It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Space Time and it's Existence

page: 3
13
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:37 AM

originally posted by: wildespace
I don't know why you think anyone considers a photon an inertial frame of reference. From a photon's "point of view", time doesn't exist and it appears, travels, and gets absorbed all at once. But that's beside the point. Time dilation is described by Lorentz Transformation equation, and reaching c produces infinite time dilation.

You can play with various values for the equation here: www.1728.org...

If you can prove that equation wrong, then I guess there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
OK let's go with that interpretation. Doesn't it also say that infinite energy is required to accelerate a mass to velocity c? How are you going to get infinite energy? You can't use infinite energy to accelerate the object to c, so you can't reach c if this is your interpretation. Do I need to explain why you can't get infinite energy or is that obvious?

We do see cosmic rays traveling very close to the speed of light and I seem to recall some of the high energy cosmic rays have an energy on the order of a baseball pitch in a baseball game, which is a lot of energy for a proton, mind-boggling actually, but it's still nowhere near "infinite".

CERN's LHC is about the best we can do on Earth for accelerating relativistic protons, and those protons have energy something like 7 mosquitoes in flight, which again is a lot of energy for a proton, but nowhere near infinite.

I can easily prove that equation on 1728.org wrong if you try to apply it to photons but I don't need to because it's a well known fact that it doesn't apply to photons and if you apply it to other real things with mass you never, ever reach c. Ever.

edit on 201716 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 01:19 PM
I think you're trying to get too much of everything involved when only a certain something is considered. In purely mathematical terms, you have the Lorentz Transformation equation, which shows that as you approach c, time dilation approaches infinity. If "infinity" is something that breaks down any mathematics for you and renders the equation invalid, then fair play to you, perhaps you can defend that in the mathematical community. As much as I looked at it, the equation was fine until the variable actually tried to excede the speed of light.

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 05:14 PM

originally posted by: wildespace
I think you're trying to get too much of everything involved when only a certain something is considered. In purely mathematical terms, you have the Lorentz Transformation equation, which shows that as you approach c, time dilation approaches infinity. If "infinity" is something that breaks down any mathematics for you and renders the equation invalid, then fair play to you, perhaps you can defend that in the mathematical community. As much as I looked at it, the equation was fine until the variable actually tried to excede the speed of light.
No the equation isn't fine at the speed of light. As I said at the speed of light you can't create a valid reference frame so you can't measure the speed of light, and according to special relativity the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames where the inertial frames are less than the speed of light. I don't understand why you don't get this. Special relativity doesn't allow any inertial frames at the speed of light.

Any amount smaller than the speed of light and it works. Maybe you're arguing that a little bit under the speed of light and the speed of light aren't much different, but in this case that's not true because it means the difference between being consistent with special relativity, versus not being consistent with special relativity.

Another issue: Assuming for a minute the infinite energy requirement doesn't bother you, how are you going to get infinite energy when the energy in the observable universe is apparently finite?

edit on 201716 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Another issue: Assuming for a minute the infinite energy requirement doesn't bother you, how are you going to get infinite energy when the energy in the observable universe is apparently finite?

Well, maybe that's the trick. Exploring the possibility of a kind of quasi-energy that is associated with a currently unobservable aspect of the universe.

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 05:48 PM

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Another issue: Assuming for a minute the infinite energy requirement doesn't bother you, how are you going to get infinite energy when the energy in the observable universe is apparently finite?

Well, maybe that's the trick. Exploring the possibility of a kind of quasi-energy that is associated with a currently unobservable aspect of the universe.
That still doesn't do the trick if you have infinite energy somehow. Wildespace is trying to misapply an equation from special relativity whilst simultaneously ignoring the fundamental postulate of special relativity that says, and I quote from Einstein's translated paper on special relativity:

einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu...

...in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body...
this postulate would be violated if you somehow used infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light because then this postulate would not be true.

