G
Guest
Janus:
It's no surprise to me that you are the only one to understand my thoughts on maintaining inertial properties. You have done a good job of expressing a more scientific view of the topics posted. This not to say I agree with all of your views, but at lest we have a common ground in physics in which to develop a framework of understanding.
What do you mean by " perfectly inertial reference frame "? The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference. Such frames move at steady velocities with respect to each other. This holds true without regard to rotation.
There is no centripetal accelerations due to the earth's rotation, orbit or the solar orbit. Centripetal force means center seeking force. In this case the centripetal force is gravity. The affect of gravity on the jumper is well known. In an airless environment ther would be no motion vector.
It's no surprise to me that you are the only one to understand my thoughts on maintaining inertial properties. You have done a good job of expressing a more scientific view of the topics posted. This not to say I agree with all of your views, but at lest we have a common ground in physics in which to develop a framework of understanding.
What do you mean by " perfectly inertial reference frame "? The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference. Such frames move at steady velocities with respect to each other. This holds true without regard to rotation.
There is no centripetal accelerations due to the earth's rotation, orbit or the solar orbit. Centripetal force means center seeking force. In this case the centripetal force is gravity. The affect of gravity on the jumper is well known. In an airless environment ther would be no motion vector.
Janus,
do you have an ideas on how it could be possible to travel in time? what type of machine would you use? I have heard you say everyone elses ideas would not work but i would like to hear your comment on what you feel would be the closest we could get to time travel since you dont beleive time travel is possible. do you feel matter teleporters are possible?
do you have an ideas on how it could be possible to travel in time? what type of machine would you use? I have heard you say everyone elses ideas would not work but i would like to hear your comment on what you feel would be the closest we could get to time travel since you dont beleive time travel is possible. do you feel matter teleporters are possible?
Tyme Master: Thanks!
My picture of inertial reference frames, I guess, stems from relativity in general. The twins 'paradox' disappears when you take into account the acceleration of one twin, in relation to the inertial reference frame of the other twin. Special relativity defines an inertial reference frame as any system which is not being acted on by an outside force - that is, not being accelerated. So, rotating reference frames are noninertial, because of the centripetal (in this case mostly gravity) force acting on them. In a noninertial reference frame, you get pseudoforces appearing, like the 'Coriolis' and 'centripetal' pseudoforces in a rotating frame. So, standing on the Earth, we have very miniscule pseudoforces acting on us, due to all our different rotations. They're small, but they're there. Have you ever seen one of those big pendulums that change the direction they swing throughout the day? That's pseudoforces at work.
pamela: I have plenty of ideas... explaining them would be too long, but here's a brief list: time-dilated wormholes, massive spinning infinite threads, donut wormholes, 'superstring' time effects, fast- travel time dilation, 'Feynman' style backward-travelling antimatter. These have, I think, all been suggested before, and I originally found this forum in the hopes that it would have suggestions on how to make them feasable (ie reducing the massive energy requirements, or creation of exotic matter).
But I do wholly believe that matter transportation, or at least transportation of all the information about that matter (esentially the same thing) is possible. Unfortunately, from all that I've read, it still relies on the speed of light, because the information-carrier is usually a laser.
My picture of inertial reference frames, I guess, stems from relativity in general. The twins 'paradox' disappears when you take into account the acceleration of one twin, in relation to the inertial reference frame of the other twin. Special relativity defines an inertial reference frame as any system which is not being acted on by an outside force - that is, not being accelerated. So, rotating reference frames are noninertial, because of the centripetal (in this case mostly gravity) force acting on them. In a noninertial reference frame, you get pseudoforces appearing, like the 'Coriolis' and 'centripetal' pseudoforces in a rotating frame. So, standing on the Earth, we have very miniscule pseudoforces acting on us, due to all our different rotations. They're small, but they're there. Have you ever seen one of those big pendulums that change the direction they swing throughout the day? That's pseudoforces at work.
pamela: I have plenty of ideas... explaining them would be too long, but here's a brief list: time-dilated wormholes, massive spinning infinite threads, donut wormholes, 'superstring' time effects, fast- travel time dilation, 'Feynman' style backward-travelling antimatter. These have, I think, all been suggested before, and I originally found this forum in the hopes that it would have suggestions on how to make them feasable (ie reducing the massive energy requirements, or creation of exotic matter).
