LS if you are true then i assume my perception of time to be true i.e motion defines the entity we call time. What do you say ?

I think i did mention that didnt i, time dilation/length reduction are taken off from lenz's transformation. Yes if time is embedded in space then any chacge in space would also affect time. But the question is, if time exists, how are space and time merged into each other, and why does gravity affect space, what does this signify about the nature of space-time ? Until more research is made on the fundamental forces especially gravity what can we say.

Thanks Yorick! I was beginning to think most of what i posted was meaningless.

And regarding the eternal repetition all i'd like to quote is :
"If there is an original sound in the world a hundred echos are heard"

If such a phenomena is present i, being a rebel by nature, think that we DO have the power to change things around us; in my opinion the only thing inevitable is "change", can you deny it or defy it ? Its just the fact to observe the slow process of change you need to catalyze it, either yourself or by someone else.

-Whacky

Another meaningless post, was it nmot ;)

i do not believe there is ever a past or a future only a present.

Seriously speaking it is said that those who dont find the quantum and relitivity theory wierd/confusing havent truly understood it.
As an added note for those who didnt know the equation :-
t1 = t2/SQRT( 1 - (v^2/c^2)
is a simple derivation from lenz's transformation. Once einstein had figured the theory fitting in the eqaution was easy. But to top it off was the crown jewel
E=mc^2

My ideas and views change dynamically, and questions tend to arise in my mind asking me to wonder what actually is the truth ..... can anything actually be definite, is there something that can actually defy change, is anything actually "not" relative. Is time a fundamental quantity or is motion something more fundamental. What exactly is time ? How can you answer that, it is thought that it is "something" just something between two events, what if there were no events, then what would that something be, is time like water in the ocean of space through which universe has been sailing since eternity. What is that something we call time, if it is a dimention do we extend into the realms of time too, if so how ? What is that change which determines that time is actually passing. Was einstein actually right when he said that we couldnt travel at the speed of light, why is the speed of light actually the limit, has it got to do something with the fact that energy travels through space at that speed. Are there any energy realms, does energy exist in anyother form than "potential" to do work? How does the wonderful world of micro-physics work. How does energy change into matter? Is there anything analogue at all. Why is everything quantised, be it physical or philosophical.But the real question that pinches me is " is there anything fundamental at all or not". The answers lies in the merger of pure physics with philosophy, no matter how apart they seem to us, both have one thing in common, both are facets of "the truth" and "reality". I'm just a wanderer in quest of a drop of knowledge, seeking answers to my questions, i look forward to HIM for help and guidance. Then i ask, do i dare to face the truth, do i have the courage, what use to understand the physical world when one doesnt understand oneself, agree with me or not, all progress in only an attempt by man to know and complete himself, and as man will always remain a mystery to himself so will the truths of this physical realm.

And Yorick, regarding the question you had, time exists in all forms. Its linear for the brave and intellectuals, always in search of something new, ever eager to learn, ever vigilant. Mankind has always been slow to learn, and the narrow minded never learn so time,rather history, tends to repeat itself because of the unchanging fundamental behaviour and attitude of people, the conditions are same, the appratus is the same so are the reactants and yet they expect to seek new results, No this cannot be, unless man starts to learn form his mistakes time will run as a loop, over and over again.

-Whacky</font>[/QUOTE]Wow, sorry I asked ;)
Seriously, I have a lot of the same questions ie: why is the speed of light the limit? I mean is impossible to go 1 inch per second faster then light? That would be faster then light right? If we can go 1 inch faster then why not 2 inches, 1 mile, or 100,000 miles per second faster then Light? I can buy the vast amount of energy (as we perceive) it would take to travel at the speed of light, but not that there is a speed limit. Form our point of view everthing is relative, but are there points of view where things are not relative? In the phsyical universe, I would say no. From His (assumption made on your use of Him)point of view, as little as my physical mind can comprehend, I'd say yes.

I say time is real, whether we truly understand its nature or not! An object dropped in vaccum at the Earth's surface always accelerates downward at 9.8m/s/s. If time is not real, only an imaginary construct, then it stands to reason that that "rate" would be chaotic. However try as you might it has always been observed to be constant at the same location.

