does the past still exist ?

[sityeuropa]

The experiment of two atomic clocks proving time dilation is interesting. The clock put on an aeroplane ends up slower than the one on the ground proving general relativity.

This is a good video on time dilation. Ignore the loud music.

 

[Tombstone]

I don't think he was contradicting himself.

Just because it exists doesn't mean there must be a way of getting there.

For example, if an object is travelling away from us at the speed of light. How do you ever catch up with it? Does that object not exist?

Because if something exists, at least so far in our experiences, there has always been a way to get to it. At least that I can think of, I cant think of anything that exists that we didnt think we could ever get to. If something is travelling away from us at the speed of light, then we cant catch up to it with our current technology, which is what I said (given that people once said we couldnt go to the moon but that was down to tech limitations at the time), but eventually we could get the technology to catch up with it (by some sort of warp drive or folding space or some other method of taking a short cut so that we arrive ahead of it and intercept it etc).

I mean I'm just a normal gamer guy, I'm no scientist or quantum expert, it just seemed to me an odd thing for him to say that something exists but we will never , ever , even in hundreds of millenia time , be able to get to it. To me , it seemed to either be a contradiction or a dismissal of what we may achieve in the distant future ( in both terms of technology and understanding)

 

[muon]

Well science says we can't travel faster than the speed of light.

Therefore we literally wouldn't be able to catch up with that object.

"There must be a way" isn't an argument.

You are effectively saying, current science must be wrong.

 

[new boy]

Because if something exists, at least so far in our experiences, there has always been a way to get to it. At least that I can think of, I cant think of anything that exists that we couldnt get to. If something is travelling away from us at the speed of light, then we cant catch up to it with our current technology, which is what I said (given that people once said we couldnt go to the moon but that was down to tech limitations at the time), but eventually we could get the technology to catch up with it (by some sort of warp drive or folding space or some other method of taking a short cut so that we arrive ahead of it and intercept it etc).

I mean I'm just a normal gamer guy, I'm no scientist or quantum expert, it just seemed to me an odd thing for him to say that something exists but we will never , ever , even in hundreds of millenia time , be able to get to it. To me , it seemed to either be a contradiction or a dismissal of what we may achieve in the distant future ( in both terms of technology and understanding)

Pleanty of stuff outside our observable universe that the space between us and it is expanding fatser than the speed of light thus we will NEVER be able to see or otherwise interact with it.

 

[moon man]

Yeh, I was just about to say, funny the OP made this thread now. I liked that explanation.



didnt watch this but i will .actually the guy who mentioned the langoliners was nearer the real reason as im a big fan of the older stephen king storys and watched it afew wesks back on youtube but its a subject thats facinated me for decades maybe watching that made me create the thread , somethings got to create that spark to ignite your thoughts dont you think and i certainly wouldnt hide the fact that brian cox was behind my question hes an awesome presenter

 

[new boy]

was cox's answer even the same / right though? Genuine question, haven't watched.

I know hes a clever guy, but some o the **** he states is pretty dumbed down to the point of being just wrong...

 

[muon]

was cox's answer even the same / right though? Genuine question, haven't watched.

I have no idea if his statement was correct, but I'll take his word for it.

However, the argument that if something exists we must be able to get to it, isn't a valid one.

 

[new boy]

what was his statement though?

edit - honestly by this point ive forgot the question lol

 

[Tombstone]

Well science says we can't travel faster than the speed of light.

Therefore we literally wouldn't be able to catch up with that object.

"There must be a way" isn't an argument.

You are effectively saying, current science must be wrong.

I dont think its a case of current science being wrong, I would say its a case of current science being limited. IMO what we understand and know is limited and I personally think it would be naive to think that our current science is the be all and end all. If there must be a way isnt an argument then there must not be a way isnt an argument either.

