Scientists wrong? Traveling faster makes you older, not younger

[Christ slave]

It only seems to make sense to me that if time slows down the faster you move, then time, for you, is moving faster...and this goes along with physics, as well, whereby frozen particles moving slowly last longer (a frozen person can last a long time and then be unthawed) and quicker things (hotter things) burn up.

 

So if time is moving faster for me, I am aging quicker, right? Whereby the earth itself is still aging slower--because its time is moving slower. It's like traveling in a faster car than someone else--they're still going slower, I am going faster. Likewise, if I'm 5 times faster than them, it takes them 5 times as much time to age as me...so, traveling at the speed of light makes you older than something traveling slower, right?

 

I'd like to see my failed logic here if I am wrong...I simply disagree with some of the present beliefs and notions on this matter and I think they are wrong.

[Nevermore]

Time slows down for you the faster you move.

[5614]

It only seems to make sense to me that if time slows down the faster you move, then time, for you, is moving faster[/b']...

How can if something slow down make it become faster?

 

I don't get what you are saying...

[Christ slave]

Well, I figure we're all going through time slower. So, picture the earth traveling through space (time), and if somebody is going faster than the earth, then they are aging faster while the earth itself is still far behind...so, if the earth is slow in catching up, then a person can go zooming ahead to their death before the earth ever gets there.

 

At least that's my interpretation...it's like a car going faster than another car. The slower car is still far behind in its speed (its time/aging), whereby the faster one is experiencing age and whatnot quicker (which is why it corresponds with physics).

[swansont]

"lasting longer" does not mean the time passed more slowly

[Christ slave]

"lasting longer" does not mean the time passed more slowly

If you're quoting my original post, then you deny the theory of relativity? I did not come here to discuss whether or not you believe it, so take it to another thread.

[-Demosthenes-]

You are saying that how fast time goes depends on how fast you travel in relation to the Earth? To the sun? To what?

[Christ slave]

You are saying that how fast time goes depends on how fast you travel in relation to the Earth? To the sun? To what?

Yes.

[swansont]

If you're quoting my original post, then you deny the theory of relativity? I did not come here to discuss whether or not you believe it, so take it to another thread.

 

No, what I'm saying is that the length of time something lasts does not necessarily have to do with relativity.

 

You asked where your logic failed, and I pointed out an instance. No need to get snippy about it.

[john5746]

Well' date=' I figure we're all going through time slower. So, picture the earth traveling through space (time), and if somebody is going faster than the earth, then they are aging faster while the earth itself is still far behind...so, if the earth is slow in catching up, then a person can go zooming ahead to their death before the earth ever gets there.

 

At least that's my interpretation...it's like a car going faster than another car. The slower car is still far behind in its speed (its time/aging), whereby the faster one is experiencing age and whatnot quicker (which is why it corresponds with physics).[/quote']

 

The idea is that time is not constant everywhere. So, if you travel on a light beam for one year in space and come back to earth, time for you has passed in an instant, but for your twin brother, one year has passed. Time is relative Atomic clocks slow down when placed on supersonic aircraft, they don't speed up.

[swansont]

Atomic clocks slow down when placed on supersonic aircraft, they don't speed up.

 

That's not actually strictly true, because the earth is itself in motion (it rotates) and is thus not an inertial frame of reference. In the Hafele-Keating experiment (though these were subsonic aircraft, I believe), the westbound clocks sped up. That's because they were moving slower relative to an inertial observer.

[Christ slave]

The idea is that time is not constant everywhere. So, if you travel on a light beam for one year in space and come back to earth, time for you has passed in an instant, but for your twin brother, one year has passed. Time is relative[/i'] Atomic clocks slow down when placed on supersonic aircraft, they don't speed up.

So, in other words, speed alters the consciousness or perception of the individual? That is much different than time being relative.

[swansont]

So, in other words, speed alters the consciousness or perception of the individual? That is much different than time being relative.

