TriggerGrinn

I will require you show work to convince me otherwise. Now for relativistic velocities we reach a debate. There are two conceptions. 1) That velocity infact causes time dilation 2) That it is only acceleration forces that can create permanent time dilation. If we prefer to continue we will have to use mathmatic and information sources to make a constructive continuation of this thread. [math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\sqrt {1-\frac {v^2}{c^2}}}[/math] All square roots produce two products, this is identical to [math]\gamma = \frac {1}{\left (1- \frac {v^2}{c^2}\right )^{\,1/2}}[/math] When you generate two products you can not discard one as having no purpose. As such these two seperate quantities of the same system are to be considered as having different qualities. I am not confident to say which quality, such as + or -, the product should be considered to contain, or if each frame of the two frame system must be considered to contain each of their own half of the product. A clock can only be observed to run slow, in acceleration observations. Since such experiements can really only be illustrated in a thought experiment, regardless of the medium the experiment is portrayed (paper, animation, in your mind) it must not break true obserable effects that will occur in reality. So, as one observes a fast moving object, traveling perpendicular, we must accept that when we take that 'snap shot' of the motion, we observe, an image of the past, determined by the distance the source is (rule1) We observe all frequency pulses as spacially seperated points. That is, like a photon bouncing between mirrors. As it travereses in the direction of motion it covers a distance relative to the ships velocity, and the speed of light. As it travles in the opposing direction of the ship, it must be allowed in logic to move C + C in that direction opposing the ships direction. Thus the cycle of its frequency, will be extremely longly expaned in the direction of travel and extremely shortened in the direction opposed to travel. Equally oppositely so. In effect if we marked each point of each frequency on a 2d like graph we would arrive at points drawn in this manner. For the bouncing photon. Ship motion ---------------------------------------------------------> photon: |-----o---->|(1) |<-o-|(2) |-----o---->|(3) |<-o-|(4) In this sense you will always recieve the left traveling signal signifcantly close behind the right traveling signal. And the left traveling signal will be followed by a long period of time of the right traveling signal. Light does not contain drift velocity from its source. When it is released it travels in a strait line from its origin. A photon moving in this sort of path: on ship to observer Will not occur, and it is impossible for one to make this claim. This is well observed in experimental appartus, such as (I will have to find a source later) the rotating laser square. By rotating the square light traveling in one direction is altered equally and oppositely to light that travels in the other direction and this shift produces an acurate and observable fringe shift. By no means can you imagine to see the photon follow such a course, for it would in your observation miss the mirror all together. This confusioning possibility would claim that what occurs in one frame is not what occurs in another frame. In the ship the light may observe to bounce off the mirrors, but to the observer the photon would be observed to be left in the dust. Again we have a phantom type mispositioning effect. Which is to state, that you Must exclude all predictable occurances on such a ship, and accept you may only observe what you can observe, and that shall be photons streaming in your direction from the ship. The photon that bounces between the mirrors is uncertain for you to predict its location and velocity.

I do not agree time is linear in the physics of the universe. There is states of change. Births and deaths in the micro 'quantum' if you will world. Each death is gone, and each birth is the present. Our memory capability can organize this in a linear fashion, but in relation to the universe it happens in a repeditive cycle, billions of times per second, far to fast to notice without precise measuring equipment. And the direction of these changes goes in all directions 9(emr), for an average null result in linear direction.

Thank you for cleaning up my wording. It is true the 'observation' of clocks in different inertial frames will not stay in sync. For relatively slow moving frames A clock reducing distance will speed up, and a clock increasing distance will slow down, this is not the 'time' this is the doppler effect of intervals and frequency. The only moment of sync is a situation with a moment of perpedicular motion. That observation will allow for zero change in distance and an observation of considerable rest. However the actual rate of time in sync, the rate of which things age in each frame. When one makes the proper calculations of velocity, and doppler effect, you arrive at a calculation of syncronized 'time'. Where time is a comman misinterpratation for an observation of a clock. However it is the processes of acceleration that the time, or rate of aging time, can be affected.

These types of posts: I wasnt aware anyone knew everything. It is oft people make foolish mistakes when they walk in unfamiliar territorry. It is poor character imo to mach a person(s) who is trying to understand (even though he claims to already understand, which yes is a mistake we all to often make) and not only that it sets a really ugly cloud on the forum enviroment. Anyway, I really just didnt understand his questions all that well.

