Daniel Foreman

Ok lets simplify this because frankly I'm not following either of you. In practical terms, if we could (and I know we cant) accelerate a body of mass up to near light speed say 99% then it would take a little over 4.22 years for the mass to arrive at Alpha Centuari from the perspective of the depature point (earth) and the arrival point (alpha). That body of mass however, would age at a slower rate, so from it's internal perspective it would be a matter of weeks or months old rather than a year older? Does this accurately reflect the nature of time dilation?

Hi guys, Another question I'm afraid. Now obviously gravity is one of natures mysteries we don't understand it, and can't magically generate it's effects. What I'm interested in centrifugal force and simulating gravity using that. From what I understand however, the size of the rotating section is quite important. If you have a small spinning ring, then the force at a persons head will be less then the force experienced at their feet. Making hard to move and disorientating. What radius would a ring need to be to provide the feeling on earth gravity while avoiding the sensation of different levels at different heights of your body from the outer ring? At what point would it feel close enough to gravity to behave like gravity so that it is easy to move? Or does the technique never allow easy movement under any circumstance?

So, if my understanding is correct now. It is personal time for the traveler that is affected, that is time as it appears to the traveler. So no more than 4.22 years can pass in the real universe, while at the same time from the travelers point of view it will take approximately 0.074 years (approx 27 days). Is that right?

From what I understand Gravity is a unique force in the universe. The four primary forces are: Gravity Electromagnatisam Small Nuclear Force Large Nuclear Force Gravity is the property of large bodies of mass attracting one another. Reversing this process is pure science fiction.There are claims on the internet of "anti-gravity" devices. But in reality, if you mean to beat gravity the only method of doing this is thrust. There's some cool devices demonstrating that if you wrap copper around a big enough metal circle you can make it fly. Some claim this is anti-gravity. But the reality is it's merely sucking air in from the top and blowing it out the bottom. All reactions required to beat gravity require this basic concept. All forms of gravity beating propulsion require some way of accelerating matter through the rear of the object.

Hi, I may have a complete misunderstanding of this topic, so I apologize in advance if I sound like a complete idiot misunderstanding the subject matter. So here's my question. The idea as I understand it is, that if a space ship moves at, or very near the speed of light for 1 light year then everyone on earth ages at a much faster rate. I found an online calculator at http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993which states that (if I used it correctly) that if you travel for 1 year at the speed of light, then 57.2 years will have passed on earth. This makes no sense to me because to achieve this effect you must be moving a person at the speed of light. We know that to travel 1 light year at the speed of light, from the observers point of view (earth) it takes 1 year. Why, when you add time dilation to the mix does it actually take 57.2 years from earths point of view. Surely you are no longer traveling at the speed of light then, but instead at 1/57th the speed of light? This seems counter intuitive to me which probably means I don't understand the concept properly. From my point of view, if you fly to Alpha Centauri at a distance of 4.22 light years then from earths point of view, you will arrive 4.22 years later. Yet with time dilation in the mix it will take from earths point of view 241.384 years. So therefore, from earths point of view you are not traveling at the speed of light, instead you are traveling much slower than the speed of light. My question as well, is does the same amount of time 241.384 years pass for Alpha Centauri as well? Sorry this all seems counter intuitive to me.

What exactly constitutes an actual scientist? It wouldn't be say... or Or perhaps you really mean, you have a job that involves science. So "real scientists" only count if they are paid? Or perhaps a real scientist to you, is someone with a PhD, or some other kind of degree? So Swansont? What exactl is a "real scientist" to you?

Is that passive aggressive talk for "shut up I'm a mod?" lol

All theoretical science is speculation with little or not real world evidence, so the next time someone discusses time, black holes, gravity, you'd better be sure to move those as well.

TrappedLight it started out as a speculation, evolved into speculation, continued as speculation and finally became, the speculation we know and love today. If you think there are any absolutes in the theoretical, then you'd better have a damned good experiment in mind to prove it.

I don't see why? This isn't the dark ages, I'm allowed to question conventional wisdom if it doesn't make sense to me. In fact it's only through the act of questioning that you come to understand anything. What has more value? Something you repeat out of a book, or from a conversation, or something you think hard about, question and test. If something yields practical results I won't go against it. I wouldn't for example tell you that "no I don't think electrons flow, and that silicon could be the basis of chips." because frankly I'm sitting in front of a computer lol. But when we deal with theoretical issues like the nature of the HIGGS field, how the universe started, if time exists and whether or not swiss cheese could ever be used to produce a kind of elephant (ok maybe not that last one), there are no clear cut answers. These fields benefit from ideas, unless perhaps they are about cheese, or perhaps the cheese question will turn out to be the key to unlocking he secrets of creation. But can it define a universe without the beginning of motion. We accept that the universe is flying apart as a big bunch of galaxies, it would make sense of they were all generated from a single point, and yet at the same time it wouldn't. The problem with that thinking is "where did the mass come from" at which point we have to ask outselves what it outside the universe? Is the universe everything? Is it one of many universes? And how could we possibly find out? The way I see it we nee to: A) Find the edge of the universe, the point where space just stops being space, a place where matter can not go. B) Discover a proto-photon that can exist outside our space, interact with anything else like other universes or something entirely different and then return to this universe in some kind of measurable way. Or alternatively. Identify and directly ask the creator of everything, if in fact it was created by anything other than chaos. Which leads me to another amusing quote from Terry Pratchett "Chaos always wins in the end, because it's better organised."