Now if someone wants to argue that special relativity isn't true that's a totally different argument, but what I'm saying is if you're applying special relativity, then apply special relativity which means don't ignore that basic postulate which an inertial frame at c would violate because then light in empty space wouldn't always be propagated with a definite velocity V. If you had a clock in an inertial frame at c then you couldn't even measure the speed of light because the clock wouldn't work, and you can't measure the speed of light without a clock, so the postulate that "in empty space light is always propagated with a definite velocity V" becomes false. It really gets daft in very obvious ways when we try to apply such nonsense.

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Xeven
Has to be an observer and memory of change for time to exist.

I don't know...

...I have to think that in the early universe -- prior to any observer being around to have a memory of change -- that things actually DID change over time in the universe.

That change might only be two primordial hydrogen atoms coming together and interacting with each other, and that entire interaction occurring over the time it takes for "X" number of vibrations of one of those hydrogen atoms. So even without an observer around to even have any knowledge of this atom-to-atom interaction taking place, that interaction still actually did take place, which imparted a change in the universe, and did so over a measurable amount of time (if someone were around to count the atom vibrations).

Some think nothing existed until something could observe. What came first the chicken or the observer?

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:18 AM

Maybe I am missing something, I just don't understand why are you bringing energy and acceleration to c into the equation that only concerns time dilation (and length contraction).

Just like 3 - 2 = 1, plugging the speed of light into the equation produces infinity. Plugging a faster speed produces square root of a negative number, and only then the equation breaks down (unless you're willing to extend it into the plane of imaginary numbers).

Speed of light has been confirmed experimentally, so has relativistic time dilation. Your GPS wouldn't work correctly without adjustments to it.

When someone comes up with proof refuting Special Relativity and all those equations, I'd very much like to see it.

P.S. the Lorentz Transformation equation is not part of Special Relativity, and was actually derived before Einsten's Special Relativity. However, it is fully in accordance with Special Relativity.

edit on 7-1-2017 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:44 AM

I absolutely agree with you, chr0naut.

There's a decent chronology, which can be found here which outlines the many discoveries that Einstein made during the period of 1905 to 1925. These discoveries brought mankind to an era of advanced understanding, or more importantly, a fascination with subjects previously wrongly ascribed to Newtonian theory.

With the understanding of the theory of relativity, many other tangent discoveries were made by Einstein including quantum mechanics, quantum theory, quantum gravity and later on, String Theory (another fascinating topic) to name just a few.

With respect to his beliefs on space and time, the chronology states:

Then in 1915, Einstein completed the General Theory of Relativity - the product of eight years of work on the problem of gravity. In general relativity Einstein shows that matter and energy actually mold the shape of space and the flow of time. What we feel as the 'force' of gravity is simply the sensation of following the shortest path we can through curved, four-dimensional space-time. It is a radical vision: space is no longer the box the universe comes in; instead, space and time, matter and energy are, as Einstein proves, locked together in the most intimate embrace.

On the same chronology, there's a link to the full verbiage of Einstein's Theory of Relativity for those who want to learn more on the topic.
edit on 1/7/2017 by timidgal because: Formatting errors

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 03:45 AM
In terms of a body with mass accelerating faster and faster, the equation shows that as the object approaches (but never quite reaches) c, its time dilation factor approaches infinity. And just as 3 - 3 produces zero, v equalling c produces infinity.

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 07:24 AM

According to Newton there were secret bible codes that explained space time.
Was the "water above the vault" in Genesis a reference to wave equation?
If so was the "horizon" the event horizon that occurs when the waters enter a strong enough gravity well and disappear or was that the horizon for the Kaluza redux?
Was there an Illuminati choreography between Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton concerning gravity?
Maybe trying to describe the Ricci curvature tensor proved so frusterating to Newton that he had to invent calculus?

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks:

If these theories were intuitive and describable with simple math that I could understand someone would have thought of them thousands of years ago.