DZane, Good to work on ideas, its good mind excerise. However, that is not a theory it is an idea. Show how it is proveable and it can become a theory. As an idea, I am going to have to tell you I think its flawed when you consider the strange nature of our universe. Although, untill someone tries flying near the speed of light relative to their surroundings, I will never say never

Let us assume you can place yourself inside a singularity. (if you are not familiar with this concept, imagine yourself in a place with no time or space). How is, a)space and b) time, confirmable? measurable? detecable? concievable? To remove oneself from the singularity you must seperate that singularity without seperating it. You must devide it while keeping it whole. The process to do this in our mind is to take the singularity, and apply a mirror inside it, and consider each image a real image. The mirroed image and the non mirroed image. remove the mirror, and leave behind the two objects. When these two objects unite, they become a seperate and unified singularity, that is, its own seperate from the universe, singular unit of space-time. We may call this light, made of both an (negatron) electron and an positron. When the two objects seperate, they create the function of singularity into the observation of space and time. However these two objects are not seperate, and they must be whole, they must be entangled. So you ask, does the universe have a limit? We must consider that 1) there are worlds of units of singularity (light), that yet are a part of the same world that we can not observe and 2)there are worlds of mirrored singularity limited to there very range of which they can push outwards, or "suck" singularity into what we call the observable universe. Thus how big is the universe? It is as big as any set of mirrored singularity. Is there an edge? No. The edge you think is there is never reachable, as you attempt to reach it, it changes with time, it changes position. To observe light is to observe a collapse of unit of mirrored singularity, (photon), and of which creates a buldge of mirroed singularity in the atoms of the frame of observation, "sucking" or "filling" like a little ballon with mirrored singularity delivered by the photon. A photon can be passed through a stencil of a incredibly complex image, and in one photon and contain that information in its own singular unit of space and time, containing as much as what we say is a 1mb of data for a typical electron operated computer. The summerized answer: The universe is infinite by all means in relation to our restrictions of observing it, because it is only as big as the photon you observe it to be. That is, as someone said, the start of it is the end of it, and the end of it is only the start of it.

Understanding Relativity No time change. Position and age change. At the exact moment of perpendicular observation, The actual material of the train will be a given distance (d) futher along its path that one plainly observes, and that is considerably close to the same distance the light has to travel from the train, to the observer. Note: When the train is very near the speed of light. This is to say: call [X] the observer making an observation (at rest) call this the train observer see's: [To] call this the train where the material is: [Tm] and these lines ----- will represent light paths. [To]---------[Tm] | | | | [X] So as we try to concieve that we can observe the light traveling through the train we are restricted by all means to do such a thing. Secondly, we have to consider the fact that any accelerating object we observe (that is the light that reaches the observers frame) will have its position altered, and time altered. Thirdly, when we have a frame that is inertial, and this means is unchanging in velocity, it is not experiencing any kind of acceleration force, the clocks that are in both frames will observe to tick in sync regardless of which frame one chooses to observe from. This because of a very simple explaination. Consider the sun, and exclude all vaiables of orbit. We are using Stationary moments We have 100% accuracy in predicting is position right now, because it is interial, there are no accelerations. However, if the sun accelerates, and that is to say it moves or changes velocity (assuming it could), it will take us 8mins to realise this has happened. Assuming we knew the sun moved before we could physically observe it on earth, we say, during those 8mins a law of physics restricted observer (one who does not know the suns motion before it happens) will have No possibility of predicting its position accurately. Now back to our super fast train. At a constant acceleration rate. As the train accelerates towards the speed of light it will continue and continue to move futher and futher beyond the position we observe it to be. It is not inertial. It is accelerating. We will have very poor ability to use the light we see for the tool to measure its position. We will need to calculate the ever changing error of position, to predict where it is. Then let us say by using only the light we observe to claim where the train is located, we observe it reaches its final and maximum velocity of 99% the speed of light, and we plainly see it is about 1 light day away from our position of observation, when it reaches its final velocity. However at this point just before the train is observed to reach its inertial velocity the train is infact much further along its path than the light displays it to be. It is at a place of which we can not physically see it. Now that the train is inertial and moving nearly the speed of light the light coming from the train as it comes directly at us is very close to the train itself, and there is such a great distance between each 'pulse' or wave front that the object infact becomes a very long streak, or more accurately a longer observable streak. Although, we can use in a thought experiment (to make it visible) that when we observe it reach its maximum velocity, we can calculate its actual position and get a clear image in our minds where it is. At this point it will be 1light day - 99% the speed of light light day of distance away from us. Considering the train passes us at a distance of about 10 light minutes away, the train will pass us a little less than 10mins (since its going 99% light)before we actually visualise it to do so. But while it does pass us at an inertial rate, the time is the same for each observer in each frame and it is only during he acclerations is there an observed 'time' dilation. So there will be no length contraction of the actual object, there will be instead, a huge change of literal position, and a long streak of uncertainty of where the actual object is, depending on how accurate of an instrument you use to detect it. Although by calculating it and using a though experiment, you can invision a source point of where it looks to be and a real point of where it is but you can not physically detect it in reality. Why is this true? Consider an object as far away as the moon suddenly raced towards us instantly at 99% the speed of light. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to detect it by any means before it hit you. However in a thought experiment you can physically slow it down in your mind and see that the old position and the new positions are sepearted by almost no distance. As for the observer on such a fast object, that much of a rapid acceleration would physically stop all the atoms (which are more accuraly, uncertain quantum fluctuations) from moving and the rate at which anything ages would almost be null, of couse exlcluding the fact it would turn into molten plasma from the harsh accleration. But in our mind, since we make it so it does not melt we just have to accept that the "atoms" ineractions slowed down and aged slower. Gravity is a collection of atomic material that opperate slower relative to say: a less dense and massive volume of atomic material. The same as acceleration causes time dialtion. Gravity IS entwined with time dilation. Consequently though, the flow of time is always the same in all frames of reference. Suggestive that each unit of matter mass/energy is its own unit of space time, and only when light travels via particle/wave duality from one frame to another, is there any kind of observable difference in "time" in the light (like an observed clock), however, if you flew to one or the other of the two locaitons a second would be a still measure out as a second relative to that observer (clunky mechinical clocks would remain in more or less sync, however atomic clocks could change) The only consideration for a space-time is because light reports differences, depening on source it came from. In this way You can consider light as a traveling wave through space, where space remains constant, that is, positions of objects stay as they are or are going, like an inverse singularity, and the time is meerly an observation in the light changing frames, or atomic velocity differences. All frames are their own universe in other words.

