Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
There and here at the same time .
#21
(08-12-2020, 01:59 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote:
(08-12-2020, 12:44 PM)hutch622 Wrote:
(08-12-2020, 12:26 PM)NightskyeB4Dawn Wrote:
(08-12-2020, 12:13 PM)hutch622 Wrote: Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

Make them Southern Maryland blues and I am in.  minusculebeercheers

Looked them up and they are similar to our blue swimmer crabs here in Australia .

I grew up on the Chesapeake Bay and learned to eat crabs by myself by the time I was two.

I looked up your blue swimmers and though they may be similar to our Southern Maryland blues. I am sure the blue swimmers coming from Australia are likely to kill you, but I would definitely be willing to give them a run for their money.   tinylaughing

Not everything will try to kill you here  although blue swimmers do try . Biggest i have caught was just shy of 30 inches across the claws .
#22
I think that for time to exist, one must be aware that it exists.

The energy we are made of, the matrix, our essence, is made of eternity. Coming from a past, heading towards a future but always in the concept of the present moment.

A ray of light is similar to this thought and would always be in the present moment, even if it travels at light speed or beyond.

A concrete and solid matter is something else entirely. Humans. Affected by time. Animals. Planets. Anything concrete. But at the core of all of these, the molecules, eternity. No past, no future, just the present moment.

I have never heard of time stopping theories. I've heard the theory that time slows down as you approach a black hole, heading towards the event horizon.

But no one can say "Been there, done that...".

Theories aren't fact. Fun to discuss though. JMO.
~ Today is the youngest you'll ever be again ~
#23
@"gordi", @"Bally002", and @"Sol" have the right answers, from the viewpoint of Relativity. If we assume Relativity to be a correct theory, and we assume time dilation to be a real thing, then the results are different relative to the observer's viewpoint. If we change observers, then we also change the viewpoint, and by extension the results.

From our viewpoint, as Observer 1, 2.5 billion years pass, the photon is travelling for that 2.5 billion years, and is no longer "there" if it is "here".

From the viewpoint of the photon, as Observer 2, no time passes, and it is neither "there" nor "here", is simply "is", location is irrelevant, as it does not experience any time passing, so it cannot have moved at all. Velocity is change of position over time. If you take time out of the equation, then a change of position is irrelevant.

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


Einstein's so called "Twins paradox" has never been a paradox to me, and I don't understand why it is to anyone. It was a "thought experiment" that seems to me to not have been thought through to it's logical conclusion.

If we take two twins, and launch one into space at light speed, but leave the other on Earth, then the one moving away at light speed APPEARS, from the Earth bound observer's viewpoint, not to be aging as he moves away. That is because the light reaching the observer is moving toward the observer at the same sped that the other twin is moving AWAY from him. So the Earth observer sees the same image continually, which is not aging.

The same is true of the twin moving at light speed - Earth seems to not be aging even though he IS, because he is riding the same light wave he was riding when he left Earth, and that image, for him, will not change. If he were to surpass the speed of light, he could then see his launch, and eventually his own birth as he successively passed the light from those events. Earth would appear to be going backwards in time, from his viewpoint.

So far so good, but the "paradox" comes in when they say that the traveling twin would return to an Earth many centuries in his future, and that's where it goes off the rails. If the traveling twin reverses course and starts back to Earth, then he will be passing outbound light from Earth as he travels inward at the speed of light, so everything will appear to him to be moving at an accelerated pace, faster than it is actually happening. In other words, what appeared to him on the outbound trip to be frozen in time, will be made up for by accelerated observation on the way back. It does not follow that time is actually changing, only that what he SEES is accelerated. he would arrive back in proper time factoring in his travel time, rather than the rate light travels at. The light travel only affects his observation, NOT his actual chronology.

Both twins would age at the same rate. The only difference would be in their perception of the light.

-------

E=MC^2 is a formula for energy, not time. What it means is that as your velocity increases, your apparent mass also increases to the point that you can no longer pack enough energy in to accelerate any further. As you apparent mass increases towards infinity, so does the amount of energy required to accelerate you, and you eventually reach a point where there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate you any further, and velocity levels out with no further acceleration. That speed is supposed to be the speed of light, which is why light speed is considered to be the universal speed limit.