 

Speed alters the measurement. Perception is a separate phenomenon.

[-Demosthenes-]

Yes.

WHAT!?

That's because they were moving slower relative to an inertial observer.

I think you answered my question. So, the faster you're moving in relation to the observer governs how fast/slow time goes for you?? How do you know who is the observer? What if there isn't one, or multiple observers? Am I on the wrong track?

[BenSon]

Original post

It only seems to make sense to me that if time slows down the faster you move, then time, for you, is moving faster...and this goes along with physics, as well, whereby frozen particles moving slowly last longer (a frozen person can last a long time and then be unthawed) and quicker things (hotter things) burn up.

 

So if time is moving faster for me, I am aging quicker, right? Whereby the earth itself is still aging slower--because its time is moving slower. It's like traveling in a faster car than someone else--they're still going slower, I am going faster. Likewise, if I'm 5 times faster than them, it takes them 5 times as much time to age as me...so, traveling at the speed of light makes you older than something traveling slower, right?

 

I'd like to see my failed logic here if I am wrong...I simply disagree with some of the present beliefs and notions on this matter and I think they are wrong

You would like to see your failed logicly here huh?

Lets start with your comparison of special reletivity to a decomposing body. A body in a warm environment will decompose faster then a frozen body not becuase time is moving slower for the frozen body but because the cold environment stops bacteria/fungus ect breaking down the body. Also your (hotter things burn up) is only because hotter particle undergo move collisions and have a greater preportion of particals in activation energy then colder particles, this causes them to react or as you crudely put it "burn up" not all reactions are combustions or decompositions.

 

Secondly your example of the person traveling five times slower then you aghing slower is also logicaly unsound. The speeds reached by your car would not be significant to cause time to move noticeabley slower to you. If you amplified this example to light speed you would still be wrong the person traveling at light speed (99.9c) would have time slow down compared to the observer (in an inertial frame of reference) its called time dilation not contraction keyword dilation

 

Here i believe is the crux of your illogical assumptions "It only seems to make sense to me that if time slows down the faster you move, then time, for you, is moving faster."

You made the initial correct assumption that time would be moving slower for you when you approch light speed, However time running slower means exactly that, time for you is running slower not faster, just because observers are aging quickly in a short amount of time (in your perception) it could appear that time is moving quicker but you are aging slower so time is moving slower as you age slower...

 

Well i tried my best to weed out the illogical bits as you asked any more problems with this one?

 

~Scott

[Christ slave]

Consider: everything is made of light (energy). The slower you are (idle), the thicker/denser things get (which is why an object at rest is not moving). Now, is it simply not moving, or is it "resting" and making things denser around it? Likewise, when people freeze or heat things, they're messing around with the density of things--or, the speeds/times of things. Likewise, the slower you get, the brighter things get...which is why a person moving slower is more likely to take in (perceive) the environment--surely these seemingly miniscule parts of life are actually laws of physics? It's all a part of our perception, the human-species having a shared-inherent perception of things.

 

Also, the faster you move, the less you're allowed to see--and we know this because when we run, go on a mari-go-round, drive in a car, etc., we see how smeared things can look as we zoom past them--in fact, things become dimmer to the one going fast, and brighter to the one going slow.

 

So, also, this mimics/goes right along with what I initially said (reality is denser to an object at rest than an object in motion)...and, what do you know, a beam of light is energy and it can travel through transparent objects.

 

So, in other words, time-travel may in fact simply be an illusion of light--the person going faster so seems to have gone faster because the faster you move to the speed of light, the more the speed of light slows down to you--likewise, measuring the speed of light in contrast to your own motion while watching an object which, by the way, is feeding your obersvation/eye-sight with, yes, you know it, LIGHT, is simply giving the illusion of time-travel...in other words, the object which reflects the light has become dimmer--time itself is the brightness or darkness of light, being, or something (speed, motion, etc.).

