|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 19, 2008 19:49:20 GMT -5
Well, you proved that you aren't Afrew...
That last theory is total bull. The whole 'backwards in time' thing is a misunderstanding. If you look at a star 1 lightyear away and then disappears, you would only notice it a year later. If you travel away from the star, you travel faster than light, so you get to earth before the light from the sun is cut off, as it no longer exists. Therefore, it seems you got to earth before the star vanished, but you really got there before the light from the star reached the earth.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 19, 2008 20:16:59 GMT -5
There is a theory about black holes that I once read in a Geographic Kids article, that it can be used to go forwards in time, i.e, go into the future. THIS IS ONLY A THEORY, THOUGH, AND BASES A FUNDAMENTAL IDEA FROM EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Theoretically, time for a motionary mass will pass by faster than for a stationary mass. If we were to get up out of our chairs (or floor or whatever) and walk to a different point, we would be passing time quicker: however, only by fractions of fractions of nanoseconds. The higher our velocity, the faster time seems to pass by. If we could travel at large velocities, we could essentially make time go by quicker by minutes, hours, or even days. With extremely large, dense black holes, and if we were to travel along the correct path while succesfully avoiding the point of no return (a.k.a. event horizon), then we could SEEMINGLY go forwards in time by significant intervals, such as in years or decades (technically make time pass years quicker for us than for those who are travelling at slower velocities). I said FORWARDS in time, not backwards. Did you read the entire thing? The article I read said absolutely nothing about making time go in the negative direction, which is impossible in our current time with our current understanding. Once you make time pass forward quicker, you could not make it go in the negative direction, i.e. you can't go back in time once you go forwards in time. And yes, I have my doubts about travel into the future, too...
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 19, 2008 20:40:11 GMT -5
Forwards in time? We ARE going forwards in time. Also, its not a measurable unit, so there is no way to go 'faster' or 'slower'.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 19, 2008 20:42:11 GMT -5
I know, it's all relative. That's the darn, confusing beauty of it all. I wouldn't believe in time travel readily, though.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 19, 2008 20:43:23 GMT -5
I've already known that it is all relative
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 19, 2008 20:48:29 GMT -5
Anything else, or shall we wait for others to contribute, or shall we make a new topic that can actually be argued without getting a thread locked?
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 20, 2008 13:51:24 GMT -5
No. If the argument is serious, locking will occur.
|
|
|
Post by shandyman on Dec 20, 2008 17:11:28 GMT -5
well...we're in SERIOUS debate...how can this get locked for being too serious?
The most I think we can do with time 'travel' is only see it, but not actually expirence it until it actually happens or, if it's the past, then we can only see memories or have an omnicient view of the past scene.
I also don't think that black holes are 'portals' or anything like that, just 'huge' masses of stuff...condensed into something the size of a pea to a large stone. how this works? my guess is that the gravity is so strong, that even the atoms are pulled together hardly leaving any room for the electron cloud. this might also explain why there is no light in a black hole because no e- -> no photons -> no light. but so that thought is why I asked, do you think there is anything a black hole CAN'T suck up? my answer to this would probably be energy,...or anything less/smaller than light/photons.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 20, 2008 17:33:40 GMT -5
Answer: Anything able to break the gravitational speed barrier that is elastic enough to withstand the exponential increase in gravitational pull between different areas of the BH.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 20, 2008 23:06:06 GMT -5
yeah, that.
Anyhow, I think blacks holes are not really debatable. They exist, obviously. They are fairly common. They are caused by immense mass.
Also, Shandy, you were thinking of a neutron star, not a black hole.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 21, 2008 11:10:01 GMT -5
Well, at least he isn't Afrew...
BTW, since light is pulled back by Neutron Stars, but not enough to trap it, doesnt that mean that we should be able to see the history of the neutron star if we were looking right at it (and not getting sucked in by gravity)?
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 21, 2008 13:47:47 GMT -5
As long as some of the light reaches the viewer's eyes (or photoreceptors or whatever you call them), then I would presume so.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 21, 2008 22:03:24 GMT -5
Well, I guess we will have to wait until we approach a neutron star.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 21, 2008 22:50:46 GMT -5
QUICK! TO THE ROCKET! *theme song*
Nope...I can't find a neutron star within 4.3 lightyears away, but I found this neat little star... Alpha Centy thingy... I think it's some sort of....star...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 21, 2008 23:03:48 GMT -5
it is a tri-star system. The one you want is proxima centauri. You can visit the local star sector hall of records there.
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 21, 2008 23:14:19 GMT -5
*flips through stuff*
Interesting....it seems this star is rather.....large (compared to earth. P.Cent. is actually tiny compared to many large stars out there)
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Dec 22, 2008 0:12:01 GMT -5
Hmm...
There seem to be plans for an intergalactic bypass...
It will go right through Earth...
*flips page*
Oh, they are going to destroy Earth...
|
|
|
Post by Sandmaster on Dec 22, 2008 11:46:22 GMT -5
Why? The solar system moves around. We aren't stationary. We'll leave! PROMISE!*sob*
|
|
|
Post by SilentWaves on Dec 28, 2008 21:57:53 GMT -5
heres something to think about.
Get a peice of paper and make two dots anywhere on the paper. An average person would say the closest point between them would be a straight line. but if you think four dimensional and fold the paper you will see that it is false and the closest point between two areas would be what scientists call a wormhole.
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Dec 28, 2008 22:37:10 GMT -5
How is that four dimesnional? That is still involving three dimensions (3D space, planes [2D space], and lines [1D space]). Yes, each point might be on a separate fold and "face" opposite each other, but they are still within the same space that we all have come to know and love (3D space). I once tried envisioning the fourth spatial dimension (4D space), but had problems doing so. I understand some of the relationships between spaces, but do not understand the fourth spatial dimension itself (I say spatial because some people consider time to be a fourth dimesnion, which itself is not considered spatial). Here is a site I looked at in order to envision the fourth dimension via analogy. Focus on the adventures of Fred the 2D being, Bob the 3D being, and Emily the 4D being.
|
|