The lightspeed hurdle

D

docbrown

Temporal Novice
One thing that can be ascertained from Einsteins theories was that the speed of light was a contributing factor in our quest for time travel. As you approach the speed of light, time slows down...so one would conclude that AT the speed of light, time would stop...and FASTER then the speed of light, time would go backwards. Scientists have theorized about crafts being pushed by a beam of light...but even then, it could not EXCEED the speed of light. So my ultimate question is how does one overcome this major drawback? Too much thought is put into the cause and effect of time travel...what about actually DOING it? So far, our only proof of time travel is the speed of the traveler. An experiment done in supersonic jets proved that time slows down at high speeds. Two clocks set at exact times were a solid second apart when the jets were landed. How then, when we have evidence that SPEED is the issue, can we even fathom the actual process of time travel?

Doctor Emmet Brown
 
Well you cant,youd need infinate amount of energy to push mass at the speed of light,your mass will break down at ZERO time.

To go faster than light youd have to be made out of light,we have no real evidence of anything that naturally does that in the first place.

The other real problem is the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second

I cant think of anything that could move an object at that speed,
its no good with rockets and fuel,cos the fuel would run out,
you could go nuclear but to get to that speed youll probably kill the astronauts with radiation sickness,its very difficult to contain a nuclear explosion or radiation,unless you are covered in lead,which is too heavy to get off the ground,although the set up could be built in space to which weight doesnt matter,

Obviously to get even near lightspeed in the first place a very large ship has to be built on nuclear power.

But what about g-force?
at that sort of speed wouldnt you get turned to jam?

Now relativity gives us something worrying for the astronaut,if he leaves earth to go to a star 1000 light years away,approaching it at 99.99% lightspeed when he gets back to earth the earth will be 2000 years older than when he left,and
he will have only aged a couple of years.

With these problems i can see why time travel is important,and faster than light,cos for us to go out in space to visit other stars far away,we gotta be able to come back,and coming back to an earth 2000 years older than when you left is not good.
 
RE: The lightspeed hurd, Shad

Also at the speed of light, you can't see anything logically (never found an official theory but I thought this one up myself), at least when you turn around. Let's say you're on a ship at the speed of light and you got to the back of the ship and the ship is going forward, light can't get to you're eye and you can't see anything.
 
You might want to stop thinking about light speed. If meat rots at room temperature and lasts longer in the freezer, then what does that tell you? If you were to go below absolute zero (impossible as it sounds). I believe that you would unage. Therefore, if the entire earth attained a temperature of below absolute zero, time would be going backwards to the earth-bound observer.
 
an astroid hurdles toward you in space at 2/3's (sub-light speed)the speed of light and you are hurling past it at 2/3's (sub-light speed) the speed of light in the opposite dorection, aren't you then traveling 1 and 1/3 times the speed of light to an observer on the astroid? isn't it all relative to the position of the observer as to what light speed is?
 
boot

>>2/3 + 2/3 = 1 1/3 <<<<

No, according to Einstiens theory 2/3c + 2/3c = 1c, the earth and the astroid would measure each others speed at c. As to a third observer looking at the other two, well he was blinded in a horrible space accident involving a goose and three half cooked wieners. Never saw a thing!

Einstien said that there were only 4 people in the world that actually understood his theory. And 30 years later when he died there were only 2.
 
Freezing is a process. People that freeze to death are unfortunate to be involved in a stretched out version of the process. If you got down to below absolute zero (somehow), fast enough, then the earth wouldn't even have time to make its transition from warm to frozen. It might even 'warm up' the further below absolute zero you got. So at -300 degrees kelvin it would warm enough to go out to the beach even though you would be traveling back in time.
 
The reason meat doesnt rot so fast in a fridge or when it is frozen is cos the bacteria that is in the product goes in hibination,so it takes LONGER for the food to go off,
obviously the bacteria will make the meat unfresh and bad eventually even in the freezer but it takes alot longer,
at room temperature flys will lay eggs on the meat and obviously cos its dead no antibodies are killing bacteria off,no bood is pumping,the eggs from flys hatch as maggots and all other life forms start at work,in a freezer its not possible,where the hell ya get your ideas from i do not know.
 
Have you not heard of half-life? This has to do with atomic motion and decay. If all atomic motion ceases at absolote zero, then mass will not decay into a daughter substance at absolute zero. As long as absolute zero is maintained, the half-life is infinite. Now if you go below absolute zero, then I hypothesize that atomic motion will reverse. Now if all atomic motion on earth reversed, what would happen? Our brain tissure could realize this (assuming we could move) and we might 'un-age', or as Stephen Hawking said about time travel, "un-evolve". Ultimately, if everybody was undergoing this process, then our current generation would be young again. Again, this is all hypothetical, and by no means could raise the dead. This would only be short term 'un-aging' time travel. There are all sorts of problems associated as is true with all theories. How could we stop it? How could we go further into the future? Is there a high temperature at which atomic motion makes time faster?
 
The kinetic theory of temperature states that the 'heat' of an object is actually a measure of the amount of random motion of the molecules making up that object. As temperature lowers, there is less and less random motion. At the lower limit, absolute zero (0 K) there is no random motion at all. There is no way to go below 0 K because it is the bottom limit of the scale - there is no such thing as 'negative random motion'.

Also, freezing doesn't map linearly to 'life slow-down'. For example, the aging of gametes (sperm cells and ova) can be stopped completely at liquid nitrogen temperatures, well above 0 K. And state changes at lower temperatures would probably kill things, even given flash freezing.<hr size="1" width="80%" color="#000099" align="left">"All gods are false. Faith itself is idolatry."

Iain M. Banks, _The_Crow_Road_
 
Back
Top