Reaper79

I watched a "How the Universe works" documentary on gravity, Michio Kaku was one of the main speakers, and while watching a CGI clip on matter being attracted to other matter seemingly by the mass content. I had a wild notion... I dismissed it at first but since no one really knows what gravity is I'll throw this in for some discussion and make of it what you will. Rather than gravity "sucking" things down, what if gravity was "Pushing" things down. ... I imagined the 'shell' of the universe generating gravity inwards somehow, and like a flashlight casting a shadow but in all directions, since I assume the universe like every other stellar object out the universe is round, stars, planets, galaxies etc. The more massive an object, the more of a gravitational shadow it casts and objects are pushed into the space where the shadow is cast. This.... at the time seemed like a breakthrough because it would not only help explain why the universe is expanding (excluding BB Theory ) but also why it seems impossible to master. Basically I am taking the current theory of gravity and flipping it on it's head. If the skin or shell of the universe generates gravity inward as it expands outward. It might also have a note or two to play in the Higgs field song, since theorist say somehow somewhere the higgs field just switched on a few milliseconds after the expansion of the universe began. Granted it's probably not a great theory of gravity, but it's another idea that should be explored before dismissing it completely. After all, if at first you don't succeed, try something else.... or as the Great One might say, "madness is the definition of repeating the same actions and expecting different results" Think on it, meditate on it, throw it in the trash.

Time to Re-evaluate my perception of time (pun intended) Seriously though, thanks to all the posters who helped me on this thread, what seemed like mathematical wizardry at first is now a firm grip on relativity and even though it took me a while to get here, I wouldn't of gotten here without these people who take time out of their day to help others. So Thank you all, I consider this topic closed, but feel free to continue the discussion without me.

I take your point, Strange. But I would like an answer to my EDIT "If all three people remain the same age after the experiment, then no time travel or time dilation could of occurred " is this statement true or false? IF A + B + Train Driver, all = same age after the experiment is concluded. Then has anything really happened? PS: I know your going to beat me over the head with the math again *Smiles shyly* but if it's possible to limit your reply in the form of a thought experiment, I will yield to my betters and drop the argument. Thanks for being direct, I value all the comments left on this thread.

Thanks for the video, but that's not quite what I was asking, I'll attempt to lay down a scenario to illustrate where I am getting stuck ** The train is a massive object, and cannot move at 100% c The light reflected from the train can travel at 100% c The observer can measure light at a maximum of 100% c Observer A can watch the train depart at 100% c Observer B can watch the train arrive at 100% c The trains maximum velocity is 50% c (for arguments sake) ** which triplet has aged more when the train has completed its journey, Observer A, Observer B, or the Train driver? Or, When the train comes to a complete stop, do all the triplets remain identical in age? or has one of them dilated time to become younger or older than the other two? EDIT: I do understand the frame of reference concept, but I can't see it making a difference once all is said and done, once the train is stopped and the train driver shakes hands with observer B, my puny little mind can't conceive any extraordinary aging by any of the people involved. why should the speed your traveling make you age faster or slower than anyone else? If all three people remain the same age after the experiment, then no time travel or time dilation could of occurred

A lot of reading since my last post, ** Observer(A) - Train - Train Image/frame - Distance to cover - Observer(B) ** while the train cannot possibly move at c, the trains image or frame can. So the distance between the train and it's frame gradually increases/decreases over distance covered. depending on whether or not the train is moving toward or away from the point of observation. So to the observers witness a trick of the eye, since our eyes / instruments can only measure at a maximum of .999% /c ? an illusion rather than actually dilation of time. have I got this right? or do I need further instruction?