But I do wholly believe that matter transportation, or at least transportation of all the information about that matter (esentially the same thing) is possible. Unfortunately, from all that I've read, it still relies on the speed of light, because the information-carrier is usually a laser.
Think of the planet as a "Grid" containing four dimensions within space-time.
now caculate the rotation, and the orbital movement. result= "Frame-Dragging"
if you go to the website:]
(www.time-travel.com) you can examine Dr. Andersons discoveries of frame dragging, in their relation to Time~Travel
Great website! check it out.
Also I would like to ask, if anyone here has read the book "Inside Relativity" by Delo E Mook and Thomas Vargish?
------------------
"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
p)'i4q4
now caculate the rotation, and the orbital movement. result= "Frame-Dragging"
if you go to the website:]
(www.time-travel.com) you can examine Dr. Andersons discoveries of frame dragging, in their relation to Time~Travel
Great website! check it out.
Also I would like to ask, if anyone here has read the book "Inside Relativity" by Delo E Mook and Thomas Vargish?
------------------
"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."
p)'i4q4
G
Guest
here's my idea;
paradox's: however likely, are IMPOSSIBLE, if you aren't allowed to shoot your grandad you wont, as if you do a paradox would be formed and time would throw a wobley and fall over. With this in mind, hawkin's safety mechanism prevents us from buggering up the timeline.
i've also come up with another paradox (dont know if u've noted this one) but you also cant go back and interfere for either the better or worse as doing so would mean you would have no reason to go back in the first place after the line was changed, you could only go back as an 'Observer'.
An extension to the killing granfather theory is that, you cant participate in and at that will ultimately lead to time travel not being invented, or the machine not being built (sort of a cant kill the machines family either), which is a given but then again so was gravity.
am i actually making sense here
going into the future is VERY dangerous as you would have information from there and that information would corup the way you lived your life. for example, if you knew how you were going to die, you would probably try and avoid it and possibly succeed also ruining the timeline.
plus in my opinion, the future isn't actually written (stupid idea i know) but if you were to go there the place would be based on 'if things carried on as they are...', even if a slightly minor thing, like a postman staying off from work might totally change the architecture of the future. therefore the future would be constantly changing, like switching between the infinite realities. EVERY CHOICE SOMEONE MAKES CAN AND DOES AMKE A DIFFERENT FUTURE.
as a final though, if you were to travel into the future, whats to stop you 'ariving' stuck halfway through a brick wall? and if so, what would happen to the overlapping atoms?
just an idea mind
paradox's: however likely, are IMPOSSIBLE, if you aren't allowed to shoot your grandad you wont, as if you do a paradox would be formed and time would throw a wobley and fall over. With this in mind, hawkin's safety mechanism prevents us from buggering up the timeline.
i've also come up with another paradox (dont know if u've noted this one) but you also cant go back and interfere for either the better or worse as doing so would mean you would have no reason to go back in the first place after the line was changed, you could only go back as an 'Observer'.
An extension to the killing granfather theory is that, you cant participate in and at that will ultimately lead to time travel not being invented, or the machine not being built (sort of a cant kill the machines family either), which is a given but then again so was gravity.
am i actually making sense here
going into the future is VERY dangerous as you would have information from there and that information would corup the way you lived your life. for example, if you knew how you were going to die, you would probably try and avoid it and possibly succeed also ruining the timeline.
plus in my opinion, the future isn't actually written (stupid idea i know) but if you were to go there the place would be based on 'if things carried on as they are...', even if a slightly minor thing, like a postman staying off from work might totally change the architecture of the future. therefore the future would be constantly changing, like switching between the infinite realities. EVERY CHOICE SOMEONE MAKES CAN AND DOES AMKE A DIFFERENT FUTURE.
as a final though, if you were to travel into the future, whats to stop you 'ariving' stuck halfway through a brick wall? and if so, what would happen to the overlapping atoms?
just an idea mind
The travel in time to the past only as an observer presents it's own set of problems.
If you could build a machine that could do this, we have to assume we could set it to observe any moment in past time from say, 1 billion years ago to one nanosecond ago.
