Superstition
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Is it because the "airport locker" theory comes from a work that identifies itself as fiction? My novels are based on a "multiple universes and dimensions" theory. If I claimed that my novels were fact instead of fiction, would that suddenly be as plausible as the "creator" theory? Technically, it can't be disproved either, aside from the fact that I openly admit that I dreamed it up and that it's a fabrication.
The published observations give us no hard indication what the mechanism for creation was, before the inflationary stage coming out of a singularity. You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof. But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang. Thank you for asking these questions, I had not realized that before. :-D
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof.
Oh, I know that... Never said I was the first... It's the other ideas in my novel that are original :)
RichardM1 wrote:
But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang.
See, you're assuming a creator and just fitting one into all of the blanks... I'm operating under the assumption of nothingness, and looking for proof before moving from there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So is the guy's stopwatch going to read 30 seconds, or does the theory predict that it would take longer?
There is nothing special about him. Things will have certain measures in his frame of reference. The distance is 0.9 light minutes between the two ship. The ships are each moving 0.9_c_ relative to the him. The time is 30 seconds to impact in his frame of reference. Only one of these are true for the other two frames of reference. Each other frame of reference see the center guy moving at 0.9_c_, relative to themselves. The measured distance between ships is not 0.9 light minutes in their frame of reference. The distance to impact is less than 0.45 light minutes. The time to impact is less than 30 seconds. All these measurements are correct. Both distance and time change.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
And that is the crux of your problem understanding it. There is no independent observer/perspective. There is no special frame of reference in which things are not moving. All frames of reference are relative to all others. All the same rules apply to all frames of reference. Suppose that X's frame of reference is going at 0.99999999_c_ with respect to your frame of reference. In X's frame of reference, you are going at 0.99999999_c_, in the opposite direction. X can accelerate to a new frame of reference that is 0.1_c_, or 0.5_c_, faster than X's previous frame of reference, in the same direction you see X going. The math may work out that the difference in velocity between your frame of reference and X's will be 0.9999999999_c_, or 0.99999999999999_c_, but it will never hit c. And, in each frame of reference, any measurement of the speed of light will show it to be c, relative to that frame of reference, in all directions.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You are not the first to think up multiple 'verses and dimensions. There are theories that indicate it as a possibility, but no proof.
Oh, I know that... Never said I was the first... It's the other ideas in my novel that are original :)
RichardM1 wrote:
But they are not mutually exclusive with a Creator. One is method, the other is cause. God may have used a multiverse, locker, or created out of nothing, using the big bang.
See, you're assuming a creator and just fitting one into all of the blanks... I'm operating under the assumption of nothingness, and looking for proof before moving from there.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
See, you're assuming a creator and just fitting one into all of the blanks
No, I am not fitting one into all the blanks. I look at the Bible and see how it meshes with observation. I don't see God fitting into the spaces 'between' science. I believe God built EVERYTHING. He put together quantum mechanics, He knows relativity, since He made the rules. Again, you are looking at the method of creation, I am also looking at the cause. But I'm not trying to convince you, I'm explaining what I believe and why. I don't believe I can convince anyone of God's existence. You either see proof through your observation, or you don't. If you see it, you decide to believe it, or you don't. I looked at my observations, and, to me, it was proof of God. So I believe. YMMV.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Ok, so from the POV of an independent observer, what would happen if one of them turned on their rocket engines? You can see where I'm going with this... From an independent perspective, could it accelerate to the speed of light?