wiki has some info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapist

A string, a particle, a whatever, I do not see how anything can be fundamental in the sense that it is capable to support its own existence. As we understand time is "the now factor" is a zero dimensional point of experience. I aint no pro but I do not see much of these (and more) very basic concepts implemented into fundamental physics theory... ie: -Nothing can be an event without motion. -Every event must be at minmum two seperate frames of reference. -Every two minimum frames that form an event experience it equally and oppositely. -All frames are manifested out of the field of energy that is and has always been connected to each and every frame of mass. (ie, can shine a laser into space, but there was already a frequency long ahead of the trailing laser)

No offense, but I just mean to mention the use of the word 'we' is really kind of arrogent and the like considering your comfy warm computer chair and bullet free enviroment. General public simply does not measure up to a soldier in respect certain aspects. I side with the fact it sucks but by no means do I know what the real story is.. I know there is less crazed suicide bombers... but essentially no one really wins in war, it just comes to a hault when theirs no 'fuel' left.. in the fueds..

Light carries momentum as I understand...Yes, however, its energy is distributed to the atoms themselves before traveling through the whole body, thus the individual atomic material recieve the brunt of the force, which inturn takes that force of light ane makes heat. So yes you can push with light but the energy will be used more to melt objects than to create a push in high end applications like lifting cars.. but what I have posted should be taken as sections to research, not as factual information... I agree I could be wrong, but my aim was more to stear you in a direction than to give you a direct answer.

I think our survival is at stake.. couldnt we agree on this? Taking action sooner than later is better... the frog and boiling water story says it all too well..

I wonder too what ratio between photon momentum and a given mass velocity.. I don't want to begin answering this, but maybe these equations would be related.. [math]p=\frac{h\nu}{c}=h\lambda[/math]

This global warming may infact induce an ice age by putting a stop to the ocean currents. This article does a brief description on the speculation. http://www.fieldwerks.com/dryice.htm

Well, its all great and all, but if everyone took in this kind of pure science view, and considered themselves a figment of their imagination, a bunch of atoms, I think society would turn out pretty f'd up. Try telling a kid one day when they are old enough to understand, everything about you is just an illusion, one day you'll be dead, and it'll all be over. Know what I mean? I'd like to think I can argue with the two sides, Dawkins (science side) and religious, theist side, and show they are both slightly wrong. The answer I think lies in having both and one day I'll be taking the time to put it together for a book possibly and for discussion. Who knows if its right, its just what I see... Funny though, all generations have been false, that should include this one.

yah understandable.. I'd really need to support this more clearly, I wouldnt just take someones philisophical thoughts as fact either.

Float plains take off in water.. a conveyor belt simply would be a version of this situation. Forget the ground, the plane will fly when there is significant velocity between the air and the wings.

