Wormholes

[vitualis]

Now this dialation, does it happen at the atomic level? Do the electrons circling the nucleaus of each atom actually take longer to orbit?

"Yes"...

Not that electrons "orbit" a nucleus in a Newtonian sense though...

If the atoms do actually slow down then doramius is right, time does not exist, because if you could travel fast enough you could slow down each atom to the point of stopping and therefore freeze entropy and any reasonable perception of time for good.

As you approach light speed, the "speed" of time relatively slows down exponentially. I fail to see why this is proof of the non-existence of time. I further fail to see why time can only be described as a function of human perception. That's a rather anthropocentric viewpoint. What happened to the universe BEFORE the emergence of man?

If the atoms stay constant, (I think there was a star trek episode where they said all matter in the universe vibrates at a certain frequency) then the time dimension does exist regardless of where or how fast you are. All perceptions of time can be compared to this frequency and time dialation can be proven.

Time is relative which is what general relativity is about. There is no absolute "metric" of time (well, not one that has been shown anyway). My criticism to your reasoning as above.

In addition, Star Trek talked about some sort of subspace quantum frequency being identical to our universe. "Subspace quantum frequency" = 3 technobabble words strung together...

Regards.

[Shadowmistress]

As you approach light speed, the "speed" of time relatively slows down exponentially. I fail to see why this is proof of the non-existence of time.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory, I just said I might understand how Doramius might see it.

When trying to mathematically calculate the dimensions of an object in length width depth and time/temperature there must be a measurement other than zero for it to exist in that dimension. For instance a two dimentional object on a screen cannot be said to have depth and exist in our three dimensional world. Therefore an object accelerated to a point where all movement stops cannot be said to have time. It would not exist in that dimension.

But then again that doesn't necessarily negate the time dimension itself. Just our perception of it. I think the differing points of view between you and Doramius might have something to do with trying to wrap the mind around the existance of a dimension when the measurement for a said object would be zero.

[mcbit]

As you approach light speed, the "speed" of time relatively slows down exponentially. I fail to see why this is proof of the non-existence of time. I further fail to see why time can only be described as a function of human perception. That's a rather anthropocentric viewpoint. What happened to the universe BEFORE the emergence of man?

You hit the nail right on the head

When I was 2 years old I was much smaller, but I ingested mass of food. THis became part of my mass. I didn't just grow because of sheer time. Energy doesn't start or end. It always exists here and now, which means time does not exist as a dimension.

I think you missed my point. Without time there is no growth, aging, velocity, acceleration, etc.... The way in which we measure it is largely irrelevant. 1 day, 1 month, 1 year all relative measurements based on planetary and lunar movement which happened to be convenient at the time. So what's a foot then??

Did someone say? "Lets develop an absolute measure of length and call it a foot??"

The description of me is only relevant for one point in time and the description of me is completed with the addition of a time vector from a given point in time. Let's call that a date!

If you want to talk about conservation of energy then we have to deal with the three basic dimensions of mass, length and time. which funnilly enough are also the thre basic dimensions of the Special Theory of Relativity E=mc^2

[vitualis]

For instance a two dimentional object on a screen cannot be said to have depth and exist in our three dimensional world. Therefore an object accelerated to a point where all movement stops cannot be said to have time. It would not exist in that dimension.

Actually, this reasoning is faulty too. A two dimensional object can and does exist in a three dimensional world. Any object with n or less dimensions can be described in a framework of "n" dimensions mathematically.

A projected two dimensional object in fact does exist in a three dimensional world and it should be obvious from our day to day empiric experience. We, after all, are looking at a two dimensional image right now.

Sure, a two dimensional object does not have any "volume" in a three dimensional universe but so what? How does that make it "not exist"??

We deal with objects/things with dimensions less than 3 all the time. Since we only have stereoscopic vision, we in fact can (on visual sense) only really directly sample 2 and a bit dimensions. Our brain allows us to appreciate that 2 and a bit dimensional data into some understanding of the three dimensional world with some appreciation of time.

From example, going back to high school maths, we describe all sorts of formulae (e.g., a quadratic curve) on the cartesian number plane. The "universe" or plane is two dimensional but the curve is only ONE dimensional (actually, if you work with fractal dimensions, that would be ONE and a bit dimensions). Does that mean that the curve doesn't truly exist?

And if you cannot get your head around mathematically going to infinitesimally small values, then calculus mustn't exist as well!

Regards.

[mcbit]

3 dimensional space is the manifestion of 1 dimension [L] length in three mutually perpindicular planes.

Points, lines and 2d objects can all exist (theoretically) in 3d space.