And that is the crux of your problem understanding it. There is no independent observer/perspective. There is no special frame of reference in which things are not moving. All frames of reference are relative to all others. All the same rules apply to all frames of reference. Suppose that X's frame of reference is going at 0.99999999_c_ with respect to your frame of reference. In X's frame of reference, you are going at 0.99999999_c_, in the opposite direction. X can accelerate to a new frame of reference that is 0.1_c_, or 0.5_c_, faster than X's previous frame of reference, in the same direction you see X going. The math may work out that the difference in velocity between your frame of reference and X's will be 0.9999999999_c_, or 0.99999999999999_c_, but it will never hit c. And, in each frame of reference, any measurement of the speed of light will show it to be c, relative to that frame of reference, in all directions.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
See, that's the kind of reply I always get... To quote a line from Babylon 5... Every answer is a reply, but not every reply is an answer. If you're moving at .99999c toward me, relative to me, and you hit a point one light minute away at a scheduled time, then kick in the afterburners, will you reach me before my stopwatch hits 60 seconds? Regardless of how the traveler perceives the journey, if you don't rely on observing the starting point (Synchronizing watches instead), it doesn't take complex math for someone at the destination to see when you arrive. I understand that there's no "stationary", as if I'm standing still relative to the sun, I'm still moving quite fast relative to the galactic center, and still faster relative to the estimated center of the universe... But given a fixed frame of reference, it should still be possible to avoid the perception game and see whether the elapsed time is more or less than basic f=ma would imply.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
See, that's the kind of reply I always get... To quote a line from Babylon 5... Every answer is a reply, but not every reply is an answer. If you're moving at .99999c toward me, relative to me, and you hit a point one light minute away at a scheduled time, then kick in the afterburners, will you reach me before my stopwatch hits 60 seconds? Regardless of how the traveler perceives the journey, if you don't rely on observing the starting point (Synchronizing watches instead), it doesn't take complex math for someone at the destination to see when you arrive. I understand that there's no "stationary", as if I'm standing still relative to the sun, I'm still moving quite fast relative to the galactic center, and still faster relative to the estimated center of the universe... But given a fixed frame of reference, it should still be possible to avoid the perception game and see whether the elapsed time is more or less than basic f=ma would imply.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Sometimes, the reply is an answer, but you don't understand.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Synchronizing watches instead
I synchronize my watch with a guy in ship 1, just as it passes the 0.45 light minute mark*. When he gets to me, my watch says 30 seconds has elapsed. His watch says less than 30 seconds has elapsed. *This is harder than it sounds, since the point I measure as being 0.45 light minutes away, is not the same one HE measures as 0.45 light minutes away. The point he measures as 0.45 light minutes away from me, when I measure it, is greater then 0.45 light minutes away. Space and time are not constant when compared across multiple frames of reference. --------------------------- Real numbers. A ship going by the Earth is heading towards a star 12.5 light years away, at v = 0.8_c_ relative to an observer on earth. The ship sees a time dilation of
sqrt(1-(_v_^2/_c_^2), or 0.6. O.6*12.5 = 7.5 years transit time for the crew of the ship. The crew sees the planet approaching at 0.8_c_. In the crew's frame of reference, the travel time is 7.5 years, and v = 0.8_c_. 7.5 years * 0.8_c_ equals 6.0 light years, so the distance from earth to the star they are traveling to is 6 light years. It REALLY is 6 light years in that frame of reference, not "appears to be" or tricks. 7.5 years REALLY have elapsed for the crew of the ship. If you take along a radio-isotope whose half life is 7.5 years, roughly half will have REALLY decayed.Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Sometimes, the reply is an answer, but you don't understand.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Synchronizing watches instead
I synchronize my watch with a guy in ship 1, just as it passes the 0.45 light minute mark*. When he gets to me, my watch says 30 seconds has elapsed. His watch says less than 30 seconds has elapsed. *This is harder than it sounds, since the point I measure as being 0.45 light minutes away, is not the same one HE measures as 0.45 light minutes away. The point he measures as 0.45 light minutes away from me, when I measure it, is greater then 0.45 light minutes away. Space and time are not constant when compared across multiple frames of reference. --------------------------- Real numbers. A ship going by the Earth is heading towards a star 12.5 light years away, at v = 0.8_c_ relative to an observer on earth. The ship sees a time dilation of
sqrt(1-(_v_^2/_c_^2), or 0.6. O.6*12.5 = 7.5 years transit time for the crew of the ship. The crew sees the planet approaching at 0.8_c_. In the crew's frame of reference, the travel time is 7.5 years, and v = 0.8_c_. 7.5 years * 0.8_c_ equals 6.0 light years, so the distance from earth to the star they are traveling to is 6 light years. It REALLY is 6 light years in that frame of reference, not "appears to be" or tricks. 7.5 years REALLY have elapsed for the crew of the ship. If you take along a radio-isotope whose half life is 7.5 years, roughly half will have REALLY decayed.Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Sometimes, the reply is an answer, but you don't understand.
I understand the concept, at least partially... I just have trouble accepting the conclusions. It all seems completely illogical to me.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you take along a radio-isotope whose half life is 7.5 years, roughly half will have REALLY decayed.
That's an experiment I'd like to see. I can understand perspective changing, but actual time dilation just doesn't seem plausible to me. If it were possible to observe without relying on EM to carry the information... Of course that's the big trick, isn't it... Funny thing about the formulas though... If a ship was moving at close to light-speed, the time dilation by that formula would approach zero, so any journey at light-speed would basically be instantaneous to the travelers, no matter how far you went... Cross the universe in an instant, even though eons could have passed outside...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
Sometimes, the reply is an answer, but you don't understand.
I understand the concept, at least partially... I just have trouble accepting the conclusions. It all seems completely illogical to me.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you take along a radio-isotope whose half life is 7.5 years, roughly half will have REALLY decayed.