Imagine seting the machine to observe one nanosecond ago and focusing it on your neighboor's bedroom. You would in effect be observing what goes on there as it is happening.
This machine would be outlawed immediately. As well it should be.
If you could build a machine that could do this, we have to assume we could set it to observe any moment in past time from say, 1 billion years ago to one nanosecond ago.
Imagine seting the machine to observe one nanosecond ago and focusing it on your neighboor's bedroom. You would in effect be observing what goes on there as it is happening.
This machine would be outlawed immediately. As well it should be.
Janus:
The Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology at:
http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/5/2/0/8/5208100.html
defines:
"inertial frame of reference" as:
Mechanics. a frame of reference that will allow Newton's laws to be valid in describing the motion of a system; the frame must either be at rest or be translating with a constant velocity. Also, NEWTONIAN or GALILEAN FRAME OF REFERENCE, INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM.
As such, it really does not make the Twins 'paradox' disappear. In reality, it is/was never a paradox in the first place. Merely the effect of Time Dilation on velocity as described by relativity. Relativity does not attempt to address WHY time dilation occurs, merely that it does.
There is no paradox in the travelling Twin's slower running biological clock and no time travel. The effect is there even if the travelling twin always remained in sight of the Earth bound one. (As would be the case if his voyage was a continous loop around the sun for a duration of x earth "years".) Each Twin would observe the Earth revolve around the Sun the SAME number of times. But for the traveller, a complete revolution of the Earth around the Sun would NOT represent one of HIS biological "years". He would still return to Earth a "younger" person than his twin, but he never left the same timeline we all share.
As has already been demonstrated by atomic clocks aboard aircraft and orbiting space vehicles.
The Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology at:
http://www.harcourt.com/dictionary/def/5/2/0/8/5208100.html
defines:
"inertial frame of reference" as:
Mechanics. a frame of reference that will allow Newton's laws to be valid in describing the motion of a system; the frame must either be at rest or be translating with a constant velocity. Also, NEWTONIAN or GALILEAN FRAME OF REFERENCE, INERTIAL REFERENCE SYSTEM.
As such, it really does not make the Twins 'paradox' disappear. In reality, it is/was never a paradox in the first place. Merely the effect of Time Dilation on velocity as described by relativity. Relativity does not attempt to address WHY time dilation occurs, merely that it does.
There is no paradox in the travelling Twin's slower running biological clock and no time travel. The effect is there even if the travelling twin always remained in sight of the Earth bound one. (As would be the case if his voyage was a continous loop around the sun for a duration of x earth "years".) Each Twin would observe the Earth revolve around the Sun the SAME number of times. But for the traveller, a complete revolution of the Earth around the Sun would NOT represent one of HIS biological "years". He would still return to Earth a "younger" person than his twin, but he never left the same timeline we all share.
As has already been demonstrated by atomic clocks aboard aircraft and orbiting space vehicles.
If time travel is possible, and there is evidence to support that fact (Although impracticle) than we will learn the following about the timeline.
1. The Timeline (TL) can't be changed, it is fixed and unalterable.
2. Time can be changed, and results in a 'split' TL being created.
3. Every event that is possible is, therefore travel through time is really a 'sideways' journey.
Any others I forgot?
1. The Timeline (TL) can't be changed, it is fixed and unalterable.
2. Time can be changed, and results in a 'split' TL being created.
3. Every event that is possible is, therefore travel through time is really a 'sideways' journey.
Any others I forgot?
The so called "paradox" within the Twin paradox is: Who is the one moving away?, i.e. who is truly experiencing the effects of time dilation. The twin left on Earth says I am staying still and my twin in the rocket is moving away, and the twin in the rocket says yeah right I am the one really that is stationary you are moving away. So, the question becomes who is right and who is really feeling the effects of time dilation.
Janus is correct with the solution to this paradox. One twin must slow down and turn around to go back. This slowing down(negative acceleration) is in fact an noninertial reference frame, so the paradox is one twin is trying to use two different frames something that is not allowed. This twin is in fact the twin who was moving away and is the twin who has experienced the lovely effect of time dilation. Of course, the other twin was in fact right that he was stationary, but in due consideration the other twin who was wrong and travelled away will probably live longer.