 

In fact, what is brightness but a continual buildup of light on a surface? So then, whatever time is, time is perhaps speed or something. The clock itself is not absent from the laws of physics...so, in other words, the laws of physics are also relative. Possible? I think so.

 

So, in other words...everything is one, just like Christ tells us, and the more you approach the speed of light, the more you transcend the laws of physics (like God)...until, eventually, you get to a speed whereby everything seems to be two-inches away. What if space is also relative to speed? That would explain further into why going in a car, running, etc. gets you somewhere quicker than walking.

 

Is it possible to travel into the past? Imagine you're traveling at the speed of light, would not the light itself become darkness? What then becomes light? Whatever is moving faster--so, the faster we move, the more manifest/at-rest things like light become. Imagine going so fast that you're actually the future itself and you're descending on "reality", while those going slower are "ascending".

 

So, things become reversed, MAYBE. I don't know--there has to be two alternatives. To travel into the past one would be rewinding time...in order to rewind time, you have to go faster than the event took place in order to "get in front of it" and then relive it...scientists think they're so smart with understanding time, but by ignoring the spirit and the reality of God, they have tricked their selves by playing around with light and the illusions therein...possibly.

 

So, when they use their mind and imagination to attempt to understand time by using light, they're really just creating illusions, because everything's controled by consciousness. So, the faster we move the dimmer light gets because the less light has built up on us--if you can move fast enough perhaps you can start changing the past and future...but you have to realize this is all hypothetical because we're using our minds and thoughts, which are energy...so we're basically attempting to play God, which in turn you must realize we're simply being imaginative and playing with illusions.

 

In other words, the further you move from an object, the more you look at it from the past--so, the more we move, the more we're moving into the future--whereby our past self is perceived in the distance. Likewise, if there's this distance, then what's that to say? Obviously things become so small that they're microscopic.

 

So, even if you do become light by moving so fast to become the energy, things will be so far away that you'd need a newly formed microscope, telescope, or whatever you want to call it. Basically, there's no end to the realms--when you become light, this present physical universe slows down to the point of darkness until it begins to rewind itself, the further away you get. So, what's this to say? Are we really just distant light-beams to tiny germs and cells, because we've become so fast and so far away that we peer at them from a microscope?

 

Who knows!? All I'm saying is perhaps it's absurd to attempt to judge the laws of physics using light (energy/thoughts/imagination), because you then begin to transcend the laws of physics to the point that they're so far beyond you they're not even applicable anymore--it's like taking a chunk of dirt out from other a pile--the pile simply sinks in because the chunk has been removed, so now the chunk is simply placed on top of the pile.

 

So, did a clock measure time being behind the clock on earth, or did it measure its relation to the speed of light? Did it lose time or light? If everything is made of light, including the speeder light-display on the clock itself which depicts the numbers, then of course the faster somebody moves the more likely the clock is to depict a dimmer, "past" number.

 

So, you also see how this "reality" is simply an illusion--in fact, the time it takes for light to hit your eye, process the information, etc. is even measurable...so, then, "reality" is truly an illusion, and realative to the observer because everything is made out of energy (consciousness), or, light.

 

Okay, you might be confused with some of this...but I felt I'd rant for a bit.

[swansont]

Consider: everything is made of light (energy). The slower you are (idle), the thicker/denser things get (which is why an object at rest is not moving). Now, is it simply not moving, or is it "resting" and making things denser around it? Likewise, when people freeze or heat things, they're messing around with the density of things--or, the speeds/times of things.

 

No, everything is not made of light.

 

And not all things get more dense as they soldify or expand when heated. Water, for example, expands upon freezing.

[Christ slave]

No, everything is not made of light.

You have no proof. Some people believe it is, I am one of them.

And not all things get more dense as they soldify or expand when heated. Water, for example, expands upon freezing.Okay, fair enough.

[BenSon]

Consider: everything is made of light (energy). The slower you are (idle), the thicker/denser things get (which is why an object at rest is not moving). Now, is it simply not moving, or is it "resting" and making things denser around it? Likewise, when people freeze or heat things, they're messing around with the density of things--or, the speeds/times of things.