 

[muon]

I dont think its a case of current science being wrong, I would say its a case of current science being limited. IMO what we understand and know is limited and I personally think it would be naive to think that our current science is the be all and end all. If there must be a way isnt an argument then there must not be a way isnt an argument either.

Actually it is a valid argument.

It can be shown that it isn't possible. The theory would have to be wrong, not just limited.

It would blow everything out of the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Upper_limit_on_speeds

 

[new boy]

However, the argument that if something exists we must be able to get to it, isn't a valid one.

Yes, this is 100% wrong as ive stated previously

 

[Tombstone]

I have no idea if his statement was correct, but I'll take his word for it.

However, the argument that if something exists we must be able to get to it, isn't a valid one.

Why? Are you telling me that because we cannot get to something now, we will never ever be able to ? Are we really sitting on a computer hardware forum saying that at no point ever in the millions of years to come would we be able to get there? To me that simply seems unreasonable given what we knew, understood and were able to achieve a million years ago compared to now, that seems to just say that what we know and understand now is right and thats it forever

 

[Tombstone]

Actually it is a valid argument.

It can be shown that it isn't possible. The theory would have to be wrong, not just limited.

Shown that it isnt possible. Or shown that it isnt possible by our current understanding? How many times in the thousands of years on this planet has man declared that something isnt possible only for it to be achieved aeons later?

 

[new boy]

Why? Are you telling me that because we cannot get to something now, we will never ever be able to ? Are we really sitting on a computer hardware forum saying that at no point ever in the millions of years to come would we be able to get there? To me that simply seems unreasonable given what we knew, understood and were able to achieve a million years ago compared to now, that seems to just say that what we know and understand now is right and thats it forever

Yes, I'm telling you that we will NEVER be able to see the stuff that is expanding from us faster than the speed of light (ie, the space between us and *it is expanding) because we will NEVER be able to travel faster than the speed of light IN RELATION TO *IT

 

[muon]

Well Brian Cox wasn't answering in hypotheticals.

If we believe all science is eventually proven incorrect (which is silly imo) then he may as well not tell us anything.

 

[Tombstone]

Yes, I'm telling you that we will NEVER be able to see the stuff that is expanding from us faster than the speed of light (ie, the space between us and *it is expanding) because we will NEVER be able to travel faster than the speed of light IN RELATION TO *IT

Then all I can do is bow to your knowledge of physics and future discoveries. Though its very disappointing to me to think that we simply accept that because some scientists say so, something can never been done at any point in the future. I find that a real shame.

 

[Tombstone]

Well Brian Cox wasn't answering in hypotheticals.

If we believe all science is eventually proven incorrect (which is silly imo) then he may as well not tell us anything.

Except not telling us anything doesnt make for interesting tv and pay his bills

I should say that its not that I'm saying that all science IS eventually proven incorrect, its that I'm saying that some things MIGHT be proven incorrect as we further develop. My point I guess, is that we dont know, there is an almost unfathomable amount that we just dont know though in our arrogance as a species we sometimes say that we do know.

 

[muon]

Except not telling us anything doesnt make for interesting tv and pay his bills

It's also a silly argument. All science isn't proven wrong.

 

[new boy]

Then all I can do is bow to your knowledge of physics and future discoveries. Though its very disappointing to me to think that we simply accept that because some scientists say so, something can never been done at any point in the future. I find that a real shame.

Thats not it at all... U dont get it

I would guestion reading (or even better listening to on e-book with stephen fry narating) a breiff history of time and the universe in a nutshell by stephen hawking. I would also not be ashamed if u dont ghet every chapter first go, in fact I weould listen to both twice each as a matter of course

 

[Tefal]

One thing that's always puzzeled me.

If time slows down the faster you go (relativity)

How long is an actual second from a stationary reference versus how we see a second.


Because we are standing on a planet as it spens on its axis, which is spining arpund the sun in orbit, which itself is spining in orbit around the galactic center which itself is streaking across the universe.


So with all that phenomenal and constantly varying speed just how much is time slowed for it