Janus is correct with the solution to this paradox. One twin must slow down and turn around to go back. This slowing down(negative acceleration) is in fact an noninertial reference frame, so the paradox is one twin is trying to use two different frames something that is not allowed. This twin is in fact the twin who was moving away and is the twin who has experienced the lovely effect of time dilation. Of course, the other twin was in fact right that he was stationary, but in due consideration the other twin who was wrong and travelled away will probably live longer.
DaveTrott:
"The so called "paradox" within the Twin paradox is: Who is the one moving away?, i.e. who is truly experiencing the effects of time dilation. The twin left on Earth says I am staying still and my twin in the rocket is moving away, and the twin in the rocket says yeah right I am the one really that is stationary you are moving away. So, the question becomes who is right and who is really feeling the effects of time dilation."
Not really. This is a takeoff on the "two-body" problem. If there were only two bodies involved, you could say this and be correct. But in the twins 'paradox' there are many bodies. The traveller is moving "faster" relative to many other bodies as well, which are also able to be referenced by the velocity comparisons. And it's not really a question of who is moving "away", but who is moving faster. Time dilation is irrespective of direction, distance and even acceleration. Except that acceleration results in a 'velocity' difference, which is the cause, not the acceleration itself. Once acceleration had ceased, a constant velocity would have been achieved and the effect continues due to the difference in this velocity between the two.
In my scenario, every single body in the Solar System gets to serve as an inertial frame reference to the traveller, not just the twin on earth. Remember, they BOTH see the Earth orbit the Sun the SAME number of times.
Janus is correct in pointing out the inertial frame reference as a guide for taking the measurements, but the reference itself does not eliminate the paradox, because there never was one in the first place.
The whole idea that it ever was a paradox is a misnomer from the start.
"The so called "paradox" within the Twin paradox is: Who is the one moving away?, i.e. who is truly experiencing the effects of time dilation. The twin left on Earth says I am staying still and my twin in the rocket is moving away, and the twin in the rocket says yeah right I am the one really that is stationary you are moving away. So, the question becomes who is right and who is really feeling the effects of time dilation."
Not really. This is a takeoff on the "two-body" problem. If there were only two bodies involved, you could say this and be correct. But in the twins 'paradox' there are many bodies. The traveller is moving "faster" relative to many other bodies as well, which are also able to be referenced by the velocity comparisons. And it's not really a question of who is moving "away", but who is moving faster. Time dilation is irrespective of direction, distance and even acceleration. Except that acceleration results in a 'velocity' difference, which is the cause, not the acceleration itself. Once acceleration had ceased, a constant velocity would have been achieved and the effect continues due to the difference in this velocity between the two.
In my scenario, every single body in the Solar System gets to serve as an inertial frame reference to the traveller, not just the twin on earth. Remember, they BOTH see the Earth orbit the Sun the SAME number of times.
Janus is correct in pointing out the inertial frame reference as a guide for taking the measurements, but the reference itself does not eliminate the paradox, because there never was one in the first place.
The whole idea that it ever was a paradox is a misnomer from the start.
DaveTrott:
P.S.
Incidently, your description of the two body problem is exactly why I say a 'time machine' can never be built, and for the very reason you give.
The two body problem becomes the 'three body problem' and then the 'four body...' etc. You get the point.
This is exactly why it is impossible to calculate where the corner of Hollywood & Vine was on Dec. 21, 1933. The expansion of the universe itself makes this an 'infinite body problem' that is not doable. We have a rough estimate of the speed of the universe's expansion, but not a clue as to OUR relative direction in all of this. Other than "outward". And in the scenario of the universe as a whole, any point within it can be equally referred to as the 'center'. This all AFTER you've considered the Solar System, the Galaxie, etc. which are a monumental set of calculations in themselves.
P.S.
Incidently, your description of the two body problem is exactly why I say a 'time machine' can never be built, and for the very reason you give.
The two body problem becomes the 'three body problem' and then the 'four body...' etc. You get the point.