That's why FTL travel would have to find a loophole, like bending space so that less space is crossed in a given time frame, thereby giving only the appearance of FTL travel without having to use up all of the energy in the universe to actually try to do it. From the traveler's viewpoint, less space is being crossed to get to the destination, so that he's not violating that physical law - space is being "compressed", which makes it appear that the traveler is moving faster than he really is traveling to an observer on the outside of his system.

Space can be manipulated like that at the quantum level. It's complicated, and involves "quantum entanglement", but it's the reason "spooky action at a distance" is a thing.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#24
(08-12-2020, 10:19 PM)Ninurta Wrote: @"gordi", @"Bally002", and @"Sol" have the right answers, from the viewpoint of Relativity. If we assume Relativity to be a correct theory, and we assume time dilation to be a real thing, then the results are different relative to the observer's viewpoint. If we change observers, then we also change the viewpoint, and by extension the results.

From our viewpoint, as Observer 1, 2.5 billion years pass, the photon is travelling for that 2.5 billion years, and is no longer "there" if it is "here".

From the viewpoint of the photon, as Observer 2, no time passes, and it is neither "there" nor "here", is simply "is", location is irrelevant, as it does not experience any time passing, so it cannot have moved at all. Velocity is change of position over time. If you take time out of the equation, then a change of position is irrelevant.

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


Einstein's so called "Twins paradox" has never been a paradox to me, and I don't understand why it is to anyone. It was a "thought experiment" that seems to me to not have been thought through to it's logical conclusion.

If we take two twins, and launch one into space at light speed, but leave the other on Earth, then the one moving away at light speed APPEARS, from the Earth bound observer's viewpoint, not to be aging as he moves away. That is because the light reaching the observer is moving toward the observer at the same sped that the other twin is moving AWAY from him. So the Earth observer sees the same image continually, which is not aging.

The same is true of the twin moving at light speed - Earth seems to not be aging even though he IS, because he is riding the same light wave he was riding when he left Earth, and that image, for him, will not change. If he were to surpass the speed of light, he could then see his launch, and eventually his own birth as he successively passed the light from those events. Earth would appear to be going backwards in time, from his viewpoint.

So far so good, but the "paradox" comes in when they say that the traveling twin would return to an Earth many centuries in his future, and that's where it goes off the rails. If the traveling twin reverses course and starts back to Earth, then he will be passing outbound light from Earth as he travels inward at the speed of light, so everything will appear to him to be moving at an accelerated pace, faster than it is actually happening. In other words, what appeared to him on the outbound trip to be frozen in time, will be made up for by accelerated observation on the way back. It does not follow that time is actually changing, only that what he SEES is accelerated. he would arrive back in proper time factoring in his travel time, rather than the rate light travels at. The light travel only affects his observation, NOT his actual chronology.

Both twins would age at the same rate. The only difference would be in their perception of the light.

-------

E=MC^2 is a formula for energy, not time. What it means is that as your velocity increases, your apparent mass also increases to the point that you can no longer pack enough energy in to accelerate any further. As you apparent mass increases towards infinity, so does the amount of energy required to accelerate you, and you eventually reach a point where there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate you any further, and velocity levels out with no further acceleration. That speed is supposed to be the speed of light, which is why light speed is considered to be the universal speed limit.

That's why FTL travel would have to find a loophole, like bending space so that less space is crossed in a given time frame, thereby giving only the appearance of FTL travel without having to use up all of the energy in the universe to actually try to do it. From the traveler's viewpoint, less space is being crossed to get to the destination, so that he's not violating that physical law - space is being "compressed", which makes it appear that the traveler is moving faster than he really is traveling to an observer on the outside of his system.

Space can be manipulated like that at the quantum level. It's complicated, and involves "quantum entanglement", but it's the reason "spooky action at a distance" is a thing.

.

A fine explanation.  Cheers for that.  