Addressing the linearity of time is extremely tricky, but I believe time to be a chain of partially closed toruses that merge. In otherwords I think time is simultaneously multidimensional and cyclic. It is both convergent and divergent(not the Calculus terms). To explain this idea you maybe need to know a little about Twistor theory and also Non-Euclidean geometries studied by Carl Fredrick Gauss and others. Also understanding the idea of World Lines helps. Basicly Euclid made two postulates that do not seem to be *neccessarily* true on their own. One involves the nature of an infinite line, and the other involves the nature of a triangle, and therefore all polygons.

According to Guass there is no reason why a line would not nesseccarily intercept itself and still be straight. If you imagine the surface of a globe to be a 2 dimensional plane and try to draw a straight line it will eventually intercept itself, forming a loop. This idea can be expanded to any number of dimensions. Non-intercepting lines could still exist as well however.

So if his arguments are sound, which I believe they are, then time could literally be a very, very intricate fabric of world lines. Because you only *observe* the world line you are traveling along it is not immediately apparent that the universe is indeed chaotic. In Euclidean geometry world lines can only converge under certain circumstances, what we refer to as events, and a different period of time is observed with respect to the original lines.

In non-Euclidean geometry it seems possible for them to converge and diverge much like ramps on an interstate highway, and in certain circumstances the "continuity" of time would be preserved. In other words there could be two or more SEPERATE solutions to "the shortest world line" problem that are equally valid and true. However, this has never been observed, and indeed as I've just stated above you wouldn't be aware of it anyway unless something HUGE happened because you never saw the other line. Let me reiterate that this chaos happens only at a ridiculously small scale due to the tremendous energy involved.

The time we actually experience is non-recursive linear, the time that really exists across the universe is probably a recursive multidimensional fabric, and the time we percieve depends on our state of mind. Does that make sense to anyone besides me?

Now I may as well address the issue of whether the speed of light is actually the limit. It is!

Proof(I am reworking this from my own knowledge, so it is very logical and easy to grasp and will use only classical physics and basic calculus).

1, Light behaves as a wave as it travels.

2, Light behaves as a partical, a pHoton, as it strikes a RECEPTIVE surface(actually an electron in an particular energy state in an atom).

3, waves do not transfer matter, only energy.

Mass comes from matter, therefore a light wave has no mass so long as it remains a wave. If it interacts with something it becomes a partical and gains matter, therefore mass, equivalent to its energy. This is where the famous "E=MC^2" comes into play.

So we have the case of one "photon" worth of light traveling through space as a wave and we want to prove that the magnitude of the velocity of the wave is indeed a universal limit.

to do this we'll need force and velocity equations from classical physics allowing the "mass" of the wave to approach 0, and assuming first that the "maximum speed" approaches infinity. You can work this on your own if you actually care. This is a actually a double limit... Dependent on both Force and mass.

1, F=AM
2, V'=V + AT

Solving the force equation for Acceleration we get F/M =A, which is great since I need to get mass into the velocity equations.

now we have

c'=lim{c + (F/M)T} as M ->0+ and F remains greater than zero.

for the velocity by "attempting to accelerate" light, and

L = lim{(F/M)T} as M ->0+ and F remains greater than zero.

for the maximum velocity.

and

c=c

therefore

c' >= L >= c

Is the Squeeze rule for the velocity that will "try to happen". It is not a typo since the velocity of an object accelerating in the direction of motion must be greater than or equal to the velocity of the same object not accelerating, and the maximum must also be greater than or equal to a actual velocity.

Since we know c, and we know how to find c', and light cannot be moving FASTER then the limit itself, then c'=L, and it is obvious by the Squeeze Rule that the actual maximum speed of the universe is c' = L = c.

In other words the limit of the speed of light approaches the limit of the maximum speed of the universe as the light's mass approaches zero, and since the mass is exactly zero then the two limits are exactly the same! Again I've used only classical physics and the most basic concepts of the calculus.

[ 10-15-2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: JeraalMordeth ]

Here some funny as well as serious food for thought.