This is exactly why it is impossible to calculate where the corner of Hollywood & Vine was on Dec. 21, 1933. The expansion of the universe itself makes this an 'infinite body problem' that is not doable. We have a rough estimate of the speed of the universe's expansion, but not a clue as to OUR relative direction in all of this. Other than "outward". And in the scenario of the universe as a whole, any point within it can be equally referred to as the 'center'. This all AFTER you've considered the Solar System, the Galaxie, etc. which are a monumental set of calculations in themselves.
I am aware that what I described is in fact the correct description of the twin "paradox". I keep putting quotes around paradox because it is not really a paradox, simply the result of the twin in the rocket using more than one reference frame. When I said that the twin in the rocket said he was stationary and that the other twin was moving away, I thought that it was pretty obvious that the other objects in the solar system (the moon for example) and around him would also be moving away. It would not make much since for just the Earth to be zooming off. lol
Val, you are correct that time dilation is in fact a scalar quantity i.e. it does not depend on direction. I never said otherwise.
dt' = dt/Sqrt(1-B*B) where B = v/c
I recommend you take a look at David Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics. It has a good explaination of the so called paradox as well as other "paradoxes" such as the garage door paradox. This text is used in most undergraduate E&M courses, that is where I used it. It is very easily readable.
P.S. since = sense in the previous post.
dt' = dt/Sqrt(1-B*B) where B = v/c
I recommend you take a look at David Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics. It has a good explaination of the so called paradox as well as other "paradoxes" such as the garage door paradox. This text is used in most undergraduate E&M courses, that is where I used it. It is very easily readable.
P.S. since = sense in the previous post.
Jack D:
To your 3 points I would have to respond -
"1. The Timeline (TL) can't be changed, it is fixed and unalterable."
Agreed. Totally.
"2. Time can be changed,..."
Also agreed. Time dilation does exactly this. After all, what is 'time' but our definition of the interval between cause and effect, based on the methods we use to measure it. Heizenberg's principle notwithstanding.
"...and results in a 'split' TL being created."
Totally disagreed. This is pure speculation and has no foundation in experiment or even hypothesis as to why such a thing WOULD occur. Pure SF.
"3. Every event that is possible is, therefore travel through time is really a 'sideways' journey."
If you believe in multiverse theory than I would have to agree with THIS statement in and of itself. Travel to another parallel universe or dimension, or timeline 'jump' would be just that. Not time travel.
But,
I don't buy multiverse theory in the first place. It gets conjured up every 20 years or so ever since the EPR Paradox of the Double Slit experiment which itself dates to the late 19th century. It offers a convenient explanation for things unexplained at that time. In every case, the real explanation turns out to verifiable as something else. In truth, it's an old 'saw'.
When 'wave collapse' theory collapsed (pun intended), multiverse was brought up again. But now we have 'quantum tunelling'. Lets see how far we get with that before multiverse gets called on again to explain why quantum tunelling didn't work out. Unless of course it does. We'll see. We'll see.
In the meantime, the EPR paradox of the polarized double slit experiment still goes unsloved to this day.
It's as classic as Euclid's trisection of an angle. No one's ever done it, but no one can prove it can't be done either.
Hey, it looks like "Fermat's Last Theorum" has finally been resolved. Who knows.
Quantum theory has a nasty habit of running of on new hypotheses when some of the old ones that serve as foundations for them in the first place are yet to be resolved.
The EPR paradox is a classic example of this.
I say to Quantum Theorists, if you can PROVE multiverse solves the EPR paradox, let's see it. Wave collapse didn't. Einstein called wave collapse "A spooky force at a distance". He never bought into it. And he has proven to be correct. Once again.
To your 3 points I would have to respond -
"1. The Timeline (TL) can't be changed, it is fixed and unalterable."
Agreed. Totally.
"2. Time can be changed,..."
Also agreed. Time dilation does exactly this. After all, what is 'time' but our definition of the interval between cause and effect, based on the methods we use to measure it. Heizenberg's principle notwithstanding.
"...and results in a 'split' TL being created."
Totally disagreed. This is pure speculation and has no foundation in experiment or even hypothesis as to why such a thing WOULD occur. Pure SF.
"3. Every event that is possible is, therefore travel through time is really a 'sideways' journey."
