If I saw a 13 billion year old explosion now...

[Nate--IRL--]

Why?

Surely then, just driving your car somewhere would also then mean you are "time travelling" because you're getting there faster than you would by walking.

Bingo, yes you are time travelling, but not in the sense you mean. The distortion in space-time for such a relatively low speed is minuscule and not measurable.

However experiments have been done with Atomic Clocks. On on the ground and one on board a 747 as it circumnavigates the globe. The Atomic Clock on the 747, when landed, was shown to be younger that its twin on the ground by a few Microseconds.

It had Travelled a few microseconds in time Relative to the other.


Edit:-In short you can't travel through space without travailing through time. Normally you don't see it effects, but as you get closer to the speed of light, relative to other viewpoints, the effect become obvious.

There is no space and there is no time, it is all one, it is space-time


Nate

 

[cu3ed]

It's all relative.

That's not a glib answer BTW.

Nate

I Relative Present I believe.

 

[Fenris]

Who knows.

We certainly don't.

 

[Tefal]

You'd be in the present, and you'd probably be a bit disappointed, because what you saw in the brochure was a 13 billion year old photo that bears little resemblance to what it is actually like now.

A bit like a timeshare in Spain, then.

The opposite in fact, the time-share picture shows you the completed building 13 billion years into the future not the building site it is now

 

[Fusion]

Surely though that is just the lag/latency of light?

Of course- it's speed is finite, and represents "the ultimate speed limit". The heat, sound, ejected matter of the explosion can't travel faster than the light so it's academic- and you can't 'see' something unless it's illuminated by light anyway of course (you might be smart and say you can view it in radio/infra-red/uv/x-rays etc but these are just manifestations of electromagnetic phenomena of which light is a part). Even the ripples in mavity can't (in theory) exceed the speed of light, and neither can information.

So you'll just have to get used to that lag!

 

[NathanE]

Bingo, yes you are time travelling, but not in the sense you mean. The distortion in space-time for such a relatively low speed is minuscule and not measurable.

However experiments have been done with Atomic Clocks. On on the ground and one on board a 747 as it circumnavigates the globe. The Atomic Clock on the 747, when landed, was shown to be younger that its twin on the ground by a few Microseconds.

It had Travelled a few microseconds in time Relative to the other.

Nate

Isn't time dilation like that caused by mavity though? A jumbo jet would have less mavity because it is higher up (further away from the earth).

Once you get out into void of space where there is no significant mavity to speak about then surely the time dilation effects would be fairly constant relative to earth?

 

[Sinque]

I thought black holes had limited mass but infinite (or at least close to it) density?

From what i've watched I thought black holes were compressed mass into a single point (a singularity) and constantly pull in more energy therefore getting more massive and dense.

 

[Ziggy]

Teleporting is the instantaneous travailing through Space-time. If you can move instantly through space, you are by default travailing trough time.

If you can pick where to teleport in space, you should also be able to pick a point in time to arrive at.

Nate

Except teleporting isn't traveling through space, it's disappearing at one point and appearing at another. You don't actually travel the distance between the two points, so there's no 'speed' involved.

 

[The Running Man]

Teleporting is the instantaneous travailing through Space-time. If you can move instantly through space, you are by default travailing trough time.

If you can pick where to teleport in space, you should also be able to pick a point in time to arrive at.

Nate

i disagree...a teleporter doesnt necessarily control the flow of time and even if it could, you would only be able to change the point at which you arrive in very pre determined range of time relative to distances u travel and your present time..

i dont think you can go back in time, but instead that you can just slow the relative effects of time in your 'space'

so for instance you could live for what felt like a year in a spaceship traveling at the speed of light but for everyone moving at a relatviely slower speed outside of the craft 5 years may have passed.

but things have happened in the past, but we are in the present. you may be able to 'outrun' light by goping faster than the speed of light but this will only enable you to see light from a time that has passed. it is a visual representation formed from lightwaves - you cannot interact with it, it is not the original article it is just an artefact of what happened, a visual copy, or transmission. you are far away from where the original events occured - but you can see events which had already taken place.

so you are not travellingback in time to the extent that you can phyically interact and change events that have happened, you can merely see it.

thats a position i hold after reading some book on space time and relativity.