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 08:01 AM

originally posted by: wildespace
Maybe I am missing something, I just don't understand why are you bringing energy and acceleration to c into the equation that only concerns time dilation (and length contraction).
What you're missing is the physics of special relativity. A lot of energy implications come right out of special relativity including the famous but wrong E=mc^2 and yes that popular equation isn't quite right as I explain here. Importantly the oversimplified version of the equation is missing the part of the energy attributable to motion (the momentum term). So here's your special relativity physics lesson from a physicist:

Can you give me information on why travelling at light speed is so impossible?

Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is the key to understanding this particular question. Any reference on the subject (and I'm sure there are loads of them written for a wide range of students) will have some discussion on this. Briefly, to make an object accelerate from rest to any speed, we must expend some energy (by using a rocket engine, say). For low speeds (much less than the speed of light --- 186,000 miles per second; all all humans have traveled only at very slow speeds compared to that of light), an increase in the energy expended results in a reasonable increase in the speed of the object. However, as the SR theory says, when the object is traveling at very large speeds (= a considerable fraction of the speed of light), then an additional expenditure of energy will not result in as large an increase in speed as it would have at lower speeds. In other words, we have to expend quite a bit of energy to increase the speed by only a little bit, if the rocket ship is already traveling fast. If the rocket ship is traveling at 95% of the speed of light, a trememdous amount of energy will be necessary to make it travel at 96% the speed of light. In trying to make it travel at the speed of light, we would need to expend an infinite amount of energy --- in other words, we can't make it travel at the speed of light.

Now, every space ship, or other plane, etc., has traveled at a speed very small compared to light, so you might be wondering how we know the Special Relativity Theory is correct (why should we believe it without evidence?). Although, we have never made any large object (like a space ship) travel at a considerable fraction of light speed, experimental particle physicists are constantly making electrons and the like travel at speeds like 99% of the speed of light in particle accelerators. These accelerators only work properly because they are constructed obeying the laws of Special Relativity. To make the electrons accelerate, when they are already at 90% of the speed of light, does indeed take quite a bit more energy than would a comparable speed change when they are only moving at 10% of the speed of light. Special Relativity theory appears correct, in detail, even under the extreme speed conditions of a particle accelerator.

Is there a chance that we may be able to go the speed of light sometime in the future?

Since Special Relativity theory appears correct even under the extreme speed conditions of a particle accelerator, it is unlikely we will ever find a way to travel through space at a speed greater than (or even equal to) the speed of light. However, if your goal is to get from one place to another distant place in a time less than it would take to get there by normal space travel (at a speed less than light), there may be some way to get from one place to another without traveling "through the intervening space", by going through some sort of wormhole or other tunnel, but at the moment such ideas are nearly entirely speculative --- any progress in such a possiblility (if it's even possible), would have to occur in the future. But people are looking into it. An interesting reference on that would be Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps" which was published last year (I think).

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 10:54 AM

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Xeven
Has to be an observer and memory of change for time to exist.

I don't know...

...I have to think that in the early universe -- prior to any observer being around to have a memory of change -- that things actually DID change over time in the universe.

That change might only be two primordial hydrogen atoms coming together and interacting with each other, and that entire interaction occurring over the time it takes for "X" number of vibrations of one of those hydrogen atoms. So even without an observer around to even have any knowledge of this atom-to-atom interaction taking place, that interaction still actually did take place, which imparted a change in the universe, and did so over a measurable amount of time (if someone were around to count the atom vibrations).

Some think nothing existed until something could observe. What came first the chicken or the observer?

They would probably both have been formed since non of them are infinite.

Since we are dealing With infinite Space it would probably be thee observer. Everything else is secondary observers.....

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:18 PM

Thanks everyone great Great stuff to read through here.

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:03 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
A lot of energy implications come right out of special relativity including the famous but wrong E=mc^2 and yes that popular equation isn't quite right as I explain here. Importantly the oversimplified version of the equation is missing the part of the energy attributable to motion (the momentum term).

The "E" in E=mc^2 includes an object's kinetic energy, if that's what you mean.

new topics

top topics

13