Thanks Janus, You've given me a lot to think about Firstly, thanks for the insights. When I say "at the same time" I am describing Party A and Party B, not the universal "at the same time", I assume that the further the distance between two or more objects the less accurate the "same time" is. Secondly I would be considered quite mad to assume I am correct and the world of scientific leaders are incorrect, but I have a bug in my brain that I can't squash, and no matter how many different ways things are described or explained to me, I can't seem to evict this niggling creature from my mind. I guess the only real way to satisfy my mind would be for someone to time travel back to before I wrote this post and tell me to stop writing it. Time Travel, Time dilation and causal relativity seem to me as barmy as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm, I can't believe what the math says nor can I believe anything has been tested or proven either for or against the theory with satisfactory results. So for me to let go of my preconceived ideas, and adopt a new thought framework to base opinions on, I will need to watch someone bend space so much they can travel into the past to pat themselves on the back as they do so. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not Copernicus. all I'm saying is, the science seems to say one thing is possible, but no one, ever has had a reported successful case. Meanwhile anyone (Including me) who attempts to suggest we may be barking up the wrong tree on this one is told to abandon their beliefs and join the herd on the greener side of the fence. I REALLY want to do that, but I am stuck on this Time Travel thing, which relativity doesn't forbid. I am reminded of a limerick I heard once, There once was a lady named Bright, who could travel much faster than Light. She left one day in a Relative way, and came back the Previous Night. We can throw all the science in the world at that poem, but I would still have to call SullBhit on that. (apologies for the filter evasion) and that's why I can't get my head around this thing. Not because I just don't want to, but because its as ridiculous as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm. I hope, while making my feelings clear, and my sense of logic apparent, I have not offended anyone. If I have, I apologize wholeheartedly. My problem is not that the math..or science can prove that it's possible and can at least potentially become reality at some point, my issue is that we (the human race) allowed ourselves to go down this particular rabbit hole in the first place.

it seems to me, that if the velocity of the plane without outside influences is 1000 km/h, then it stands to reason, with all things considered the velocity of the plane is equal to 1000 km/h +/- Planet Rotation, +/- windspeed. From a N/S perspective the earth is rotating west, which would lower your total land speed, because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. however air speed will not effected since the north pole and the equator are an equal distance apart from any two points, even though the turn of the earth will cause you to travel more distance than following a line of longitude. What angle is the wind striking your plane? are you being pushed forward or pulled back? when you reach the equator and turn westward, the earths rotation will increase your land speed distance, but you will still be traveling at 1000 km/h in relation to your starting position since the turn of the earth has no correlation with bodies not attached to it, but obviously gravity will have an impact on the calculations. If your question is how much does the turn of the earth effect the distance traveled from NPa to EQb, and respectively from EQx to EQy while traveling in an aircraft at 1000 km/h, 1000 / ((NPa + EQb) - (Earth Rotation -/+ wind speed)) 1000 * ((EQx + EQy) + (Earth Rotation -/+ Wind Speed)) I'm not 100% on the math, but I think it should look something like that.... others will clarify

Sorry to dig up a VERY old thread, but I have not been able to resolve this principal in my minds eye, and it took some effort to find this thread, so please don't punish me too much for digging it up again. Delta1212 asked the last question, when exactly is the same moment? for arguments sake, lets sync 2 clockwork watches to 12 noon on planet earth, now lets increase the distance between them by 1 mile, I get in my car and drive to the next town. the watches are still synced. lets travel 1000 miles around the globe. aside from global time zones, the watches are still reading 12 noon at the same time. Send one watch to mars by transporter beam or other instant delivery device, the watches are still synced and read 12 noon at the same time, so the clarification I am looking for is, why is it only when we calculate time, that time distortions occur? a) If my twin went out of town for 2 days and returned, we would still be the same age, but if he leaves at the speed of light or faster suddenly I am much older than he is? the speed of travel does not effect the ageing process.(unless from a great height .... straight down) If he left for 2 days at the speed of light and returned we both would of aged 2 days regardless of the speed traveled.by either of us. b) If there are two atomic clocks, one on Earth, and the other on the ISS (International Space Station) I have heard people say there is a minuscule difference between the clocks even at short range, but GPS satellites are designed to account for latency to provide 1m2 accuracy. So can't it be argued that the minute difference in readings between two atomic clocks is caused by latency, and if the latency was calculated correctly there would be no difference in timings at all. Is this because our observations are limited to the speed at which we can make observations (Light speed) and their is some mathematical wizardry that allows us to predict outside the realm of reality? I know people will say Einstein this and that, but has anyone ever considered The Great One may have goofed just a little, the math is undoubtedly solid, but the theory is still giving me nightmares, how it is possible we live in a universe where we can change the outcome of events before the events even begin......... Please help me lol