[mcbit]

Damn!! Need to give these things a spell check before I hit Dubmit

[Shadowmistress]

From example, going back to high school maths, we describe all sorts of formulae (e.g., a quadratic curve) on the cartesian number plane. The "universe" or plane is two dimensional but the curve is only ONE dimensional (actually, if you work with fractal dimensions, that would be ONE and a bit dimensions). Does that mean that the curve doesn't truly exist?

And if you cannot get your head around mathematically going to infinitesimally small values, then calculus mustn't exist as well!

I'm sorry, most of that went over my head. I didn't stay in high school long enough to make it to calculus. I had to get a job.

I understand what you're saying and that the mathematics bear your principles out. But I always thought that zero meant zero. And I know that mathematics is not absolute, that sometimes numbers can seem to lie.
I was just trying to simplify the viewpoints.

Forget I asked. Carry on.

[Capmaster]

If you want to talk about conservation of energy then we have to deal with the three basic dimensions of mass, length and time. which funnilly enough are also the thre basic dimensions of the Special Theory of Relativity E=mc^2

No.

This famous formula of Einstein's illustrates how the energy required to accelerate any appreciable mass to the speed of light approaches infinity, and is therefore near impossible.

In that formula, E = energy, M = mass and C = the velocity of light. Energy then becomes a function of the square of the velocity for a given mass.

If you work out the numbers you'll see that the energy requirements become ridiculoucly large for all but the tiniest mass

[northcat_8]

But Einstein theorized that if you flew at the speed of light in the direction opposite to the rotation of the earth, that you could actually land at a time before you took off, hence going back in time.

Energy requirements do get rediculously large for a small mass and even if one could accelerate a mass to the desired velocity, the mass would be under extreme pressure and the shear friction with the surrounding air would instantly ignite it.

Not to redirect the conversation, but I believe that other means of travel are quite possible and very plausible, and I believe that many alternate methods have been presented but have been denied, squashed, black balled because they used some other type of energy source and finding a universal cost effective alternate fuel would lead to a collapse of the oil industry.

I mean come on...the compression engine was invented long ago...here in the year 2005 we still haven't made any signifigant improvements to the compression engine or the "gas" mileage one can achieve. And what pisses me off most is the major ingredient in gasoline is water

[Ripper2860]

[Capmaster]

Energy requirements do get rediculously large for a small mass and even if one could accelerate a mass to the desired velocity, the mass would be under extreme pressure and the shear friction with the surrounding air would instantly ignite it.

I think it's a given that any realistic attempt to achieve the speed of light would have to take place in the vacuum of space.

Can you imagine the sonic boom otherwise?

[northcat_8]

Energy requirements do get rediculously large for a small mass and even if one could accelerate a mass to the desired velocity, the mass would be under extreme pressure and the shear friction with the surrounding air would instantly ignite it.

I think it's a given that any realistic attempt to achieve the speed of light would have to take place in the vacuum of space.

Can you imagine the sonic boom otherwise?

Absolutely it would have to take place in a vacuum....that is a given.

I do have to question that in such an environment, how could discovered facts be applicable in a universal environment.

[Capmaster]

I do have to question that in such an environment, how could discovered facts be applicable in a universal environment.

Ya lost me there, teach

[mcbit]

This famous formula of Einstein's illustrates how the energy required to accelerate any appreciable mass to the speed of light approaches infinity, and is therefore near impossible.

In that formula, E = energy, M = mass and C = the velocity of light. Energy then becomes a function of the square of the velocity for a given mass.

Sorry!!!

But energy is defined from E in terms of mass and velocity^2, but velocity is not a basic dimensional unit v or c is defined by the dimensions [L][T^-1]

and hence mass, length, and time [M][L^2][T^-2]

[mcbit]

I do have to question that in such an environment, how could discovered facts be applicable in a universal environment.

Ya lost me there, teach

Lost me too I don't understand the ???

[Capmaster]

This famous formula of Einstein's illustrates how the energy required to accelerate any appreciable mass to the speed of light approaches infinity, and is therefore near impossible.

In that formula, E = energy, M = mass and C = the velocity of light. Energy then becomes a function of the square of the velocity for a given mass.

Sorry!!!

But energy is defined from E in terms of mass and velocity^2, but velocity is not a basic dimensional unit v or c is defined by the dimensions [L][T^-1]

and hence mass, length, and time [M][L^2][T^-2]

Wrong. Energy is not derived from mass. Energy is defined as the ability to do work. The unit is the joule and is also called the newton-meter or the coulomb-volt. It is not related to mass in any way.

You need to do some reading. I've found a good link for you if you're interested in learning how energy is defined, as well as a good beginner's page on Einstein's theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

[Ripper2860]

Energy requirements do get rediculously large for a small mass and even if one could accelerate a mass to the desired velocity, the mass would be under extreme pressure and the shear friction with the surrounding air would instantly ignite it.