If you believe in multiverse theory than I would have to agree with THIS statement in and of itself. Travel to another parallel universe or dimension, or timeline 'jump' would be just that. Not time travel.
But,
I don't buy multiverse theory in the first place. It gets conjured up every 20 years or so ever since the EPR Paradox of the Double Slit experiment which itself dates to the late 19th century. It offers a convenient explanation for things unexplained at that time. In every case, the real explanation turns out to verifiable as something else. In truth, it's an old 'saw'.
When 'wave collapse' theory collapsed (pun intended), multiverse was brought up again. But now we have 'quantum tunelling'. Lets see how far we get with that before multiverse gets called on again to explain why quantum tunelling didn't work out. Unless of course it does. We'll see. We'll see.
In the meantime, the EPR paradox of the polarized double slit experiment still goes unsloved to this day.
It's as classic as Euclid's trisection of an angle. No one's ever done it, but no one can prove it can't be done either.
Hey, it looks like "Fermat's Last Theorum" has finally been resolved. Who knows.
Quantum theory has a nasty habit of running of on new hypotheses when some of the old ones that serve as foundations for them in the first place are yet to be resolved.
The EPR paradox is a classic example of this.
I say to Quantum Theorists, if you can PROVE multiverse solves the EPR paradox, let's see it. Wave collapse didn't. Einstein called wave collapse "A spooky force at a distance". He never bought into it. And he has proven to be correct. Once again.
DaveTrott:
I meant no offense of course. But your original description is still a demonstration of the "two body" problem.
With only two bodies, it is of course moot as to who is travelling relative to whom.
But in my scenario, all the bodies in the Solar System DO provide further reference for determining who (between the twins) IS travelling in relation to whom. This makes the calculations quite determinable that relative to the twin on Earth, the OTHER one IS doing the travelling and experiencing the time dilation slow down.
If you want to say the 'stationary' twin is experiencing a dilation 'speed up', I'd have say I agree. Relative to the traveller, he most certainly is. I suppose the 'dilation' itself IS indeed moot. But it is calculable as to who is experiencing which specific (slow down/speed up) effect. In the two body problem, it would not be.
Agreed?
I meant no offense of course. But your original description is still a demonstration of the "two body" problem.
With only two bodies, it is of course moot as to who is travelling relative to whom.
But in my scenario, all the bodies in the Solar System DO provide further reference for determining who (between the twins) IS travelling in relation to whom. This makes the calculations quite determinable that relative to the twin on Earth, the OTHER one IS doing the travelling and experiencing the time dilation slow down.
If you want to say the 'stationary' twin is experiencing a dilation 'speed up', I'd have say I agree. Relative to the traveller, he most certainly is. I suppose the 'dilation' itself IS indeed moot. But it is calculable as to who is experiencing which specific (slow down/speed up) effect. In the two body problem, it would not be.
Agreed?
You misunderstood me Valkerie. I wasn't saying that that's how things were. I was merely mentioning some possibilities of the nature of time, and what would happen if you tried to change the past.
What we have to do is rule out all the 'incorrects', and therefore we will arrive at a right answer. You helped out by ridding us of the 'alternate U' theory.
What we have to do is rule out all the 'incorrects', and therefore we will arrive at a right answer. You helped out by ridding us of the 'alternate U' theory.
No offense has been taken. However, I am still sure that what I have described is in fact correct. It does not matter if it what you are calling a two body problem or not. As I have said, the twin in the rocket can just as easily say that everything(the solar system, the Earth, his/her twin, and all else) are moving away from him. It does not matter how many bodies you are talking about. I will admit yes, it is unlikely for the twin in the rocket to be correct that he is stationary and everything else is moving, but he is just as justified as the twin on the Earth in saying that the rocket is moving away. All I am saying is that the person who has to slow down and turn around to go back was the one who was travelling away, and the person who is slowing down turning around and heading back with the same inital velocity was in fact the one who travelled away. BUT that twin is using more than one reference frame, that is where the only "paradox" came in. The paradox in itself is who will be the one to have aged less i.e. who has felt the effects of time dilation i.e. who has been travelling at close to the speed of light. In giving you the benefit of the doubt, I did look back over my textbook last night since I haven't used it in a year, but what I have described as both the problem and the solution is exactly what the book says also.