Thales Posted August 27, 2004 Posted August 27, 2004 That depends on your definition of close. Time dialtion occurs with all particles that have velocity, its just the faster you go the more profound the effect becomes.
AtomicMX Posted August 28, 2004 Posted August 28, 2004 many time ago i did an animation about the most posible time travelling... you should see it, it may help you to open your mind (and narrow it to the scientifical) http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4334
Thales Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Firstly scientifical is not a word. Secondly your explaination/graphics were based purely on conjecture which people tried very dilligently to explain to you was erroneous.
AtomicMX Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 I did it based on the incomplete einsteins theory. you havent say why am i wrong. Firstly scientifical is not a word I've asked many times to excuse my english. so take it as "scientific way"
123rock Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Particles can, and they're called tachyons, but they're not faster than c, they're faster than light when it is slowed down by an object in front of it, making it slower than c, and slower than 0.99999994% c, so a tachyon makes kinda like a sonic boom, but it emitts something called Cerenkov radiation when it passes the surrounding light.
[Tycho?] Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Particles can, and they're called tachyons, but they're not faster than c, they're faster than light when it is slowed down by an object in front of it, making it slower than c, and slower than 0.99999994% c, so a tachyon makes kinda like a sonic boom, but it emitts something called Cerenkov radiation when it passes the surrounding light. Umm. As far as I know tachyons are particles that move faster than light, but cannot move at c or slower than c. They have also never been detected.
ydoaPs Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 grrrr, tachyons are bad. they mean a theory has problems.
Sayonara Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 grrrr, tachyons are bad. they mean a theory has problems. I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory.
Aeschylus Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory. They're not required, infact I think it's highly, highly unlikely that they exist. Infact they violate some formulations of special relativty.
Sayonara Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Perhaps required is not the best word. I seem to recall MrL saying they were a convenient solution to something.
ydoaPs Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory. which theory are you talking about? tachyons are regarded as things to get rid of.
ydoaPs Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 they just are. read some. an example........the10/11/26 dimensions depending which string theory. they were brought into play to get rid of tachyon frequencies
Sayonara Posted August 29, 2004 Posted August 29, 2004 Any other examples? Preferably ones that don't involve string, but theories that can be tested with repeatable results.
Dave Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 they were brought into play to get rid of tachyon frequencies And what exactly is a "tachyon frequency"?
ydoaPs Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 sayo: i'll let u use google dave: it is the vibration pattern of a string that produces tachyon properties. sorry, i thought it was self explanitory.
Sayonara Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 sayo: i'll let u use google If I search for "tachyon problem" on google, I am just going to get a load of fiction. You however describe tachyons as a problem to be got rid of, so then it follows that you must have specific examples in mind.
Dave Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Hey, let's see what we get when we google for tachyon frequency: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~pound/w-geordi.sample !!! In fact, there are only about 10 links total for the phrase "tachyon frequency". I think someone's been having you on.
ydoaPs Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 i already gave you one and you didn't like it edit: dave, what the hell was that? uh, maybe i used the wrong term. "vibrational pattern" will probably wok better.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Nope, I get crap about tuning musical instruments.
Dave Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 i already gave you one and you didn't like it edit: dave' date=' what the hell was that? uh, maybe i used the wrong term. "vibrational pattern" will probably wok better.[/quote'] I believe it was a list of phrases used (or might be used) on Star Trek. To me, this is a pretty good indication that really there is no such thing as a "tachyon frequency". The fact that there were only 10 results kindof confirms this for me.
Sayonara Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 i already gave you one and you didn't like it A) A sample group of one is no good to anyone, even if you had explained what you were saying. B) String theory is no more in a position to elbow out tachyons than tachyons are in a position to elbow out string theory.
ydoaPs Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 I believe it was a list of phrases used (or might be used) on Star Trek. To me' date=' this is a pretty good indication that really there is no such thing as a "tachyon frequency". The fact that [i']there were only 10 results[/i] kindof confirms this for me. it isn't from star trek. idk, it may have been on it. ask sayo. i was refering to the vibration of the string that causes the properties of the particle. there is a quark pattern, photon pattern, ect.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now