 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Time Dilation
Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light but that we may someday be able to travel at maybe 90% the speed of light. The time-dilation then takes effect. Does this not mean that future astronaughts may be on a one-way trip into the future and never see their families again? Also, it could mean one could indefinately go forward in time. Just return home and set-out again faster still with newer technology having made a pact with future generations.You need only gain 50 years per trip - it would soon mount up. K. | Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light Why make a stupid assumption like that? > <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:a0f91ee1-bd75-4a11-87f3-9fbddab580ac@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > | Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light > > Why make a stupid assumption like that? Acceleration decelerates time. Mitch Raemsch >> <kronec...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Acceleration decelerates time. Nope. It goofs up the clock and actions-reactions and anyone that uses science finds out how much it goofed up by and knows why after they actually look for the "physical" cause of the frequency change. :)  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman >> Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light > > Why make a stupid assumption like that? Oh, ya Thanks for reminding him of that silly so far imaginary only wall. Can't believe I let that slip by. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light but > that we may someday be able to travel at maybe 90% the speed of light. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > K. Before you swallow the whole hook line and sinker you might ask the source of such notions to explain how inertial motion affects the invariant mass or torque of this simple mechanism: "Torsion Pendulum" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html See also: "The relativity principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light but > that we may someday be able to travel at maybe 90% the speed of light. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > K. Before you swallow the whole hook line and sinker you might ask the source of such notions to explain how inertial motion affects the invariant mass or torque of this simple mechanism: "Torsion Pendulum" [URL corrected] http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html See also: "The relativity principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Sue... Only "Sue" would dance along a jargon string, led by web search strings: special relativity --> inertial frames --> inertia --> moment of inertia --> torsion pendulums. And then imagine that special relativity is about torsion pendulums. Of course, if he had followed only two more degrees of separation, he would have found that special relativity is also about Kevin Bacon. PD > > On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > "Torsion Pendulum" [URL corrected] http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html > > See also: > > "The relativity principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > Sue... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inertia --> torsion pendulums. And then imagine that special > relativity is about torsion pendulums. << The key to understanding special relativity is Einstein's relativity principle, which states that All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames.>> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html So you too, are invited to help some of your fellow "advocates of nonsense" explain how Hooke's law is modified by inertial morion. Sue... > > > On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > "advocates of nonsense" explain how Hooke's > law is modified by inertial morion. I'm sorry... Hooke's "law" is not really a law of physics, any more than Ohm's "law" is. It is a description that holds in a broad class of cases, just like Ohm's law does, but it is really no more than keeping the first-order term in a Taylor expansion about *any* potential about a local minimum. I realize, "Sue", that it must be horribly frustrating to get so confused about terminology in physics, especially when the yield in internet search engines generates such a cacophony that is hard for you to parse. This is why it is actually more useful to learn physics in a structured environment, so that when you crank your handlebars hard to the left and end up in shoulder-high weeds, you will have someone that will call you back to a more level surface. PD > > > > On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws > > of physics take the same form in all inertial frames.>> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node7.html > > So you too, are invited to help some of your fellow > > "advocates of nonsense" explain how Hooke's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > keeping the first-order term in a Taylor expansion about *any* > potential about a local minimum. Then the impedance of free-space isn't really 377 ohm? I think you are saying inertial motion revokes Hooke's law. While that certainly unique among your fellows advocates I think you will find your logic refuted where the product of eps and mu are factors in the constancy of light speed. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.htm Sue... > PD > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Then the impedance of free-space isn't really 377 ohm? No, I'm not saying that, and that doesn't have anything to do with Ohm's law. Here again your internet search keyword free association game lead you down into little rabbit warrens in the weeds and you have no idea how you got there. First it was special relativity -> inertial reference frame -> inertia -> moment of inertia -> torsion pendulum Now it's Ohm's law -> resistance -> impedance -> impedance of vacuum - > Maxwell's equations -> law of physics. As I said, if you try harder, you'll be able to associate special relativity with Kevin Bacon, as that's only six degrees of separation, a well-known law of physics. > I think you are saying inertial motion revokes Hooke's law. No I'm not saying that at all. Your ability to comprehend anything other than free association of internet search terms is a bit on the ... unaccomplished end of the scale. > While that certainly unique among your fellows advocates > I think you will find your logic refuted where [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > PD > > Then the impedance of free-space isn't really 377 ohm? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > down into little rabbit warrens in the weeds and you have no idea how > you got there. > First it was special relativity -> inertial reference frame -> inertia > -> moment of inertia -> torsion pendulum > Now it's Ohm's law -> resistance -> impedance -> impedance of vacuum -> Maxwell's equations -> law of physics. NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.250.155.250 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1215989754 14750 127.0.0.1 (13 Jul 2008 22:55:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting- host=70.250.155.250; posting-account=nPH_PQkAAACneDKT6RXopPWArC2We4Rq User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US) AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1 Safari/ 525.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) > As I said, if you try harder, you'll be able to associate special > relativity with Kevin Bacon, as that's only six degrees of separation, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > PD > > > Then the impedance of free-space isn't really 377 ohm? > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > AppleWebKit/525.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1 Safari/ > 525.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) I'm not surprised you would have a stiff reaction to someone seeing right through what you do, especially since you work so hard to dress it up in camos and throw distracting chaff liberally. This would be another lovely example. PD > > As I said, if you try harder, you'll be able to associate special > > relativity with Kevin Bacon, as that's only six degrees of separation, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > > PD [...] Yikes - that got a reaction! Direct hit with that salvo, it appears. That's the thing an actual education provides - a way to filter out the endless stream of babbling bullshit that you get when parsing search engine output. If I didn't know how to interpret what Google tells me, there'd be _NO_ way for me to do the varying things I work with. Right now I'm trying to build a cluster on pre-existing workstations using virtualization technology. Fat f.ck chance I could do that without Google. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > using virtualization technology. Fat f.ck chance I could do that > without Google. Believe it or not people did research and development work with great competence long before the internet existed. K. On Jul 14, 4:59 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Believe it or not people did research and development work with great > competence long before the internet existed. Whether you use it or not, it is a REAL bad idea to indicate you have access to someone else's search strings which may be stored by Google. (unless you are the government of China) http://searchengineland.com/070314-180307.php Sue... > K. > On Jul 14, 4:59 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Acceleration decelerates the clock of matter. Mitch Raemsch Sue time dilation exists even at very slow speeds. It came out of SR It tell us that time slows down for an observer that is in motion. Bert > Sue time dilation exists even at very slow speeds. It came out of SR > It tell us that time slows down for an observer that is in motion. > Bert Relative motion, Herb, relative motion with that which is being observed. Sam I said it right even if you do not like it. Go figure Bert > Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light Bullshit. A body with rest mass cannot travel *at* lightspeed. Faster or slower is 100% OK, as with positive and negative temps kelvin vs. unattainable absolute zero. Going to negative temps kelvin is trivially easy: MRI, NMR, EPR, adiabatic demagnetization of paramagnetic salts, lasing media. The interested reader is invited to reduce to practice violation of lightspeed by a like mechanism. > but > that we may someday be able to travel at maybe 90% the speed of light. "Oh My God Particle" at Fourmilab. If you cannot do math, do not boast empirical conclusions. > The time-dilation then takes effect. > Does this not mean that future astronaughts may be on a one-way trip [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with future generations.You need only gain 50 years per trip - it > would soon mount up. Come back when your turds extrude as parallelepipeds. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Light has Gamma One. None of its energy is kinetic. Light is massive by its energy. Mitch Raemsch > kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 If you could travel faster than light then you would get there before you left! K. > If you could travel faster than light then you would get there before > you left! No you would not. When you see a planet that is 100 light years away. Even if you instantly go there (note the term instantly) You would get there 100 light years after what you saw. and if you spent 2 second there and instantly popped back here only 2 seconds would have gone by. :) The same is true about taking any speed. If you passed by this planet as 50 lightyears a second (that is one sick a.s speed above light) you would still take 2 seconds to get there and of course it would be 100 yrs and 2 seconds after what you saw happen there just before you left here. You really should get that "time changing rate" crap out of your head. :) If you are using any other math than what would happen above. You have lost basic math. If you think such basic math is wrong because basic math proves such about time slowing down, you have proved your "proof" is invalid since it also uses basic math that you just proved wrong. Time does nto slow rate. Clocks malfuntion. The Entire Universe Agrees with me. If you wish to argue about such, go yell at the Sun and Moon. :) SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 13, 4:15 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > If you could travel faster than light then you would get there before [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > James M Driscoll Jr > Spaceman NASA proved a long time back that the "time-changing crap" is in fact right. I am sure you know the experiment. The thing that intrigues me however is not that Einstein was wrong per- se but that that c may not be universally constant. It may vary in differnt parts of the universe and that messes things up a bit. How can we prove otherwise, that c is a universal constant is conjecture only. K. > On Jul 13, 4:15 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > NASA proved a long time back that the "time-changing crap" is in fact > right. I am sure you know the experiment. NASA proved the clock changing does occur, NASA ignores the clock changes that occur on the planets so they can study them when our clock says they will be there. And guess what.. that means the clocks DID malfunction. Maybe you should learn more about what NASA does to see planets and actually land on them using our timing system, not the dang planets timing system that simple messes up our clocks if the clock was on it. Sheesh! > The thing that intrigues me however is not that Einstein was wrong > per- se but that that c may not be universally constant. It may vary > in differnt parts of the universe and that messes things up a bit. How > can we prove otherwise, that c is a universal constant is conjecture > only. A speed can not be constant for all. And clocks malfunction, they do not change any "time" in the universe at all. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman > Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light but > that we may someday be able to travel at maybe 90% the speed of light. > The time-dilation then takes effect. > Does this not mean that future astronaughts may be on a one-way trip > into the future and never see their families again? If you passed Earth at 90% the speed of light and traveled for 5 yrs in a giant circle that came back to Earth in that time It would only be 5 yrs for everyone on Earth also. Your clock might not say such, but that is simply a problem with the clock, not a problem with the Universe. Because you see, no matter what your clock said. The Universe would show you it is wrong and that silly thing that made us call a day as one day (The Earth) and the amount of trips it took around the Sun would still do so just about the same speed it did for the whole time you were gone. :) time dilation = clock malfunction (or action-reaction changes from accelerated motion and such g-force changes) Time does not change rate in science. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Spaceman On Jul 12, 3:13 pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Now make the assumption that we cannot travel faster than light but > that we may someday be able to travel at maybe 90% the speed of light. > The time-dilation then takes effect. > Does this not mean that future astronaughts may be on a one-way trip > into the future and never see their families again? Yes. > Also, it could > mean one could indefinately go forward in time. Yes. > Just return home and > set-out again faster still with newer technology having made a pact > with future generations.You need only gain 50 years per trip - it > would soon mount up. > > K. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.