Bally:)
#25
I'm still here [Image: 1yengq.jpg]  tinysurprised
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#26
(08-12-2020, 10:19 PM)Ninurta Wrote: @"gordi", @"Bally002", and @"Sol" have the right answers, from the viewpoint of Relativity. If we assume Relativity to be a correct theory, and we assume time dilation to be a real thing, then the results are different relative to the observer's viewpoint. If we change observers, then we also change the viewpoint, and by extension the results.

From our viewpoint, as Observer 1, 2.5 billion years pass, the photon is travelling for that 2.5 billion years, and is no longer "there" if it is "here".

From the viewpoint of the photon, as Observer 2, no time passes, and it is neither "there" nor "here", is simply "is", location is irrelevant, as it does not experience any time passing, so it cannot have moved at all. Velocity is change of position over time. If you take time out of the equation, then a change of position is irrelevant.

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


Einstein's so called "Twins paradox" has never been a paradox to me, and I don't understand why it is to anyone. It was a "thought experiment" that seems to me to not have been thought through to it's logical conclusion.

If we take two twins, and launch one into space at light speed, but leave the other on Earth, then the one moving away at light speed APPEARS, from the Earth bound observer's viewpoint, not to be aging as he moves away. That is because the light reaching the observer is moving toward the observer at the same sped that the other twin is moving AWAY from him. So the Earth observer sees the same image continually, which is not aging.

The same is true of the twin moving at light speed - Earth seems to not be aging even though he IS, because he is riding the same light wave he was riding when he left Earth, and that image, for him, will not change. If he were to surpass the speed of light, he could then see his launch, and eventually his own birth as he successively passed the light from those events. Earth would appear to be going backwards in time, from his viewpoint.

So far so good, but the "paradox" comes in when they say that the traveling twin would return to an Earth many centuries in his future, and that's where it goes off the rails. If the traveling twin reverses course and starts back to Earth, then he will be passing outbound light from Earth as he travels inward at the speed of light, so everything will appear to him to be moving at an accelerated pace, faster than it is actually happening. In other words, what appeared to him on the outbound trip to be frozen in time, will be made up for by accelerated observation on the way back. It does not follow that time is actually changing, only that what he SEES is accelerated. he would arrive back in proper time factoring in his travel time, rather than the rate light travels at. The light travel only affects his observation, NOT his actual chronology.

Both twins would age at the same rate. The only difference would be in their perception of the light.

-------

E=MC^2 is a formula for energy, not time. What it means is that as your velocity increases, your apparent mass also increases to the point that you can no longer pack enough energy in to accelerate any further. As you apparent mass increases towards infinity, so does the amount of energy required to accelerate you, and you eventually reach a point where there is not enough energy in the universe to accelerate you any further, and velocity levels out with no further acceleration. That speed is supposed to be the speed of light, which is why light speed is considered to be the universal speed limit.

That's why FTL travel would have to find a loophole, like bending space so that less space is crossed in a given time frame, thereby giving only the appearance of FTL travel without having to use up all of the energy in the universe to actually try to do it. From the traveler's viewpoint, less space is being crossed to get to the destination, so that he's not violating that physical law - space is being "compressed", which makes it appear that the traveler is moving faster than he really is traveling to an observer on the outside of his system.

Space can be manipulated like that at the quantum level. It's complicated, and involves "quantum entanglement", but it's the reason "spooky action at a distance" is a thing.

.
So your kind of agreeing from the photons perspective its both here and there at the same time , but , its in neither place at the same time . Now that is where my mind starts to unravel just a little . Well a little more some might say . Thanks daughter .
#27
(08-12-2020, 06:15 AM)hutch622 Wrote: Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .


the way i see it is,time stop for every proton. as it moves through space, until it gets to us. then the next one does the same.
so as soon as it reach it's top velocity (which is instant) time for it stops as it moves through space, it's starting point is it's past, then when it reaches us is it's present, then beyond us it's future.

here maybe these two videos will help you understand what i'm trying to say.



#28
Hopefully this video works . It still doesn't totally answer my question but its close .




OK it didnt work as planned but you can highlight and search and it should come up .


@"hutch622" , I fixed it for you. Sol.
#29
(08-13-2020, 12:27 AM)hutch622 Wrote: So your kind of agreeing from the photons perspective its both here and there at the same time , but , its in neither place at the same time . Now that is where my mind starts to unravel just a little . Well a little more some might say . Thanks daughter .

Not exactly. "At the same time" is meaningless with respect to the photon, because from that observation point, time is meaningless. From the viewpoint of the photon, no change of location is registered, because motion is change of location over time, and no time has passed for the photon, therefore it cannot recognize a change of location. It does not register any motion.

The photon has no idea where it is, because location and time mean nothing to it.

Yeah, it kinda does one's head in.

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#30
(08-13-2020, 12:26 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 12:27 AM)hutch622 Wrote: So your kind of agreeing from the photons perspective its both here and there at the same time , but , its in neither place at the same time . Now that is where my mind starts to unravel just a little . Well a little more some might say . Thanks daughter .

Not exactly. "At the same time" is meaningless with respect to the photon, because from that observation point, time is meaningless. From the viewpoint of the photon, no change of location is registered, because motion is change of location over time, and no time has passed for the photon, therefore it cannot recognize a change of location. It does not register any motion.

The photon has no idea where it is, because location and time mean nothing to it.

Yeah, it kinda does one's head in.

.
First up thanks Sol for fixing the video . To Nintura , yes sometimes questions like these do my head in , but as a longtime stargazer lots of these type of questions do my head in . Dont even mention infinity to me in my finite 3d world .lol. But , well for me at least , i think its good to ponder questions like this . Sadly some people are quite happy as long as their social media doesn't crash .
#31
(08-13-2020, 12:59 PM)hutch622 Wrote: First up thanks Sol for fixing the video . To Nintura , yes sometimes questions like these do my head in , but as a longtime stargazer lots of these type of questions do my head in . Dont even mention infinity to me in my finite 3d world .lol. But , well for me at least , i think its good to ponder questions like this . Sadly some people are quite happy as long as their social media doesn't crash .

I used to try to sit still and just imagine infinity, an infinite universe with no end. Just keep going through it, forever, and never reach the end. It may have been a form of meditation, but I'm certain it has broken my mind. After about 5 minutes of trying, my usual result was "Dammit! I need more liquor!"

.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#32
(08-13-2020, 12:59 PM)hutch622 Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 12:26 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 12:27 AM)hutch622 Wrote: So your kind of agreeing from the photons perspective its both here and there at the same time , but , its in neither place at the same time . Now that is where my mind starts to unravel just a little . Well a little more some might say . Thanks daughter .

Not exactly. "At the same time" is meaningless with respect to the photon, because from that observation point, time is meaningless. From the viewpoint of the photon, no change of location is registered, because motion is change of location over time, and no time has passed for the photon, therefore it cannot recognize a change of location. It does not register any motion.

The photon has no idea where it is, because location and time mean nothing to it.

Yeah, it kinda does one's head in.

.
First up thanks Sol for fixing the video . To Nintura , yes sometimes questions like these do my head in , but as a longtime stargazer lots of these type of questions do my head in . Dont even mention infinity to me in my finite 3d world .lol. But , well for me at least , i think its good to ponder questions like this . Sadly some people are quite happy as long as their social media doesn't crash .

Here is a link to how to post a youtube video  that @"Sol"  put together for everyone. It should really help.

Also, DAMN, what an  smallawesome  Thread!
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#33
(08-12-2020, 06:15 AM)hutch622 Wrote:
(08-12-2020, 05:54 AM)guohua Wrote: I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!
Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

Imagine a train comming towards you the engine being the first photon to reach you, and then every other car behind the engine reaching you a moment in time later, etc. etc, and on and on as continuing parade of photons. it would be continuous events in sucession reaching you until the source stopped emitting photons and the last photon reached you.  Do you kind of folow me.  At least that would be my understanding of the sequence of events.
#34
(08-13-2020, 09:50 PM)guohua Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 12:59 PM)hutch622 Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 12:26 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(08-13-2020, 12:27 AM)hutch622 Wrote: So your kind of agreeing from the photons perspective its both here and there at the same time , but , its in neither place at the same time . Now that is where my mind starts to unravel just a little . Well a little more some might say . Thanks daughter .