Perhaps there is something to that, who knows. I just find it hard to accept that time is governed by light, certainly our observations are, but for something to age faster than it's counterpart just because it's traveling through space faster than its counterpart seems like it shouldn't be possible. But there it is, math doesn't lie. You might think I'm being argumentative here and I suppose I am to an extent, but what if.... I could shine a great big light toward Mars, and then instantly teleport to the surface of Mars, and watch the light reach my eyes while I stand on the surface. have I just time traveled? Just because I travel faster than light instantaneously doesn't mean time is measured any differently from Earth or Mars, because if the observer isn't traveling 186,000 Mps then no dilation can occur, the trip was instant and through "hyperspace" or something. Kind of like throwing a football and then catching it yourself, but without physically moving. (gosh I sound like a lunatic!! ) Thanks Vince

Ok I think I get this now, your explanation is perfect for a layman like myself to understand, although admittedly I am still a bit foggy on the math, I will take your good word for its truth. We (you) know all the math now, and the experiments and testing have proven SR to be a very complicated and wonderful thing, the reason I asked the question to begin with was to try and understand what Einstein visualized in his minds eye the day he had his eureka moment on the train, because at that point in time, none of the testing had been done and no experiments had been performed, in fact iirc he had to wait for a total solar eclipse to get proof positive that space can bend and light doesn't travel in straight lines around massive objects. He truly had a remarkable mind to make that conclusion without any previous information, and I'm a little closer to understand it all. Thanks again for your help and patients. Vince.

Thanks Janus, that did clarify some of my question, but just like in school, I couldn't figure out the math of "when the train leaves the station" questions for love nor money. Just above your post, I made a simplified version of my original question, If you wouldn't mind taking a look and popping in a quick response, and if possible leave out the math, and try to describe what you think you would observe as the train passenger. Thanks.

I'm having a hard time explaining my meaning, the 3 clocks disagreed with each other, but I'm not speaking about mechanical devices in this instance. I will attempt a variation on the original thought experiment and see if I can make my point a little clearer, but I think it will raise more questions than answers, but here we go anyways. Scenario B: I set my watch to the clock tower at the train station.It's 1 pm right now and the train is about to leave. Before I board the train I set a camera focused on the clock tower, and attach a device that will transmit the feed in real time to my cabin on the train.( regardless of time dilation or mechanical difficulties, the feed to the monitor in my cabin will be always accurate.) The train begins to move off, and I look out my window at the clock tower, in just a second, we are traveling at 99% the speed of light, time appears to slow down or stop. The hands on the clock tower have stopped moving, and they are in full view for the duration of the experiment. after 5 minutes, the clock tower still reads 1 pm. The monitor in my cabin which has a live feed to the clock tower reads 1:05 pm, my watch reads 1:05 pm. The train suddenly comes to a complete stop. Do I A = remain 5 minutes in the future or Do I B = Observe the light from the clock tower catch up to me at a very high rate and see with my own eyes the clock tower hands fast forward to 1:05 pm just like my watch and the live feed in my cabin? I guess that's as simple as I can make the question, I will of course accept a "Do I C:" scenario. My imagination is turning tricks, trying to get my head around this concept. PS: Thanks for not treating my like an idiot, I'm not educated in Special Relativity but it does intrigue me. Vince

Thanks for the replies, This Documentary explained it far better than I did it seems, but never mind I'll try to make me case again. I don't know what you mean by "frame", I think your measuring time in two places once at the clock tower and again in the train carriage, I hope I picked that up correctly. My point would be that time can't be divided or separated by distance or speed. Much like the c variable mentioned above as the constant speed of light,I would say on the same note that t=time enjoys the same constant. We can bend it, stretch it, compress it, but when we are finished it returns to its natural state...... or something like that. It's difficult to explain my thoughts I know massive objects can't actually travel at 100% the speed of light, but this started out as a thought experiment and I was curious to know if Einstein ever considered the train suddenly and completely stopping while observing this time dilation. Would time rush up to meet him from the clock tower or would the world be a few minutes older than him. I know the clock on the train would be x minutes ahead on the clock tower back at the station, but as soon as time or the light from the clock caught up with the train, both should be in perfect sync again? should they not?

Regarding the OP I often had similar musings, physicists says, gravity sucks, a nice turn of phrase. But I would lie awake wondering if gravity was pushing or pulling me, if space itself could somehow determine the effect of gravity depending on how massive the object was, and if *space* was pushing us down or if the Earth was pulling us down. It's an interesting enough concept, but I think all the thinking has been done on this topic already.

