ID:188947
 
ACWraith wrote:
Oh sure. You initiate a grandfather paradox variant and then expect others to clean it up for you?
"Excuse me... God? Your universe does not appear to be robust. Umm... Sorry."

I've always wondered -- with a nagging sort of fear -- whether the laws of physics as we know them only apply within the particular local section of space. That would just be scary -- to discover, for example, that the atoms comprising steel alloys are self-destructive in a different set of physics (if atoms even exist as atoms!). Bye bye, space shuttle.


You could have at least used time travel like everyone else.

Personally, I think the fourth dimension is like the first, second, and third dimensions -- you can stretch it or compress it, but you can't jump from one discrete value to another. Thus, Einstein's theory of relativity may hold true (I prefer to have faith that it doesn't (otherwise, mankind is forever doomed to the local star(s)), but I have no evidence supporting that belief), but time travel itself is entirely impossible, just as instantly winking into a new location is entirely impossible.

That's my theory, anyway.
Wait didn't Einstein state you COULD travel at the speed of light except it just will be very well 'heavy' (as in the weight increases exponentially). Also I though although I may be mistaken he said we could travel past the speed of light except it would cause time to reverse. (This makes things interesting as it would make intergalactic travel because at the right speed time in theorydoesn't pass at all and you essentially 'warp' there.)
In response to Exadv1 (#1)
I seem to remember it being something along the lines of that some particles travel slower than the speed of light. There are possibly some particles that travel faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light is an impassable barrier for particles on either side of it.
In response to Jon88 (#2)
I wouldn't go so far to say it is definately and totally impassable. Perhaps one day we may figure out how to pass it. If we could pass the sound barrier then we must be able to pass the speed of light.(Of course, the sound barrier was much easier to pass.)
In response to Kusanagi (#3)
Ya but the sound barrier doesn't have a lot of laws of physics written around it. Also sound isn't constant while light ALWAYS is.
In response to Exadv1 (#4)
Not true, light can be absorbed just as sound can be.
In response to Exadv1 (#1)
Exadv1 wrote:
Wait didn't Einstein state you COULD travel at the speed of light except it just will be very well 'heavy' (as in the weight increases exponentially). Also I though although I may be mistaken he said we could travel past the speed of light except it would cause time to reverse.

That's one of the reasons why I don't really believe the theory. Why would travelling faster than light cause time to go backwards? Does light touch every point in the galaxy simultaneously? (No.) It's inexplicable why something limited to a specific, constant, and measurable speed would be considered to have an inspecific, unconstant, and immeasurable speed under different circumstances.

Personally, I believe that light is the only thing that travels at the speed of light, and that anything can travel as fast as it wants to go, with no such thing as time slowing down or speeding up, weight increasing or decreasing, time going backwards or forwards, people stretching out of shape, or any of that nonsense. You'd have to worry about slowing down from that velocity because to slow down you have to accelerate in the opposite direction, but otherwise it'd just be a velocity.

People could argue: "We've never seen anything travelling faster than light, so how could that be true?" Keyword here: seen. If something travels faster than light, it's quite possible you can't see it.


(This makes things interesting as it would make intergalactic travel because at the right speed time in theorydoesn't pass at all and you essentially 'warp' there.)

Not true. According to the theory, the frame of reference (i.e. the ship) will age by how long it takes to travel at that velocity. Everything else won't. However, that doesn't make sense, because that means that the frame of reference is travelling instantaneously, when in fact it is not. (It would also mean that someone could simply accelerate a ship to light speed and spend countless generations at the same point in time, building technology, and eventually decelerate with exorbitant amounts of technological advancement in a negligible amount of time. Since this has never happened, it means that there is either no other intelligent life in the galaxy, or that there is no such thing as relativity.) That's another of the reasons why I disbelieve in the theory.

The major point is whether you believe time increases at a constant rate. I personally believe that it does -- every particle increases in age by the same amount as any other particle, but the ages of those particles (from time of conversion to matter from energy) are all different. Velocity means nothing to the fourth dimension, because it only displaces an object in three dimensions.


As for the argument, "Who are we going to believe, you, or Einstein?" just because Einstein is smart doesn't mean he's right. I'm smart too, and I'm wrong quite often.
In response to Spuzzum (#6)
What about the experiments using atomic clocks sent up with the shuttle? According to those, time does decrease with increased speed. Does this not prove Einstien's theory? And scientists already have broken the light barrier. I think Einstien was as close to the mark as anyone has ever been, and until I see real proof other wise, I'm going to stick with relativity.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s154368.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/

~X
Spuzzum wrote:
I've always wondered -- with a nagging sort of fear -- whether the laws of physics as we know them only apply within the particular local section of space. That would just be scary -- to discover, for example, that the atoms comprising steel alloys are self-destructive in a different set of physics (if atoms even exist as atoms!). Bye bye, space shuttle.

I don't know how possible it would be, but the idea that our physics are just a subset of another set of physics is a cool one.
It would be interesting to get figure out the parent set of physics, then use them to create a new set of physics (Even just theoretical stuff would be entertaining).
In response to Kusanagi (#5)
Not true, light can be absorbed just as sound can be.

Light appears to move slower through glass, but isn't. This is because when light goes through glass it bounces around for awhile while in the glass before it gets through. Light always goes the same speed, it just appears to go slower through certain materials since it percolates through the materials slower.
In response to Theodis (#9)
Yup. Sound is physical vibration. Light is wave energy. Physical things obey the same rules as all other physical things -- inertia, damping, etc. Waves, on the other hand, are usually only affected by gravity and reflection.
In response to Xooxer (#7)
Xooxer wrote:
What about the experiments using atomic clocks sent up with the shuttle? According to those, time does decrease with increased speed. Does this not prove Einstien's theory?

Not necessarily. An atom's resonation aboard a space shuttle travelling at high velocities could be affected in rate due to the acceleration and deceleration of that shuttle (there's no right or wrong answer to that, because it's a current unknown in physics). While the ship is travelling at a constant velocity, the clock would retain the inaccuracy it had earlier, and might be affected by the gravitational forces that are around it at the time. That is, if you're accelerating, the time still progresses at a constant rate, but the resonation of the atom is hindered because it must "work" harder to counter the inertia in one direction, and exert less "work" to travel with the inertia in the other direction. This could have physical effects on the atom that are completely irrelevant to time. (Note that I'm not using the physical term for "work". Atoms resonate without using any energy.)


And scientists already have broken the light barrier. I think Einstien was as close to the mark as anyone has ever been, and until I see real proof other wise, I'm going to stick with relativity.

I'm just saying that a theory is a theory, and Einstein doesn't have undeniable proof either. =)