Buzzz, try picking up a physics textbook

 

Likewise, the slower you get, the brighter things get...which is why a person moving slower is more likely to take in (perceive) the environment--surely these seemingly miniscule parts of life are actually laws of physics? It's all a part of our perception, the human-species having a shared-inherent perception of things. Also, the faster you move, the less you're allowed to see--and we know this because when we run, go on a mari-go-round, drive in a car, etc., we see how smeared things can look as we zoom past them--in fact, things become dimmer to the one going fast, and brighter to the one going slow.

Congratualtions you've realised that the eye can only let so much light in and the brain can only process this so fast. What has that got to do with traveling at the speed of light?

 

So, also, this mimics/goes right along with what I initially said (reality is denser to an object at rest than an object in motion)...and, what do you know, a beam of light is energy and it can travel through transparent objects.

what you originaly said was incorrect...

 

So, in other words, time-travel may in fact simply be an illusion of light--the person going faster so seems to have gone faster because the faster you move to the speed of light, the more the speed of light slows down to you--likewise, measuring the speed of light in contrast to your own motion while watching an object which, by the way, is feeding your obersvation/eye-sight with, yes, you know it, LIGHT, is simply giving the illusion of time-travel...in other words, the object which reflects the light has become dimmer--time itself is the brightness or darkness of light, being, or something (speed, motion, etc.).

Time travel is not an illusion of light, a person would age slower aproching the speed of light how is that a trick of light?

 

In fact, what is brightness but a continual buildup of light on a surface? So then, whatever time is, time is perhaps speed or something. The clock itself is not absent from the laws of physics...so, in other words, the laws of physics are also relative. Possible? I think so.

What is brightness come on pick up a dictionary. What clock? what laws of physics? you'll have to be more specific then that.

 

So, in other words...everything is one, just like Christ tells us, and the more you approach the speed of light, the more you transcend the laws of physics (like God)...until, eventually, you get to a speed whereby everything seems to be two-inches away. What if space is also relative to speed? That would explain further into why going in a car, running, etc. gets you somewhere quicker than walking.

Leave christ out of this one please. Two-inches away?!?! Calaulations please? Why does running get you somewhere faster, well somethings we are just not ment to understand

 

Is it possible to travel into the past? Imagine you're traveling at the speed of light, would not the light itself become darkness? What then becomes light? Whatever is moving faster--so, the faster we move, the more manifest/at-rest things like light become. Imagine going so fast that you're actually the future itself and you're descending on "reality", while those going slower are "ascending".

Whatever, thats bearly coherant...You need to explain your points better instead of mentioning something and just jumping of down the rabbit hole.

 

So, things become reversed, MAYBE. I don't know--there has to be two alternatives. To travel into the past one would be rewinding time...in order to rewind time, you have to go faster than the event took place in order to "get in front of it" and then relive it...scientists think they're so smart with understanding time, but by ignoring the spirit and the reality of God, they have tricked their selves by playing around with light and the illusions therein...possibly

.

Yes lets abandon this pesky science thats just smoke and mirrors and go along with the bible seeing as that has so much solid predictions.

 

So, when they use their mind and imagination to attempt to understand time by using light, they're really just creating illusions, because everything's controled by consciousness. So, the faster we move the dimmer light gets because the less light has built up on us--if you can move fast enough perhaps you can start changing the past and future...but you have to realize this is all hypothetical because we're using our minds and thoughts, which are energy...so we're basically attempting to play God, which in turn you must realize we're simply being imaginative and playing with illusions.

Minds and thought wich are energy? ever heard of matter?

 

In other words, the further you move from an object, the more you look at it from the past--so, the more we move, the more we're moving into the future--whereby our past self is perceived in the distance. Likewise, if there's this distance, then what's that to say? Obviously things become so small that they're microscopic.

You are thinking too much into special reletivity here, incorrectly.