That's an experiment I'd like to see. I can understand perspective changing, but actual time dilation just doesn't seem plausible to me. If it were possible to observe without relying on EM to carry the information... Of course that's the big trick, isn't it... Funny thing about the formulas though... If a ship was moving at close to light-speed, the time dilation by that formula would approach zero, so any journey at light-speed would basically be instantaneous to the travelers, no matter how far you went... Cross the universe in an instant, even though eons could have passed outside...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's an experiment I'd like to see.
They have done it. They flew atomic clocks in both directions, around the world. They were able to detect the time dilation effect do to velocity in the flying clocks, and the time dilation resulting from the earths gravity well on the stationary clock.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If a ship was moving at close to light-speed, the time dilation by that formula would approach zero, so any journey at light-speed would basically be instantaneous to the travelers, no matter how far you went.
You have correctly analyzed it. IF you were able to accelerate to those velocities, you would be able to 'cross the universe' in some arbitrarily small amount of time in your frame of reference. You would never actually get to the other side of the universe, since the universe is expanding under you, and growing outward at the speed of light on all its 'outer surface', if there is one.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
That's an experiment I'd like to see.
They have done it. They flew atomic clocks in both directions, around the world. They were able to detect the time dilation effect do to velocity in the flying clocks, and the time dilation resulting from the earths gravity well on the stationary clock.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If a ship was moving at close to light-speed, the time dilation by that formula would approach zero, so any journey at light-speed would basically be instantaneous to the travelers, no matter how far you went.
You have correctly analyzed it. IF you were able to accelerate to those velocities, you would be able to 'cross the universe' in some arbitrarily small amount of time in your frame of reference. You would never actually get to the other side of the universe, since the universe is expanding under you, and growing outward at the speed of light on all its 'outer surface', if there is one.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
IF you were able to accelerate to those velocities, you would be able to 'cross the universe' in some arbitrarily small amount of time in your frame of reference. You would never actually get to the other side of the universe, since the universe is expanding under you, and growing outward at the speed of light on all its 'outer surface', if there is one.
But then, how would you stop? I mean, if you can cross any distance in an instant, then theoretically, as soon as you attained light speed, the universe would end (If there is an end). An infinite amount of time would pass outside the ship just in the time it takes you to think, "Hey, I'm going at the speed of light!" So really it would be impossible to hit the brakes. It couldn't be automated, because time is effectively frozen for the ship as well as the passenger. You're not going to run out of fuel or power for the same reason. By the time you hit the button to engage the reverse thrusters, an infinite amount of time has already passed outside. Of course, light itself moves at the speed of light, obviously... So is time frozen for the individual photons? A photon has no perspective, being... a photon... but if it did, it would be in exactly that situation, unable to stop itself. Maybe that's why light always moves at the same speed :) Man... It's a good thing I don't do drugs... Imagine how much MORE screwed-up my thought process would be...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
RichardM1 wrote:
IF you were able to accelerate to those velocities, you would be able to 'cross the universe' in some arbitrarily small amount of time in your frame of reference. You would never actually get to the other side of the universe, since the universe is expanding under you, and growing outward at the speed of light on all its 'outer surface', if there is one.
But then, how would you stop? I mean, if you can cross any distance in an instant, then theoretically, as soon as you attained light speed, the universe would end (If there is an end). An infinite amount of time would pass outside the ship just in the time it takes you to think, "Hey, I'm going at the speed of light!" So really it would be impossible to hit the brakes. It couldn't be automated, because time is effectively frozen for the ship as well as the passenger. You're not going to run out of fuel or power for the same reason. By the time you hit the button to engage the reverse thrusters, an infinite amount of time has already passed outside. Of course, light itself moves at the speed of light, obviously... So is time frozen for the individual photons? A photon has no perspective, being... a photon... but if it did, it would be in exactly that situation, unable to stop itself. Maybe that's why light always moves at the same speed :) Man... It's a good thing I don't do drugs... Imagine how much MORE screwed-up my thought process would be...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
But then, how would you stop? I mean, if you can cross any distance in an instant, then theoretically, as soon as you attained light speed, the universe would end (If there is an end). An infinite amount of time would pass outside the ship just in the time it takes you to think, "Hey, I'm going at the speed of light!"
Well, you can't actually accelerate to c, so you never get stuck in that situation. The other side of it is that you have to plan for it. You accelerate towards the target for a period of time, then you know you have to decelerate for that same amount of time in your changing frame of reference. This assumes your acceleration rate/deceleration rate are the same, which may not be true if you are burning fuel.
Opacity, the new Transparency.