Would oil separate itself from water in in a bottle while in zero G?

Didn't someone say once, that gravity has a relationship with mass, and mass was governed by the Higgs field? The Higgs has only just been located, iirc 124.6 GeV. in the LHC Geneva. So if you are looking for your hover board from back to the future 2, or similar you'll need to wait a few more years, until we learn if we can manipulate the Higgs field in a manner to counter gravity without the use of already known mechanics. As yet there is no way to make something heavier or lighter without adding or removing mass, or acting upon it with acceleration or zero G. Where ever there is mass, there is gravity, and until someone figures out how to counter the Higgs that will remain true, as for what gravity is? As far as I know its the cumulative mass of atomic structures in any given space at any given time.

I've just watched a documentary about Einstein and his eureka moment on the train speed away from the clock tower, the narrator said time slowed down, and then stopped as the train moved away at the speed of light, because the light from the clock couldn't keep up with the train, and so gave the illusion that time had stopped. But time didn't stop, it kept going in both instances as Einstein moved away for x minutes, x minutes has passed for him, and also the same amount of time had passed at the clock tower and at the same rate. From the observers stand point time appeared to stop, but it was only an optical illusion and not really a blip in time at all. I say this because if I'm on this imagined light speed train, and I can see the hands of the clock are no longer moving, so I think time has stopped. But what if the train came to a sudden and abrupt stop, after I scraped myself off the carriage walls, would I then observe time rushing back toward me? and see the hands of the clock rush forward x minutes to the actual time again? What If I was moving toward the clock tower at light speed, the clock hands would move once per second, as I'm speeding toward the light that is creating time, I would only observe it in real time, no matter how fast I was going, because the clocks hands tick once per second. So the idea of moving away from the earth for 1 year at light speed, and returning without stopping in another year, by the same principal as above, only two years would have passed for the people of Earth, and the rocket man, the observer would get quite a light show, but that's all, and time would right itself as soon as it was observable again. So>? What the hell.... and stuff... are people talking about when it comes to time travel via light speed. Thanks PS: I think my argument is, time is a measurement of distance, to go from a to b takes x time, and that is not something we can manipulate. unless you have a wormhole generator nearby.... but that's a different topic.

Yes, your right of course, entanglement is much more complicated that watching fish swim about on monitors. Sorry about the poor analogy... I have no scientific background, I just watch 100's of hours of documentaries, talks from the world science fairs and anything else I can get my hands on. If anything I'm an enthusiastic observer. Sometimes too enthusiastic (smiley face).

Remember the plasma ball? the globe with funky lights spewing everywhere, and when you touch the glass it would come to your finger and follow it until you let go. That is sort of what's happening with the double slit experiment, the particle exists as a "blob" of energy which passes through both slits, just like a ghost and creates and interference pattern. But when you observe / interact with the "Blob" of energy it collapses to a single point ( or mostly a single point ) just like when you touch the glass on a plasma ball, and no interference patten can be seen. All this talk of time travelling particles and the particles being "Aware" is just nonsense to me, the answer is obvious.... just don't ask me to do the math on that one

I've been thinking about causality for... a couple of minutes now, and generally people believe you must have cause to create an effect, but is this always the case? Here's what I'm thinking: B leads to C,which leads to A, which leads to B, circular. B: Mankind invents time travel, and decides to witness the "Big Bang", but he wants front row seats so he gets there a little early, too early and without a universe to contain him and his time-ship it explodes instantly in a Big Bang. C The Universe is created, and time and space evolve enough to allow the creation of life, earth and human beings. A A man sits his lab and says "I've done it! I've actually created a time machine" His team gather around him and ask, "Where.... when should we go first?" Are there any examples of processes.... not unlike this in the know world? B->C->A->B Oh and please don't critic my little fiction... I worked hard on that.

It looks like this has been asked and answered, but I've heard of a different way understanding this, without a Phd The basics of it are, if you have 2 particles which are quantum entangled, one will always have a (positive charge) and the other cannot, no matter the distance involved if one is altered so too is its pair. But this leaves the question "how is that even possible?" Imagine you own a fish tank, and in it you keep a single tropical fish, the fish tank is traditional in dimensions, rectangular 2 foot x 4 foot. Now you rig up two cameras, one on the wide side, and one on the narrow side, each camera feeds to a separate monitor. Place each of the monitors side by side and watch the fish swimming about. No matter it does on monitor 1, it does the exact opposite on monitor 2. Right away it doesn't sound very reasonable to compare fish on monitor screen to accomplished science, but it did help me get a fingernail on what was actually happening.