I rarely bother with the mainstream, it's usually full of people who took someone elses word for it, or at least didn't have a great deal of time to test and verify. The more I look into it, the more I see that the only evidence for it lays in theoretical mathematics without achievable experiments. If someone demonstrates an honest to god working time machine then, hey. I was wrong! But evidence like GPS Time dilation lays, at least i my mind, with the reduction of motion within a moving or state changing mass, rather than time itself actually changing. Honestly until time becomes as observable and testable as space itself I'm not willing to accept it as an honest to god working dimension and shall thus treat it as nothing more than a mathematical tool designed to index prior events and possible future predictions..

And sadly this has lead to the-guy-on-the-street into thinking time actually is a dimension. A great example of science fiction taking more meaning to Joe Average than Science Fact.

Indeed, I see no evidence that suggests time is a dimension of any kind. We can easily test whether or not space is a dimension of course, we are physically built to interact with, and interpret it. Just throw a ball and watch it move through three planes, X, Y and Z. We have a nice neat little co-ordinate system that easily represents 3D space on 2D surfaces (computer screens, paper, etc) and because of the way we are built we can look at 2D surfaces and convert it in our minds into a 3D presentation. Heck, bend light at a different angle towards the left and right eye and we've got a lovely pseudo 3D effect that only makes 33% of us vomit into our pop-corn bucket . So given the ease in which we work with standard spatial dimensions, how can we then raise time to the same lofty position? We can not see it, nor can we interact with it. We can not slow time down, nor can we speed it up. I know it feels different, When standing in a queue minutes crawl by, when swept away with a lover hours pass by like seconds. But this is a human perceptual error, and can easily be refuted by a clock. Make one person stand in a queue for 5 hours, and give another person something they simply love doing for the same period of time, put a clock between them and despite their different opinions the clock itself will be completely ineffective. Next, if we are to define time as a whole dimension, at least in the same sense of space, then we must be able to freely travel up and down it at will. I can move freely within a single spacial dimension. I can not freely move up and down time. I can no more speak to my younger self and give him the lottery numbers, than I can visit my older self to see what I die of, and how I can prevent it. I am controlled by the ever rolling now. My concept of past (memories) is only offset by my lack of future knowledge. My favourite author sums up time with a race called the Trolls. The trolls have the unique idea that they "are walking through time backwards" the reasoning being, that they can see the past, but they have their backs to the future. (Sir Terry Pratchett). I've mentioned this to a few people and they gone "Oh yeah, I can see that." and why not it fits in with what we observe so easily. Who knows there might even be a few people around forming a religion around it as I type. But consider what we are actually "seeing". How many times have your memories been wrong, how many of your childhood memories have been created through the power of suggestion and imagination as much as real life events. Have you ever been told something, not remember it, then come back a week later with a self constructed memory? A suggestive memory? More extreme cases show lack of memory at all. What happens to the "past" if you can't remember it? What happens to the past if two people who lived through the same moment in time remember it differently? If this level of imperfect memory exists, then it's reasonable to conclude that we're not "seeing" the past at all, but we are instead bags of meat who's file keeping abilities are rather less than that of typical PC Hard Drive. And of course we can not "see" the future at all. No one outside an insane asylum (or a rather profitable mystic meg franchise) can claim to directly see the future. I don't know about you guys but if I could I'd be checking out next weeks lottery jackpot. Those that claim they do always put massive limitations to the skill, so that when you ask them what the lottery numbers are, they have an escape route to save face. So the only aspect of time that exists, that is has a physical on-going presence in the universe is the here and now. So if there is no physical divide between, the past, the present, and the future, which is the summary of times purpose. Then Time as it is commonly accepted can not exist. Having said that, within the realm of mathematics, time is a rather accurate way of "documenting events" that is if we record data on anything, be it world history, of the path of a photon through space over a period, then comparing data sets is very useful and very important. Heck we can even claim to see the future, well ok not see. But at least have a damn good guess at it based on previous experience behaviour, of course any such prediction remains theoretical right up until that event happens. But just because we've created a useful conceptual tool. An index system for events if you like, that doesn't mean it has a physical existence within the universe.

I'd love to see where he says that, do you have a source for it?

Information is a human concept. I find it doubtful that the universe is made up of bits. It ain't no computer after all.