated.

 

 

 

3) The formula F=ma, and all other laws Newtonian physics are approximations, not definitions. There is some small discrepancy that is traditionally ignored. However when you go faster and the forces are greater, that "discrepancy" gets multiplied. As a general rule of thumb, most equations regarding force and momentum breakdown once you hit 1/1000 of the speed of light, or 1,080,000,000 miles per hour. Naturally, we have never built anything that goes 1.1 billion miles an hour so we just use f=ma and ignore that other part of the equation for simplicities sake.

Time travel is absolutely, undeniably impossible. Period.

 

 

 

 

Nothing is Impossible in this universe

 

 

 

Whats would happen if we travelled so fast, we came to the big bang period :shock: , What would we see before the big bang??

:|

 

 

 

1) The big bang, you know the thing where the entire universe exploded? Yea, well that had a bit of of energy behind it wouldn't you say? The galaxy fragments exploded outward at ~99.999% the speed of light. Let me rephrase that. The energy of the entire universe exploding... was not enough to break the speed of light. Good luck with that one Germans.

 

 

 

Seriously? That sounds right logically, but I want to see some kind of source. :-k