New topic
PrintableImago said: NDRU said: I don't believe that. I believe it's only the perception of time, since black holes have such strong gravity that even light can't escape. So light would move backward, and you'd see the past, but you wouldn't literally be in the past. Of course it's moot, as the black hole would tear you to pieces long before you got near it. Maybe you could see yourself being torn to pieces before it happens! But time is part of the continuum. It actually slows as relative to speed and mass, or speeds up depending on the e=mc2 dealy right? So super massive objects containing enough mass to distort the other parts of the equation should be able to reverse that no? I think relativity allows for this? It just doesn't allow for us as humans to actually survive such a undertaking, right? I'm really don't know cause I'm not smart. But I believe time itself is part of the equation and thus relativity allows for this behavior. We think of it as unchanging and linear--like to the beat of a metronom. General Relativity states that it isn't at all. well, I believe that relativity (and of course I only have a tiny understanding, if any  ) is in how it's perceived.
The example they use is a gunshot on a speeding train. If you're standing on the ground behind the train, you'll hear the gunshot after the guy who fires the gun, so the moment it happens is "relative" based on the speed at which sound travels. Light works the same, it's just much faster, obviously. That's why I believe time itself isn't affected, just the perception of it. Of course, maybe that example was created by someone who doesn't understand Einstein, in which case I'm suing PBS for mis-edumacating me  My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Well, we can already see backwards in time.
Whenever we look at distant stars at night, we're looking into the past. The speed of the light from the stars travels at a fixed rate (186K miles/second), so we're seeing those stars as they were when that light left them. It's possible that a start that we're looking at is no longer there, but we don't know it yet because we're seeing the star as it was in the past, when the light left it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
FunkMistress said: This discussion is either way too smart for me, or way too dumb for me.
  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nikola Tesla believed it was possible... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
is the pope mormon? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anxiety said: Anxiety said: i don't know what marie callender is, but if i were in a suicide cult and we were celebrating our last meal, i would insist on white castle. i can't leave this mortal coil without knowing the pleasure of white castle clam strips! you know, we have messed up discussions on this site.  Oh well, we've probably be some to the punch.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MsLegs said: Anxiety said: you know, we have messed up discussions on this site. Oh well, we've probably be some to the punch. White Castle has clam strips? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: Imago said: But time is part of the continuum. It actually slows as relative to speed and mass, or speeds up depending on the e=mc2 dealy right? So super massive objects containing enough mass to distort the other parts of the equation should be able to reverse that no? I think relativity allows for this? It just doesn't allow for us as humans to actually survive such a undertaking, right? I'm really don't know cause I'm not smart. But I believe time itself is part of the equation and thus relativity allows for this behavior. We think of it as unchanging and linear--like to the beat of a metronom. General Relativity states that it isn't at all. well, I believe that relativity (and of course I only have a tiny understanding, if any ) is in how it's perceived.
The example they use is a gunshot on a speeding train. If you're standing on the ground behind the train, you'll hear the gunshot after the guy who fires the gun, so the moment it happens is "relative" based on the speed at which sound travels. Light works the same, it's just much faster, obviously. That's why I believe time itself isn't affected, just the perception of it. Of course, maybe that example was created by someone who doesn't understand Einstein, in which case I'm suing PBS for mis-edumacating me ah. I see. Actually time itself is changed, relative to where each person is. That is why if you were to get on a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and you went from Alpha Centaur and back in roughly 10 years, several hundred would have passed on earth and you'd return to a vastly different world. The Navy conducted a test to see if Einstein's test were true, I believe, and the had two synched atoic clocks --one set on a 747 cross atlantic and back, and another stable on the ground. The clock on the ground was a hundred thousands of a second or some craziness like that off from the clock on the 747 when the trip was over--by the exact amount the formula was predicted to offset it by. Time warps around mass and motion. Not sure why but it does. Relativity applies to time itself. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Imago said: NDRU said: well, I believe that relativity (and of course I only have a tiny understanding, if any ) is in how it's perceived.
The example they use is a gunshot on a speeding train. If you're standing on the ground behind the train, you'll hear the gunshot after the guy who fires the gun, so the moment it happens is "relative" based on the speed at which sound travels. Light works the same, it's just much faster, obviously. That's why I believe time itself isn't affected, just the perception of it. Of course, maybe that example was created by someone who doesn't understand Einstein, in which case I'm suing PBS for mis-edumacating me ah. I see. Actually time itself is changed, relative to where each person is. That is why if you were to get on a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and you went from Alpha Centaur and back in roughly 10 years, several hundred would have passed on earth and you'd return to a vastly different world. The Navy conducted a test to see if Einstein's test were true, I believe, and the had two synched atoic clocks --one set on a 747 cross atlantic and back, and another stable on the ground. The clock on the ground was a hundred thousands of a second or some craziness like that off from the clock on the 747 when the trip was over--by the exact amount the formula was predicted to offset it by. Time warps around mass and motion. Not sure why but it does. Relativity applies to time itself. [Edited 4/4/08 10:26am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
In practice?
No. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: In practice?
No. Did you just post that for the applause!!!???!!! I demand to know Carrie! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Imago said: NDRU said: well, I believe that relativity (and of course I only have a tiny understanding, if any ) is in how it's perceived.
The example they use is a gunshot on a speeding train. If you're standing on the ground behind the train, you'll hear the gunshot after the guy who fires the gun, so the moment it happens is "relative" based on the speed at which sound travels. Light works the same, it's just much faster, obviously. That's why I believe time itself isn't affected, just the perception of it. Of course, maybe that example was created by someone who doesn't understand Einstein, in which case I'm suing PBS for mis-edumacating me ah. I see. Actually time itself is changed, relative to where each person is. That is why if you were to get on a spaceship traveling near the speed of light and you went from Alpha Centaur and back in roughly 10 years, several hundred would have passed on earth and you'd return to a vastly different world. The Navy conducted a test to see if Einstein's test were true, I believe, and the had two synched atoic clocks --one set on a 747 cross atlantic and back, and another stable on the ground. The clock on the ground was a hundred thousands of a second or some craziness like that off from the clock on the 747 when the trip was over--by the exact amount the formula was predicted to offset it by. Time warps around mass and motion. Not sure why but it does. Relativity applies to time itself. you just made that up, didn't you? My Legacy
http://prince.org/msg/8/192731 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
Imago said: CarrieMpls said: In practice?
No. Did you just post that for the applause!!!???!!! I demand to know Carrie! Where's my gif? This is why I need it. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
This thread is a bit short of replies: http://www.tombaker.tv/fo...topic=5693
Would anyone please contribute? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |