(name)Rick Bragg
(emailaddy)rickb@adelphia.net
(location)South Florida
Hi Chuck, I had to write again. You got me thinking along this relative thing with your response.
Let's forget the paradox and conservation of energy arguments and focus on this for a bit. Many have responded to Einstein's theory that time slows as an object approaches the speed of light. So, think about this. The universe is expanding (although the latest claims are it's slowing down), our galaxy is spinning at whatever speed, the sun is moving through the galaxy, our planet is circling the sun, and is spinning itself! That's a lot of movement. OK, that's the facts, now for the fun stuff. Someone leaves the earth near the speed of light. Relative to US, time stands still for THEM. So THEY return to find US old. That's the going theory, right.
Wait a minute.
Relative to THEM, it's US moving away at the speed of light, right? So, WE stand still in time from THEIR perspective. Thus, THEY return old to find US young. You see the contradiction? (please read the last 9 sentences over a few times - I have :-)
I have other questions.
It's been said that sensitive time pieces placed in fast moving objects keep different times (lose time) then the same object kept "still" on earth. It's even been said that two time pieces, one at the top of a tall building, and one at ground floor give similiar results. Some say because of the speed, others say because there is less gravity. Well, the clock at the top of the building IS going faster than the one at ground level (a bigger circle) relative to the center of the Earth, of course. Others have stated that a time piece in a satellite keeps losing time. Satellites are located along the equator and are spinning WITH THE EARTH. That way, your TV dish doesn't have to track the HBO satellite across the sky during your favorite movie. My point is this, relative to a "stationary" observer, none of these time pieces are moving. The ones on
the ground are still, the one on the top floor of the Sears tower is still, AND the one in the satellite is still.
Please respond to these statements and questions.
Rick
Before I attempt this one, a disclaimer is in order. I AM NOT A PHYSICIST.
That first one is a tough one and I understand the confusion ( I did read it several times), although it's not quite the going theory. But I tried to look at it a different way.
Let's accept the math of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Let's forget the difficulties of acceleration on a human body to reach light speed, or better yet, let's assume we've conquered that problem (after all, STAR TREK has it's Inertial Dampers :)).
Scenario:
An expedition leaves Earth and travels 25 light years (at light speed) to a nearby planetary system and then turns around and "deadheads" straight back to Earth (again, at light speed).
Just like you state, people on Earth assume they are at rest- here's the tricky part- RELATIVE TO THE SPACESHIP. The spaceship sees the situation exactly reversed. Who's right?
Now, you're gonna love this- BOTH!
But, there is an exception and it's a huge one. Both are right AS LONG AS Earth and the ship continue to move at a constant velocity RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER!
The deciding moment of who's right is determined the instant the ship TURNS AROUND to head home. The symmetry that existed allowing each to "see" the other receed while the observer was at rest ceased to exist at that instant. You can only consider yourself as an at rest observer as long as your velocity remains constant! That is worth repeating, because that's the short (and correct) answer. YOU CAN ONLY CONSIDER YOURSELF AN AT REST OBSERVER AS LONG AS YOUR VELOCITY REMAINS CONSTANT!
Concluding:
According to the theory now-
Earth calculated the round trip to take 50 years (give or take a day or two). The ship calculated the trip to take 10 years.
I hope that throws some light on an EXCELLENT question.
Really, your second question concerns the same laws of relative positioning. At least that's the way I see it.
And Rick, thanks so much for being patient with me through the Holidays and all. I apologize.
Chuck
(name)Don
(emailaddy)hgeowells@earthlink.com
(location)The past.
Well! I enjoyed your essay a lot. Much to think about.
As to my two cent worth: About 20 years ago my cousin's husband
was working at a major electronics corp. and told me they were
working on a "Time Machine". He said that we can move in time
only backwards as the future does't exist yet, just as you say.
Their machine was being designed to put aircraft into the past
in order to defeat radar and other detection devices. Since if
the aircraft is in the past before the radar hits it the plane
would be undetected. Granted the time duration was in micro
seconds not minutes or hours. But that is all that would be
necessary. The major problem with the project was that the
equiptment necessary would completely fill a large plane.
But that was 20 years ago.
As for me, I am trying to finish my Time Machine before the new year.
Go to THIS SITE
Until next time:
Don
Well, that sounds weird because in the past (albeit microseconds), certainly the radar was turned on then- it takes that long to flip a switch, an object would be detected before it arrived. I included a link, as you can see, to your duplicate- LOOKS GOOD! Too bad it's not a working model, eh?
THANK YOU for your patience!
Chuck
(name)S. Whittle
(emailaddy)AnAlien@webtv.net
I think timetravel is possible but it would require several different types of energy.
I think that the Bermuda triangle is a time tunnel that should be investigated.I believe that you would see a past or future version of yourself. However I don't believe that they would be able to see you. The reason I say this is because transporting yourself through time would require tons of energy and matter and the timetraveler would be a matter of energy until they went back into the porthole they created.
It would be an understatement to say there's a lot we haven't discovered yet. I believe there's something way above our understanding in The Bermuda Triangle. There's probably some investigations going on in that area, but truth be known, our investigators are more scared than curious right now.
THANK YOU for your patience!
Chuck
(name)Jeff Brewer
(emailaddy)JBr4692659@aol.com
(location)London, Ontario, Canada
I believe that time travel is somewhat possible.
However I think it is only possible to travel into the past because the past has occured. I don't believe the future has been written yet so it wouldn't make any sense. I know that a civilization that could be viewing us from 20 light years away through a telescope would see the year 1979(Jan. 2 to be exact because as I write this it is Jan. 2 1999). But if they travelled toward us at the speed of light it would take them 20 years to get here. So let's say they did that. They would arrive here in 1999. But wouldn't it really be 2019 because 20 years has passed on earth. Can you help explain this to me
because I thought this up and can't seem to come to a conclusion.
Thanks
Jeff
Hi Jeff. Your thinking is exactly right. But it's that relativity thing again. See my detailed response above to Rick.
and a little side note for what it's worth...
As this section continues to grow, I am amazed (and pleased) with the number of thinking minds that our out there on this little ball of rock!
THANK YOU for your patience!
Chuck
(name)eileen peterson
(emailaddy)bp43@webtv.net
i believe in it.
my question is has anyone ever heard of the virtual
geographic league started by tesla, einstein and a few others that devoted their studies on possibility of time travel.
supposedly amelia earhardt joined this league and her plane did not go down but was part of the experiment and something went wrong and she was not able to travel back to her present time. if
you know anything about this please email me.
Hey Eileen! To be honest, I had never heard of that, but I think I have found you a jumping point.
CLICK HERE!
I hope that can at least get you started. Thanks for stopping by.
Chuck
