It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Time, Speed of light and space.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
A thought experiment has been plaguing me for some time now, and maybe some here can clarify my thinking, or provide rebuttals/agreements to my dilemma.
We are taught that space-time is one entity.
We are taught that the speed of light is the ultimate measure and limit.
So what if.
Lets say you could travel to Mars in 1 second, and back in 1 second. When you return, 2 seconds would have elapsed. Expand this idea a bit. Lets travel to the Andromeda galaxy and back, 1 second each way. Still, 2 seconds would have elapsed when you return. Expand further---lets go to the edge of the observable universe and back. Still upon your return, 2 seconds have passed.
Struggling with this idea, it occurs to me a way it is possible. Lets assume that space-time is not a unified entity. Lets split them. Lets rename space. We'll call it Dark matter. We'll rename time to entropy.
We'll give dark matter the property of quantum possibility, a universal sea of probability. And lets leave the classic description of entropy, the tendency of all to seek a lower energy state, I.E. to run down.

This is not really a new idea. Space used to be called "aether", but during exploration of the properties of light, was discounted due to the particle nature of photons----if there was an aether, passing photons should produce waves in the aether. This was assuming that the aether was a pervasive, constant presence. Now with the current quantum theories, we can make new assumptions. With a pervasive all encompassing sea of virtual matter and energy, and not a fabric of consistent matter or energy, this seems entirely possible, if not probable.

So have at me, all ye professors and doctorates, bolster my arguments or cast me into the depths of ignorance.

Please, BTW.




posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
What are you trying to say?

That there is an aether! Check michelson-morley experiment

Quantum mechanics says a lot of things, and discounts pretty much nothing.

"virtual matter and energy" to prove the existence of an aether. lol if it can't be measured it doesn't exist.

As for the space-time concept: It is a unified entity covered in the subject of relativity. It says the "speed of time + speed through space = c."

As for time and entropy: The only way the 2 are related is that with more time the more the disorder.

As for space and dark matter: Space is nothingness whereas dark matter is something. This actually makes more sense when related to the idea of gravity. With space there are no indentations in the space time fabric. With dark matter there are indentations in the space time fabric.



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Of course, classic. E=MC squared. The speed of light is a constant, and mass increases the closer to the constant. But recent experiments showing instant point to point transmission, and showing that the speed of light is NOT a constant, tend to open up questions in the classic "theories".
Once something is proven, it is a law, not a theory. Witness---"General Theory Of Relativity". As for dark matter, all agree that it comprises the vast majority of the universe, and all that we can see or measure is but a small percentage of the whole mass of the universe. What I am proposing is that maybe dark matter is actually the supposed vast emptyness of space, and the quantum flucuations, virtual particles and energies popping into and out of existance in that vastness might make up for the missing mass. I am more than open to other theories, especially maybe those that can rectify the new experiments with classic relativity, but I still struggle with the discription of space-time as a "fabric", that one can be used to measure the other, as seperate entities has always seemed to be more logical.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   
One thing to consider if you're talking 'travel' to mean a human on a ship of some kind.

Though you may be able to travel at super-light speeds in your theoretical construct, you may have forgotten one element.

Deceleration.

You travel to Mars in 1 second...but how long does it take to decelerate to orbital speed, or to make a 'U-turn' and come back to Earth?

Of course PC games and Sci-fi authors have talked about Inertia-less drives, but that's another concept, at the moment, pure science-fiction.


Now, you might bring up warp drives. However, our current understanding is that this requires something to bend space-time, or using the rubber-sheet analogy, to make a big local dent in the space-time matrix, then release it, finding the 'ship' at the destination.

This is a nice idea, but consider also that it would not be safe to operate something akin to a black-hole very close to an inhabited planet, or even close to the solar system, lest it cause devastating effects.

How's that for irony? You build a faster-than-light ship, but can't stop it or turn it around, or you build a warp-ship, but then end up so far from your destination it takes months or years to get there from the jump point using sub-light speeds.


[edit on 4-9-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by gotrox
 


Sorry, man you are misinterpreting what you're reading. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Doing experiments with subatomic particles piped through and Bose-Einstein condensate will change the speed, but not the definition since that medium is not a vacuum by any means.


Basically, one needs a firm grounding in classic physics and math before going too far in interpreting SoL experiments and theory in depth. Non-scientists must exercise care before making contrary assumptions.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Speed of light is not constant, it is effected by rotation, don't worry Einsteinians this has been reconciled with relativity although it does go against Einsteins proclamation that it is constant.

Space time is a mental construct of two incompatible measurements they are in no way connected.

Dark matter is a joke, it's ad lib to a failed gravitational model.

New information on the Michelson - Morley experiment is actually confirming ether IMO. Dynamical 3-space has been confirmed this could be interpreted as evidence of the ether or some property of space that can provide a reference for physical bodies. This can also account for relativity phenomena so sorry no time travel at the speed of light.

Experiments suggest that gravity and electrostatic forces propagate at near instantaneous speeds, the universe operates in real time.

Of course you'll have the scientists here come along and tell me how wrong I am, but the information comes from free thinking scientists and experiment instead of just mathematical theory. But of course I could be wrong, in which case perhaps we do live in a universe that makes no sense.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Very good argument, Thanks.
But here is the fly in the ointment. What is the speed of light? 186,000 miles per second, give or take, is the classic number. But the recent experiments show it can be modified, and quantum tunneling is now accepted--I.E. point to point without occupying the space between.
I am beginning to suspect that our observations are limited by the fact that we can only measure in 4 dimensions, and thus assume that there are only 4 of them.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Very good. So if gravity and electrostatic forces propagate at a speed faster than the classical limit, might they just be the 4 dimensional artifact of a higher dimension?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
reply to post by gotrox
 


Sorry, man you are misinterpreting what you're reading. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Doing experiments with subatomic particles piped through and Bose-Einstein condensate will change the speed, but not the definition since that medium is not a vacuum by any means.


Basically, one needs a firm grounding in classic physics and math before going too far in interpreting SoL experiments and theory in depth. Non-scientists must exercise care before making contrary assumptions.



Yes, but I thought SOL was understood generally as SOLIV, and the experiments showed a drastic reduction, not a marginal one.
As for needing a firm grounding in classical physics, I find that the most impressive new knowledge comes from those who haven't been taught "thats impossible". Seems that not long ago, the learned stated that "man can't fly", and "traveling above a ground speed of 25 mph will cause your lungs to implode", among many other truisms later discounted.




top topics



 
0

log in

join