light travel as time travel

[5614]

Err, time does exist, in exactly the same way that the 3 spatial dimensions of which you are consciously aware of exist.

 

If an event happened and the light went away and then you went, overtook the light and turned around you will re-see the event happen, as the light caught back up with you. But if that did happen so many of the laws of physics would be broken anything could happen really.

[mr d]

hello

back for more education

 

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

Originally Posted by mr d

a theory is defined as: a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

your point i take it would be that since i've conducted no repeated testing of a means to travel faster than the speed of light, the phenomena, that invalidates the theory. however if i can gather a wide enough group of like minded individuals who do believe the theory and we use it to predict the results of faster than light travel and what a human being would experience at such speed. that would therefore be a valid theory by definition.

 

reply swansont

The dictionary isn't a valid technical authority. The latter part of the definion is required for the scientific use of the word. Your scenario does not fulfill that, and would not constitute a valid theory until it had been tested and the results matched the predictions.

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

 

technically under the definition of theory if i said the moon is made of cheese and 3/4 of the world's population believe that to be true, and i make predictions off of this satement such as tides are a result of chunks of cheese falling into the ocean from the moon that is by definition a valid theory. currently it is accepted that scientific is required to accompany that theory, but technically it is not required.

 

 

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

Originally Posted by mr d

ps: still waiting for a clear answer as to why my question of 'if' we somehow became 'he's purposing a theory of beyond light speed, where's his experimental resaults, show us the data; what devises where just to attempt this. how dare you challenge the law of light speed.'

perhaps those people studying science, fail to take reading comprehension.

 

reply swansont

 

Challenge away, it happens continually. It's expected to happen continually. But, as I stated before, though, you don't get a free pass. Your idea has to pass through the same gauntlet as any other in science. It's amusing to hear this grousing about sacred helmets and secret handshakes but it sounds like the tantrum of a four-year-old complaining about not getting his way. The protocols of science are not secret and are there for good reason and if you choose not to follow them I don't care, but when you fail to do so, don't complain about being left out.

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

 

i think that reading comprehension thing is in effect here.

 

 

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

reply from swansont

Freedom of speech is not the issue. This is not political in nature, and it is not a matter of expressing an opinion, to which all are entitled. In science, ideas do not all merit equal consideration. If you want to broach a new idea, expect to have it challenged, for it has to go through the same trial-by-fire that all earlier ideas had to in order to be accepted. A theory that either is or can't be falsified is going to be discarded.

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

 

agreeded. but again the faster than light vessel was only a contrivance, a contrivance does not require scientific testing or proof, and was there only to allow to provide for a means to make the circumstances possible for the time difference question. which though 5614 and athiest have been kind enough to answer on, you however have not. and from the way you jumped in only when this bizarre decrying of the scared law of light was touted, tends to lead me to believe you never read the original question.

 

 

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

Originally Posted by mr d

or is it theories and laws only stand till they are replaced by other theories and laws, some more valid than others.

 

reply from 5614

Quite essential this: They stand, assumed correctly, until someone comes a long with quite solid evidence that they are incorrect.

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

 

glad to hear from you 5614, hope the framing of 'post and reply' are more to your liking.

so i take from below that you believe then that there must some amount of challenge to a theory or law needed? still unclear however how you took my original question to be an announced direct challenge to the speed of light?

 

 

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

Originally Posted by mr d

and unless those laws are questioned we will never know.

 

reply from 5614

If a law of physics were incorrect someone would notice. When it was first published, when it underwent experimental proof or when it was applied elsewhere, if there were a fault someone would find it. If no one found a fault it could only be because it were correct. Or maybe with something like Newton's Laws of Motion it is correct under all the circumstances they tested it with, sure it is not correct, but in every way they used it they found no significant difference between the real answer and what they got using Newton's Laws. That was until Einstein came along and people set up an experiment deliberately looking for the difference. Only then could they notice the difference. And because you have to work so hard to notice the error in Newton's Laws they are still taught today as basics, general laws which generally apply.

 

c is the speed of light in a vacuum. That is it, it never changes. When light goes through a medium it does indeed slow down, that does not change c, it changes the speed of the light passing through the medium. As c, the constant, is defined as the speed of light through a vacuum what happens in a medium is irrelevant.

 

Scientists don't like the idea of breaking the speed of light, exceeding or replacing c because it is so fundemental in science. It appears everywhere. c is used in relativity all over the place. It is used in Maxwell's equations. It is used in quantum mechanics... it is used everywhere, theoretically, mathematically and experimentally and in Every case it works, perfectly. Now why the hell would you want to change that? And furthermore we see it works in all of those cases, why would we believe you if you said otherwise?

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

 

don't quite get the 'medium is irrelevant' part, wouldn't that depend more on the experimenting going on, or use to what the actual speed of light was being put? say use of lasers on crystals.

philosophical question if i may. as you say 'scientists don't care for the idea of breaking the speed of light' what would you do if in one of your experiments you actually accelerated a particle\wave to a speed beyond of light, pruely hypothetically of course, not launching a new challenge here. would you release such data.