Funny one:
Do we ever percieve something in "present", i think not, what we think of is past, what we hear is past as well, so much so that what we see has also passed after all it takes time for light and sound to reach us ;)

Serious:
If time travel is to be possible, which i believe is, there has to be an unlimited number of universes just like a "HUGE" hard disk but that wont be possible considering that the universe MUST be finite. Thats why einstein's equations dont give answers for speeds greater than that of light(inclusive of the mass/gravity factor). There are two ways to get around it. Either there is an "infinite" multuniverse system or the universe, rather multiverse, like everything else MUST be quantised. Its just like getting around the problem scientists had when they "invented" quantum physics. ;)

Edit: Must read up on the superstring theory as well [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-15-2002, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: whacky ]

The thing about the universe that gets me is this - we have the phenomenon of red shift that tells us how quickly galaxies are moveing away from us. The faster they are moving away, the more the light we receive from them is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. It is commonly observed that the further away galaxies are, the more red shift there is, hence galaxies that are firther away form us are moving away from us faster. Imagine the surface of a balloon with dots on it. As it expands, the farther away a dot is from it's neighbour, the faster it seems to move away form it.

This leads us to an interesting problem. We have already identified (if i am correct) galaxies that are receding from us at close to the speed of light. since the universe is to all intents and purposes infinitely large, does this mean that there are galaxies receding from us at *more* than the speed of light? If not, is this then the boundary of the unniverse? Most probably not - it would be the most astounding coincidence if we were at the exact centre of a universe that was so perfectly sized at this point in time to have a boundary with red-shift indications of the speed of light!

As for time dilation, here is a paraphrased explanation from this site - http://homepage.mac.com/tonyfarley/s...y/timedial.htm (but read the cut'n'paste first)

There are loads of other things form Physics class that I remember were very cool to learn about, like the way objects get heavier the faster they travel. this comes from the famous E=MC[sup]2[/sup], which in essence states that mass *is* energy. That's why the hydrogen bomb works so well - you can take a very very small mass, and if you convert some of it into the equivalent energy, you get rather alot of it. Just hope and pray they never invent the antimatter bomb.

*struggling to remember physics class*

Anyway, that equation tells us that the energy of a body will be equal to it's mass times the speed of light squared. A little bit of rearrangement gives us M = e/C[sup]2[/sup].

Now, if we have a body (a ball), and we give it more energy by moving it - it gains kinetic energy - then in order for the two sides of the equation to remain equal, either it must gain mass, or the speed of light must change (!). Of course, since the amount of mass it must gain is equal to the kinetic energy it gains divided by the speed of light squared, it ain't gonna be much! However, when you start travelling at close to lightspeed, then you start to encounter significant problems, and the law of diminishing returns sets in. The faster you go, the heavier you get, so you need more energy to move faster, but the faster you go, the heavier you get, so you need even *more* energy ...

They also get shorter the faster you travel, too. This one escapes me as to why for the moment, but I'll think a while ...

As soon as a thought is complete it is in the past. How small a moment is now? Starting and finishing the thought, let alone the word, puts it in the past.

Can we ever truly live "in the moment" if the moment is that small? How small can we break a moment down into?

Philisophically I try to live more in the moment. Letting the worries of today, be enough for today.

Living like I could die tomorrow, but planning as though I'll live forever. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color="lightblue">So, I guess it`s true what they say, then- live fast, die young ?? [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Continuing to read this thread jogs all the old physics memories and cleans out (a small amount of) the cobwebs. But, it makes me really more interested in the *silly string* theory than in anything else. (No, not a typo :D )

Okay you math geniuses (geniuii?), What about this:
A black hole's gravity is greater than the speed of light - no light escapes and time is warped. Okay, let's assume you are in a spaceship that can withstand the gravity, heat, etc. This gravity would mean that your acceleration rate (9.81 m/s2 here on Earth) as you fall toward the black hole would be quite high - high enough to make your velocity approach light speed as you were pulled toward the black hole. Your terminal velocity would then be infinitely close to the speed of light. Wouldn't this warp time to slow it down? I mean, it would pass normally for you, but the outside world would percieve you as unmoving and time-stopped (or infinitely close to time-stopped). What then? Does the black hole expire over time, leaving you to pop out into blank space before you crash into the center of the black hole, as you were unmoving for all intents and purposes?

Also, I understand the math behind the theory that "c" is the absolute universal posted Speed Limit. But, if the force created by a black hole keeps photons from escaping, wouldn't that cause objects falling at the black hole to move greater than the speed of light?

Okay, new HEADACHE. [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]