Not exactly. "At the same time" is meaningless with respect to the photon, because from that observation point, time is meaningless. From the viewpoint of the photon, no change of location is registered, because motion is change of location over time, and no time has passed for the photon, therefore it cannot recognize a change of location. It does not register any motion.

The photon has no idea where it is, because location and time mean nothing to it.

Yeah, it kinda does one's head in.

.
First up thanks Sol for fixing the video . To Nintura , yes sometimes questions like these do my head in , but as a longtime stargazer lots of these type of questions do my head in . Dont even mention infinity to me in my finite 3d world .lol. But , well for me at least , i think its good to ponder questions like this . Sadly some people are quite happy as long as their social media doesn't crash .

Here is a link to how to post a youtube video  that @"Sol"  put together for everyone. It should really help.

Also, DAMN, what an  smallawesome  Thread!

This might help get rid of that hat . Couple of adds but worth sitting through . And the video game makes sense if you watch it through , explains a lot .



#35
Finally got the video thing going , Thank you to all that replied , hopefully the video answers some questions although i still don't have my definitive answer . 

@[b]gordi[/b], @Bally002, and @ [b]Sol  [b]Ninurta [b]guohua  [b]NightskyeB4Dawn[/b][/b][/b][/b]
#36
(08-14-2020, 03:05 AM)hutch622 Wrote: Finally got the video thing going , Thank you to all that replied , hopefully the video answers some questions although i still don't have my definitive answer . 

@[b]gordi[/b], @Bally002, and @ [b]Sol  [b]Ninurta [b]guohua  [b]NightskyeB4Dawn[/b][/b][/b][/b]

In these times, you won't get a definite answer mate as it's physically unproven.  We need the tangible evidence.  That won't be forthcoming in our lifetime. 

It's basically all theory;

Not much else I could add otherwise than what has already been explained.

Kind regards,

Bally:)
#37
I think we're all moving a lot faster than we think.

My bathroom scale could be used as evidence.  tinylaughing
'Cause if they catch you in the back seat trying to pick her locks
They're gonna send you back to Mother in a cardboard box
You better run!
#38
(08-14-2020, 10:13 AM)Bally002 Wrote:
(08-14-2020, 03:05 AM)hutch622 Wrote: Finally got the video thing going , Thank you to all that replied , hopefully the video answers some questions although i still don't have my definitive answer . 

@[b]gordi[/b], @Bally002, and @ [b]Sol  [b]Ninurta [b]guohua  [b]NightskyeB4Dawn[/b][/b][/b][/b]

In these times, you won't get a definite answer mate as it's physically unproven.  We need the tangible evidence.  That won't be forthcoming in our lifetime. 

It's basically all theory;

Not much else I could add otherwise than what has already been explained.

Kind regards,

Bally:)
I think time slowing down has been proven to some extent as in the 2nd video . Now if it actually stops i have no idea . As you say a lot is unproven , but , its good to speculate , i think .
#39
(08-15-2020, 08:35 AM)hutch622 Wrote:
(08-14-2020, 10:13 AM)Bally002 Wrote:
(08-14-2020, 03:05 AM)hutch622 Wrote: Finally got the video thing going , Thank you to all that replied , hopefully the video answers some questions although i still don't have my definitive answer . 

@[b]gordi[/b], @Bally002, and @ [b]Sol  [b]Ninurta [b]guohua  [b]NightskyeB4Dawn[/b][/b][/b][/b]

In these times, you won't get a definite answer mate as it's physically unproven.  We need the tangible evidence.  That won't be forthcoming in our lifetime. 

It's basically all theory;

Not much else I could add otherwise than what has already been explained.

Kind regards,

Bally:)
I think time slowing down has been proven to some extent as in the 2nd video . Now if it actually stops i have no idea . As you say a lot is unproven , but , its good to speculate , i think .

New Aussie slang mate "Will be there faster than a flamin' photon fart."

You heard it here first on Rogue.

Bally:)


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)