 

So, even if you do become light by moving so fast to become the energy, things will be so far away that you'd need a newly formed microscope, telescope, or whatever you want to call it. Basically, there's no end to the realms--when you become light, this present physical universe slows down to the point of darkness until it begins to rewind itself, the further away you get. So, what's this to say? Are we really just distant light-beams to tiny germs and cells, because we've become so fast and so far away that we peer at them from a microscope?

That is all ridiculous, to make cliam like this at least make a half assed attempt to explain why we would turn into light energy by moving quickly?

 

Who knows!? All I'm saying is perhaps it's absurd to attempt to judge the laws of physics using light (energy/thoughts/imagination), because you then begin to transcend the laws of physics to the point that they're so far beyond you they're not even applicable anymore--it's like taking a chunk of dirt out from other a pile--the pile simply sinks in because the chunk has been removed, so now the chunk is simply placed on top of the pile.

 

So, did a clock measure time being behind the clock on earth, or did it measure its relation to the speed of light? Did it lose time or light? If everything is made of light, including the speeder light-display on the clock itself which depicts the numbers, then of course the faster somebody moves the more likely the clock is to depict a dimmer, "past" number.

 

So, you also see how this "reality" is simply an illusion--in fact, the time it takes for light to hit your eye, process the information, etc. is even measurable...so, then, "reality" is truly an illusion, and realative to the observer because everything is made out of energy (consciousness), or, light.

 

Okay, you might be confused with some of this...but I felt I'd rant for a bit.

Listen I made a serious attempt at deconstructing your original post. I was patient enough to go through and explain where you failed logicly like you asked. You haven't even made an attempt to revlauate your theories to what i corrected for you, instead you have just gone on further with more ideas that your basing on your original incorrect assumptions (which i changed for you). By paying no attention to the information i gave you is insulting this may be the pseudoscience forum but i dont see how you could think anyone would take your questions/ideas seriously if you ignore feedback that dosen't agree with your absurd theories. Ihaven't the patientence to go through this ridiculous post seriously and help you because you ignored my help before and i don't see why you would do any different this time.

 

~Scott

[swansont]

You have no proof. Some people believe it is' date=' I am one of them.

[/quote']

 

Light behaves in certain testable, repeatable ways. Material objects are not comprised of light.

 

Belief doesn't enter into it. Evidence does. This isn't the realm of religion, this is science.

[mmalluck]

Some people believe it is' date=' I am one of them.

[/quote']

 

You can believe what you like, but unlike religious beliefs, scientific beliefs can be directly tested and proved or disproved. Blind beliefs have no place in science, but there is room for strong convictions and speculation. Most scientist form their beliefs on the best edivence they have at hand. If the evidence they need does not exist, they devise an experiment to get it.

 

This being a science form, I suggest you use the scientific method to test your case.

 

You've already got a hypothesis (a belief) that everything is made of light.

 

Next you need to devise an experiment to conclusively test your hypothesis. I'm sure the form would be more than happy to help you here. Run some ideas past us here and we'll help.

 

For instance you may try this: If matter is light, then letting all the light out of an object should reduce it's weight. You could weigh a flash light with new batteries and then use up those batteries and weigh it again. All the light came out, so it should be lighter by what you're saying....

 

You perform your experiment and take the data from it. The data should clearly support or disprove your hypothesis. If it leaves room for doubt one way or the other, the experiment should be revised and preformed again.

 

A well developed experiment should yield the same results every time it is preformed.

[atinymonkey]

[mmalluck]

lol! That's a great pic. I may find use for it later.

[atinymonkey]

[Christ slave]

Light behaves in certain testable' date=' repeatable ways. Material objects are not comprised of light.

 

Belief doesn't enter into it. Evidence does. This isn't the realm of religion, this is science.[/quote']No, you have scientists measuring things in a relative universe...how then does one's evidence or consciousness constitute limiting/deeming the transcendence? It's impossible!