No I think we misunderstand eachother. I am not saying either or is the cause. Allow me to cut and paste a previous post of mine to save some time: ~~~~I think when you break it down to the absolute basics between the two sides of subconscious and conscious being the ruler, we get this decision, or these choices: 1) In terms of the subconscious ruling the human, the part of the mind that goes unoticed to the conscious self-ware part (me, us); In this we have the universe being a fundamental thing, a real thing, and our consciousness and everything attributed to it is considered an illusion that infact is ruled and controlled by long built of mechanisms in the brain via evolution. In that when we die, its forever gone like a long sleep. 2) In terms of the conscious mind, the self aware self, ruling the human body / having control over reality, we tend to consider the only thing that is truly real is the mind, the awareness, the conscious. And the universe and everything material in it, both mass, and energy, is a grand illusion. So in each case we determin one factor as reality, and the other as illusionary. We do so equally and oppositely, but which one do we decide? For each reality has something attributed to it that apparently isnt real, or doesnt exist. This developes a bit of a logical conundrum, in that, how can something that is an illusion in a reality system, (ie; the illusion of a mind in a ever lasting real universe) exist if it is considered not to exist? Where if you decide the universe is the only thing real and you accept yourself as aware, you've just claimed the universe has the ability to create things that a) dont exist b) illusions and c) follows a design. And vice versa, If you think that it is only your mind that is real and the whole human experience and the universe itself is a grand illusion for the entertainment of the conciousness, than you have claimed the consciousness has the amazing ability to act as the medium in which reality plays through, in other words, creates amazing virtual experiences. Now to get to summing this up, after alot of considerations on this type of subject, mathamatically, logically, and experimentally I conclude that It is not about making a choice between the two. Each option of what is 'fundamnetally real' contains the same flaw that something illusionary is happening along with it. Because of this, I tend to conclude that you can not have one with out the other. You can not have a universe without a consciousness. You can not have an awareness without some kind of universe. This can be shown in many forms. A value of 1 simply can not exist. You always need a set, or pair of 1's in order to have reality. Its a 1:1 relationship. The universe is a singular system, and the consciousnes is a singular phenomina. These two interact to self proclaim one another. In the same way gravity does not exist unless there is a minimum of two objects to attract eachother. Motion can not exist without a reference point to compare with. There must always be a minimum of two things, an equal opposite counterpart relationship in order to have something happen, in complete respect to this reality.

This might sound crazy, but maybe crazy enough to work. I think that if we played some kind of a tactical game with the people in the area we would cause a big enough distraction to possible slow or stop the fighting. For example, create a gimic that mocks the coming of a messiah, or drop some fabricated holy item in the desert where it could be found, with a message on it from god. If you can't think like the enemy or get on their level you can not understand them. Other tactics would be of building Giant bullet proof glass rooms and drop them off in populated areas of the city, where, a group of 'masked of course' people could communicate understanding and teachings. I theorize all problems can be broken down into simple basic truths. If you find these basic truths, you can understand why the mass carade -that billows out of the basic issue- is occuring. Either that or we can continue killing and ignorance for another thousand years. Problems are an inivation to find a new and higher way of thinking!

Let me shorten my reply. That doesnt mean nature won't fry our asses or our children's. lol

Let me explain why I showed the black picture. The universe is the same thing as you are when you are unconcious. Only when a conscious life form that can see is awake, is there such thing as a universe. Only then is there perception of shape, color, distance, size, and time. The universe is an unconcious entity. The same way 100 years can go by in 0.00001 seconds if you were unconscious that long, the universe can end the same time it started if life never existed to validate it. I think that the universe exists because we create it with a consciousness, and our consciousness exists because the universe creates it. Its a relationship as all things are that creates an event, and they depend on eachother in order to be. Thus when you cross out life from the equation the universe is at any point at any time, without any attributes related to a consciousness.

Its a tough case to answer, I agree. But even if it was a natural cycle we have an issue! When you see the data of tempeatures in certain areas that have raised so high as to kill people and or render them imobile.. its certaintly not good. We have this argument at hand of whether we are contributing or not... Here's the the facts. -We pollute too much we know that. -whether natural or not the tempeatures are rising and creating unlivable conditions in many areas -with the whole global warming issue asside, we know we should reduce emissions -we know that if we do not change our ways, we are screwing this place over. I can't not see why or how people get hung up on the issue if its part natural or part man made. Those who say there have been lots of natural changes on earth, they are absolutely right! But you know, there has also been alot of mass extinctions on earth from those natural changes. My question is, who cares who is right, do you wanna go extinct? or create un-needed extinction? or create a shit enviroment for our children? Maybe we have to fight nature? Maybe it isnt us creating it.. It might be better to figure out how to lower the tempeature in comparison to allow it to raise.

^ LOL! good one. Whatever helps you sleep at night, right? No seriously, sleeps important. I just mean how'd you test and measure. Let the truth be told. This is what the universe looks like.

What is it you are refering to with "FLT"

Infact isnt and hasnt all matter been absorbing and emmitting light for as long as the universe has been? What I am saying is, the universe is connected like a web and has always been connected. Even at extremely cold tempeatures there's still radiation right? low level EMR. Black body they call it? It can be easy to think that before you turn a flash light on(as an example), it isnt emmitting energy, but infact it always has, for as long as those 'atom's have existed.