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.

# New Interpretation of Einstein's Laws regarding Faster than Light Travel

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 01:13 PM

I'll attempt a more intuitive answer then: The Universe / Space - Time is being pushed onto us at set intervals/ cycles depending on scale. Our reality (mass) will not assemble any faster than these intervals in which space - time moves. There is no cumulative effect; hence, the speed of light calculation. Think of it as smoke rings being blown around a centerpiece for mass.

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by JayDub113
What happens is he is crushed beyond recognition because he hits the wall at the speed with which he orbits the Earth plus the speed with which the Earth revolves around the Sun plus the speed with which the Solar System moves through the universe.
...
Which brings to mind the law that equates mass with energy, E=mc(squared) . Could the squaring of c because the sufficient speed at which we would have to hit the wall IS C?
I agree he would be crushed beyond recognition.

But in order to apply E=MC², he has to be more than just crushed beyond recognition. He would have to be completely annihilated, by for example contacting an anti-matter version of himself, so that no matter remains, not even crushed beyond recognition blood and guts.

Regarding traveling the speed of c, he can never quite get there, so he can't hit the wall at that speed. so that's kind of where the thought experiment breaks down.

It looks like the plane is "annihilated" but really it's just converted from one big piece to lots of little pieces. All or nearly all the mass is still there after the impact since there's not really matter being converted to energy in that impact.

If it was completely converted to energy as in E=MC², there would be no matter left, not even dust. There's a big difference between dust, and nothing.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 01:46 AM

Yea umm I think you're going back over things we are well past. The point of the idea is that perhaps he CAN get there.. read the entire post. Thanks for the input though.

posted on Nov, 20 2012 @ 01:42 PM

And further, the time dilation can't act the other way. Entropy. Time is only a function of the matter existing in the first place.

posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JayDub113
What happens is he is crushed beyond recognition because he hits the wall at the speed with which he orbits the Earth plus the speed with which the Earth revolves around the Sun plus the speed with which the Solar System moves through the universe.
...
Which brings to mind the law that equates mass with energy, E=mc(squared) . Could the squaring of c because the sufficient speed at which we would have to hit the wall IS C?
I agree he would be crushed beyond recognition.

But in order to apply E=MC², he has to be more than just crushed beyond recognition. He would have to be completely annihilated, by for example contacting an anti-matter version of himself, so that no matter remains, not even crushed beyond recognition blood and guts.

Regarding traveling the speed of c, he can never quite get there, so he can't hit the wall at that speed. so that's kind of where the thought experiment breaks down.

It looks like the plane is "annihilated" but really it's just converted from one big piece to lots of little pieces. All or nearly all the mass is still there after the impact since there's not really matter being converted to energy in that impact.

If it was completely converted to energy as in E=MC², there would be no matter left, not even dust. There's a big difference between dust, and nothing.
edit on 16-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

He can never quite get there? Lets say i'm doing 85% the speed of light, and you're doing 85% the speed of light going the other direction, and you pass me. Wouldn't you be exceeding the speed of light from my point of view?

What if the galaxy is doing 85% of the speed of light compared to the center of the universe, and im doing 85% the speed of light in the same direction compared to the galaxy?

posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 10:46 AM
If there was oly one object in existence, say a baseball...could it be known whether it is in motion or not?

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 04:57 AM

No. If the only thing in existence were one baseball then for the baseball there could be no concept of motion. It would have to have a space to move about in. And if there is such a thing as "a space to move about in" well then there is more to the universe than only one baseball.
edit on 23-11-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 05:16 AM
Interesting thought....

Here's another one.........Are we travelling THROUGH Space (implying Space is stagnant), OR are we travelling WITH Space (as Our Universe expands)?

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 05:23 AM

I think we travel with the universe as it expands, but I think we travel through space as well. That's the component of motion that stirs up all the relativistic questions. And it is also why this idea is so interesting; the other component of motion, the motion of the expanding universe, could be traveling much faster than c, but we, embedded in it, can only ever describe motion in our own space.

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 05:40 AM
For the objects to meet they need to encounter each other in the same co-ordinates of time and space simultaneously.
By having the wall stationary within the existing reality or "closed system" of the Astronaut this causes a paradox as you require it tp be both outside time and space ( defying all quantum interactions of neighbouring space) whilst also instantaneously interacting with the space and time of the Astronaut.

If space is the cause of the attraction of mass we know as gravity (i.e Space is a superfluid vacum) everything is swirling around in a quantum soup of infinitely intricate interactions meaning a force greater than the whole is required to upset the resulting equilibrium averages we perceive as waves, particles, mass etc etc.

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 05:50 AM
Is our little Solar System like a cork floating on the Ocean surface within a rubber tyre tube (the Galaxy)? As the tube moves on the surface so do we....We know the ocean Water moves, we know a bottle thrown overboard near Africa can end up on a beach in America, we know the Ocean is full of currents and rivers of different temperature water.

What of Space? We are held in our Solar System by the gravity of our Sun, like a little rubber band, as are our other Planet brothers.
What happens if the Sun changes mass? Science knows our Sun will eventually deplete its energy in 4 billion years or so, What happens when our Sun becomes a red dwarf? Does it loose mass as it uses up its energy? Will the gravitational pull diminish, will the little rubber band be broken?.
There are Millions of red dwarfs in our Galaxy alone, How many have lost mass, and broke their rubber bands? Astronomers are finding quite a few ExoPlanets these days...........Have they lost the gravitational pull of their once mighty Star? and been cast adrift to freeze in space, or maybe attach themselves to another Solar System? even taking 1000s of Earth years to rotate around the new Star because they are trapped in a weak gravitational area?

I dont know...me no smart......Smart people get paid a lot more than me to think of this stuff.......so let them think.

edit on 23-11-2012 by gort51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by JayDub113

I would think yes. Time passes more slowly as you approach the speed of light relative to an outside observer!! For the person traveling at that speed time passes normally.. maybe mass is normal, except when viewed by an outside observer.

I have to ask because I've never gotten a good answer on this: Is it that time passes more slowly as we approach the speed of light, as though there's an invisible clock slowing down, or is it that the energy we are made of moves more slowly as we approach the speed of light?

posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 10:21 AM

Good question. Luckily I have an awesome bookshelf.

This is in reference to gravitational time dilation, which I believe is relevant. This is from "Black Holes & Time Warps" by Kip Thorne:

"Near the star's surface, time flows more slowly than far away, and at the star's center, it flows slower still.
In the case of the Sun, the time warpage is small: At the Sun's surface, time should flow more slowly by just 2 parts in a million (64 seconds in one year) than far from the Sun[.]"

"One consequence of this time warpage is the gravitational redshift. Since the light's frequency of oscillation is governed by the flow of time at the place where the light is emitted, light emerging from atoms on the star's surface will have a lower frequency when it reaches Earth than light emitted by the same kinds of atoms in interstellar space. The frequency will be lowered by precisely the same amount as the flow of time is slowed..... in the early 1960's.... Jim Brault of Princeton University, in a very delicate experiment, measured the redshift of the Sun's light, and obtained a result in nice agreement with Einstein's prediction"

This to me speaks to the idea that the flow of time is a real and intrinsic property of matter. So yes the energy we are made of literally slows down, but only relative to the rest of the universe. To us time should pass normally.

edit on 26-11-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 04:21 AM
I'm giving this a bump because I am going to see Interstellar this weekend (NO SPOILERS) and this was a good thread.
Kip Thorne was creative consultant.

top topics

4