I think it's a given that any realistic attempt to achieve the speed of light would have to take place in the vacuum of space.

Can you imagine the sonic boom otherwise?

Absolutely it would have to take place in a vacuum....that is a given.

I do have to question that in such an environment, how could discovered facts be applicable in a universal environment.

Given the facts as presented, I would have to agree with Northcat -- they would most likely NOT be applicable.

[Capmaster]

Ripper - Please elaborate

<snicker>

[Ripper2860]

Ripper - Please elaborate

<snicker>

The facts are self-evident. I encourage you to re-read this thread in its' entirity and it will become crystal clear. I would state it for you and the others, but do not wish to embarass anyone by pointing out something so obvious.

[Capmaster]

Ripper - Please elaborate

<snicker>

The facts are self-evident. I encourage you to re-read this thread in its' entirity and it will become crystal clear. I would state it for you and the others, but do not wish to embarass anyone by pointing out something so obvious.

You're the smartest guy in OT, Ripper. I mean that

[northcat_8]

I do have to question that in such an environment, how could discovered facts be applicable in a universal environment.

Ya lost me there, teach

Lost me too I don't understand the ???

Sorry about that

what I am saying is what is the purpose of an experiment when the learned outcomes are not applicable in our enviroment?

If the experiment must take place in a vacuum, which it would have to, in order to eliminate friction. Certain principles would be proven true and false. Maybe a principle of slowing down time is proven true. That's great...now how can that be applied in the real world or reproduced in the real world without the vacuum?

I am not denying that to someone somewhere that would be important, and could possibly lead to future discoveries of other things, but how that information could be applied to our physical world is lost on me.

I tend to fall along the line of skepticism when items are taken to extremes, and I take that stance in all areas of extremity, whether it be science, math, religion, or whatever.

In order to duplicate the results, one would have to duplicate the environment...and we cannot duplicate a vacuum on a global level.

[mcbit]

You need to do some reading. I've found a good link for you if you're interested in learning how energy is defined, as well as a good beginner's page on Einstein's theories:

Let's just look at the joule for a moment a unit of work and energy

Work = Fs (force x distance (joules))
F=ma (mass x acceleration (Newtons))
a=v/t
v=s/t
a=s/t^2 [L][T^-2]

Force = [M][L][T^-2]
Work = [M][L][T^-2][L] = [M][L^2][T^-2] mass, length, time

similarly it can be shown that the equations for

potential energy = mgh (mass x gravity x height)

and

Kinetic energy = 0.5m(mass) x v(velocity)^2

all break down to the same unit the Joule [M][L^2][T^-2]

Theory of conservation of energy states energy in a system is neither gained or lost but merely transformed from one form to another

Which leads us back to the big one

E=mc^2 E joules = m(mass) x c(velocity/speed of light)^2

again dimensionally = [M][L^2][T^-2]

and so..................

[Ripper2860]

I do have to question that in such an environment, how could discovered facts be applicable in a universal environment.

Ya lost me there, teach

Lost me too I don't understand the ???

Sorry about that

what I am saying is what is the purpose of an experiment when the learned outcomes are not applicable in our enviroment?

If the experiment must take place in a vacuum, which it would have to, in order to eliminate friction. Certain principles would be proven true and false. Maybe a principle of slowing down time is proven true. That's great...now how can that be applied in the real world or reproduced in the real world without the vacuum?

I am not denying that to someone somewhere that would be important, and could possibly lead to future discoveries of other things, but how that information could be applied to our physical world is lost on me.

I tend to fall along the line of skepticism when items are taken to extremes, and I take that stance in all areas of extremity, whether it be science, math, religion, or whatever.

In order to duplicate the results, one would have to duplicate the environment...and we cannot duplicate a vacuum on a global level.

Some of the posters in this forum would certainly qualify as "a vacuum on a global level".

[Capmaster]

meh ...I have a headache :P

[mcbit]

Some of the posters in this forum would certainly qualify as "a vacuum on a global level".

I suppose it could be better to have air in your head

[Ripper2860]

Some of the posters in this forum would certainly qualify as "a vacuum on a global level".

I suppose it could be better to have air in your head

Not referring to you or anyone else in this thread -- just a general statement that could and does apply to some in the forum.

[mcbit]

Not referring to you or anyone else in this thread -- just a general statement that could and does apply to some in the forum.

Me neither Perhaps this should move to the random thoughts thread

anyway I'm gonna have to bail as its Valentines Night and my wifes looking cute!!!!!!!

[BJ_M]

Some of the posters in this forum would certainly qualify as "a vacuum on a global level".

I suppose it could be better to have air in your head

they have tools for that

[Capmaster]

Doramius' "Flatul-Away" suit 8)

[BJ_M]

better than air here (this - i have on good word - is NOT Capmaster, though the similarity is uncanny) :