 

[Tefal]

From what i've watched I thought black holes were compressed mass into a single point (a singularity) and constantly pull in more energy therefore getting more massive and dense.

I thought they still only have however much mass they had when the start collapsed + anything it pulls in - anything lost via hawking radiation (if it exists)


If they had infinite mass they'd contain the entire universe wouldn't they?


You know somewhere on here there is a theoretical physicist who cries when these threads come up like nietfly at the sight of "We're devolving"

 

[Sinque]

I thought they still only have however much mass they had when the start collapsed + anything it pulls in - anything lost via hawking radiation (if it exists)


If they had infinite mass they'd contain the entire universe wouldn't they?


You know somewhere on here there is a theoretical physicist who cries when these threads come up like nietfly at the sight of "We're devolving"

Yeah, I think I may have gotten over-excited with the use of infinite. All these documentaries screw my mind over

 

[Fusion]

Isn't time dilation like that caused by mavity though? A jumbo jet would have less mavity because it is higher up (further away from the earth).

No, it's speed. A train on the surface of the Earth would record the same result, if it travelled at the same speed as the jet.

 

[Sinque]

No, it's speed. A train on the surface of the Earth would record the same result, if it travelled at the same speed as the jet.

But the closer you get to a big mass the slower time gets does it not?

 

[Nate--IRL--]

Isn't time dilation like that caused by mavity though? A jumbo jet would have less mavity because it is higher up (further away from the earth).

Once you get out into void of space where there is no significant mavity to speak about then surely the time dilation effects would be fairly constant relative to earth?

As your relative velocity increased so does your mass. Again it only really becomes apparent when you reach relativistic speeds. At the speed of light your mass is infinite.

For the Jumbo Jet experiment, I'd say the mass and mavity of the earth is account for in the experiment. The Experiment was to show that time is experience differently by two observers depending on motion.

This thread is moving too fast for me

Nate

 

[Sinque]

As your relative velocity increased so does your mass. Again it only really becomes apparent when you reach relativistic speeds. At the speed of light your mass is infinite.

For the Jumbo Jet experiment, I'd say the mass and mavity of the earth is account for in the experiment. The Experiment was to show that time is experience differently by two observers depending on motion.

This thread is moving too fast for me

Nate

But like Tefal said a few posts up, if your mass was infinite would you not contain the entire universe?

 

[Nate--IRL--]

Except teleporting isn't traveling through space, it's disappearing at one point and appearing at another. You don't actually travel the distance between the two points, so there's no 'speed' involved.

I'm gonna leave it there Ziggy, because, first I don't have the answers and secondly, theoretically what you suggest is not possible. And where it has been theorised on, a lot of paradoxes and conundrums arise.

Just remember you are not teleporting through space, you are teleporting through space-time.

Nate

 

[Nate--IRL--]

But like Tefal said a few posts up, if your mass was infinite would you not contain the entire universe?

We'll ask the first person that reaches the speed of light.

Nate

 

[Tefal]

But like Tefal said a few posts up, if your mass was infinite would you not contain the entire universe?

which is supposedly why you can;t go the speed of light

*although i've heard this interpretation is wrong.

 

[Fusion]

But like Tefal said a few posts up, if your mass was infinite would you not contain the entire universe?

The mass of the Universe is finite, as is the energy contained in it. To get to that speed would indeed require an infinite amount of energy- if you converted all the mass in our Universe to pure energy to power you, it still wouldn't be enough. It can never be reached for an object with mass.

 

[Radiation]

I just want to clear up what people believe time to be, either a dimension like space where past, present and future all exist or as a mere measurement of the rate of change in matter/energy?