I think we can all agree that on a scientific forum, one would expect an argument followed by evidence to support that argument, and any opposer to that argument to state their case and present facts to back up their claims, thus the process of discussion and elimination leads us too a point where discussion and no further facts to be presented leaves us to conclude that for the moment, this is the best theory we have on a subject until new evidence can be presented. I don't know.... or care which came first, the chicken or the egg, consciousness or matter, I would expect a reasonable argument for both in relative terms, and when speaking about consciousness, one will obviously have to consider spirituality and religions on varying scales and depths, but considering we cannot, at this time, prove or disprove the existence of God, consciousness without matter, or even which facts should be considered facts and which should be considered opinion or fantasy. It is my opinion"" this discussion has gone "off-topic" and with nothing other than barbs and quick wit to share or contribute to this line of thought, I would like to suggest a return to the original topic, and explore what exactly happens to a particle after it stops being observed, and to be clear we are speaking about the duel slit experiment, where is seems to of been proven that a particle acts differently depending on whether or not it is being observed. Which in my opinion is weird, wonderful and deserving of further discussion. So may we please return to grown up land, and stop trading jabs like children, of course you may continue as you wish, but if your posts do not concern the duel slit experiment, or have something to do with who said what and where and why, I would politely ask you create your own threads, and attempt to keep this one, and others like it on topic and making ground. Thanks for reading, and have a nice day.

First time poster, I don't have a scientific background but I understand enough of the theory to be curious about some of the assumptions made in the dual hole experiment. If you will allow my layman's brain to try and present them to you without revealing too much of my ignorance. I have some ideas and I would like a sounding board if that would be OK. If not please delete // move this post. While watching an animated illustration of the dual slit experiment, and watching as the two narrow lines became an interference pattern, the narrator assumed the particles acted like waves, and could prove it to some extent with another illustration. This is the accepted scientific model and I'm not about to suggest I know better than any expert in the field. But I do have some questions, and I hope someone can answer them in layman's terms for me. 1st : When I watched the particle acting like a wave, something occurred to me, while the front of the pattern did resemble a wave, it also resembled bubbles... excuse me I don't know how else to describe it.... bubbles which intersected with each other. If what I imagine as bubbles travelling straight on a path toward a detector were the particles hit, until something acted on, like say a beam of light from a measuring device, and the act of measuring it caused it to coalesce (become) a particle. My thought was what if these bubbles acted somehow like a plasma ball, you know the new age toy with plasma that reaches out to touch the point on the glass that your touching, These particles live mainly in a loose formation, existing in it's entire radius all the time, and only become solid particles when they are acted upon // measured. Before dismissing my question, please try to visualize the exchange of energies on a 3D scale, because to my mind the interference pattern would / should only appear at the same height as the particle emitter and not as vertical lines, but as horizontal dashes across the detector. 2nd attempting to build on that..flawed it may be... looking at the quantum leap of the electron on it's orbit around its parent nucleus, I visualize the same thing, the nucleus housing an electron field which is static until acted upon or measured and like the plasma ball, once measured, commits to one point for the period of time it is being measured and then returns to its former state. I realize there are specific frequencies or distances // orbits the electron will take on it's quantum leap, which I am still not clear on, I assume it may be a fraction or a degree of fractions of it's radius in relation to its nucleus. I will just repeat myself, now before the onslaught begins, the only qualifications I hold are that of an interested observer, no degrees, no phd's, just a curious mind, but from what I can gather from various documentaries, I just want to put this idea forward to see if it can rule out time travelling particles and uncertainty. If there is any merit to this at all... it will also throw out the holographic universe.. wouldn't that be fun.. Thanks for feedback. PS: I can't find any video which shows the dual slit experiment showing two solid lines (observed) suddenly creating an interference pattern, besides cartoons and illustrations, I would very much like to see the actual experiment being performed in full, lots of videos showing the interference pattern, but none showing the particles being observed.