 

 

oh and lastly for swansont. that quip about sacred helmets was a use of sarcasm in a crude attempt to draw responce as a means of evalution. but you knew that already i'm sure and were simply playing along, as someone with your intelligence would would never fall for so simple a means of emotional manipulation.

 

 

enjoying, learning much and adding data useful in other subjects of interest.

get impression most respondants have more a theoretical leaning that experimental in regards to their dealings in physics.

 

mr d

[5614]

still unclear however how you took my original question to be an announced direct challenge to the speed of light?

You indicated that the speed of light may not be all that is when you said:

"could you use faster than light travel as a crude form of a time machine"

to which I replied that it couldn't because you cannot exceed c.

 

don't quite get the 'medium is irrelevant' part

c is the speed of light in vacuum. If light is going through a medium it is not moving at c. It is moving at less than c.

 

Just to answer a question before it is asked, yes light technically always moves at c. What happens in a medium is that the light exists, travels at c, then gets absorbed, then remitted, travelling at c, then gets absorbed and remitted... all of this absorption and emission takes time and so whilst the photon, whenever it exists, is moving at c, the absorption/emission slows the net speed of the light, and so it seems to move at less than c.

 

what would you do if in one of your experiments you actually accelerated a particle\wave to a speed beyond of light, pruely hypothetically of course, not launching a new challenge here. would you release such data.

If you had solid evidence you would release. People would obviously be doubtful, but if they could replicated your experiment yielding solid evidence then it will be accepted. And I didn't say scientists don't care, I said they don't like it and I explained the very obvious and simple reasoning behind this dislike.

 

The new framing of 'post and reply' is a bit better, cheers.

[swansont]

technically under the definition of theory if i said the moon is made of cheese and 3/4 of the world's population believe that to be true' date=' and i make predictions off of this satement such as tides are a result of chunks of cheese falling into the ocean from the moon that is by definition a valid theory. currently it is accepted that scientific is required to accompany that theory, but technically it is not required.

[/quote']

 

No, not "technically." You aren't using the scientific definition, you are using the common (lay) definition. It is not a scientific theory if there is not a body of evidence to support it.

 

And please learn how to use the quote tags.

[mr d]

hello

 

i believe what the defination (lay) is about. is that theroies can

a: reality of theory based on scientific data

b: reality of theory based on belief

when first published einstein's theory of realitivity have no scientific proof beyond mathmatical formula's, i know you will say that is proof, but this is not quantafied data. he conducted no experiments showing his equations right. therefore the exceptance of his theory was at first a reality of theory based on belief. in other words speed as a constant and the speed of light became an excepted as reality as that scientists believed the theory to be correct solely based on their belief in the correctness of the math presented.

or another way to put it would be as with 5614, i have no scientific proof you exist. i have no documentation, no experimental data, no genetic samples. from were i sit there is no proof you exist beyond my belief that you do. you exist as swansont because you believe you do and others except that belief, hence you are swansont.

by the same means if i and others take to the belief you are not this enity swansont, swansont does not exist. infact using certain means, aided by inparticularly the input by a number of psychiatrists, we could prove in court that you are not swansont and merely and individual suffering a psychotic break with reality. and you can be institutionalised regardless of your protest to the opposite. you are in theory only swansont as long as others believe you to be swansont.

or back to relativity in the equaltion e=mc squared. why c why not s or q. the letter c comes to represent the speed of light only because you and others except that is what it represents. otherwise it is a meaningless arbitray symbol without meaning. its only reality is solely based on belief.

hence if it is believed the moon is made of cheese, it's reality is that it is made of cheese regardless of what it scientifically made.

 

mr d

[swansont]

hello

 

i believe what the defination (lay) is about. is that theroies can

a: reality of theory based on scientific data

b: reality of theory based on belief

when first published einstein's theory of realitivity have no scientific proof beyond mathmatical formula's' date=' i know you will say that is proof, but this is not quantafied data. he conducted no experiments showing his equations right. therefore the exceptance of his theory was at first a reality of theory based on belief. in other words speed as a constant and the speed of light became an excepted as reality as that scientists believed the theory to be correct solely based on their belief in the correctness of the math presented.

[/quote']

 

 

You're equivocating. If you don't use the scientific definition of theory, it's not recognized by science as a theory. You are on a science discussion board, so you need to use the scientific definition. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

 

Einstein's theory of relativity was not called such immediately, he called it "the principle of relativity" in his paper. It was accepted as a valid theory after experimental confirmation (which continues even today)

[Mowgli]

Okay, getting back to the original question about hypothetical faster than light travel and time travel -- I think mr d is right. If you did go faster than light toward a star (or if the star flew toward you faster than light), you would see a time reversal; the star would be getting younger. My answer is based on what is given at http://www.TheUnrealUniverse.com.

 

- Mowgli

[mr d]

hello

 

due to a change in work related research, plus a couple of personal projects to hopefully grift a few quick bucks, shan't be able to spend as much time in discussions on sfn. but i thank you all for your replies and have enjoyed the dialog.

 

with luck shall have the free time in the near future to continue lenghty discussions.

 

thank you again

mr d

 

ps: in my opinion if you ain't working a grift, or playing the odds, or working an angle. why that's just unamerican.

[5614]

Americans

 

Best of luck and I guess I'll see you around for shorter discussions!