|
Naru523
|
 |
« on: July 25, 2009, 12:44:03 AM » |
|
"Late for school? A meeting? Just take a wormhole -- you'll be there before you know it." Video:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FGFG
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2009, 03:41:11 AM » |
|
It's cool, but the problem of wormholes, even if they really exist, is that they are very difficult to find. Moreover we have to find a way to make them big enough to permit to a spaceship or whatever to pass trough them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2009, 03:45:30 AM » |
|
Hey, shouldn't we start by making spacecrafts able to fly 10% of c before trying to make wormholes work?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chaotic Cow
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2009, 06:59:00 AM » |
|
And if we tried to make wormholes it would take lots and lots and lots of energy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
monmarfori
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2009, 03:35:00 PM » |
|
A wormhole is not existent in the universe.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2009, 12:40:42 AM » |
|
Einstein's relativity theory says wormholes are possible.
But they could be normal on extremely small levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baleur
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2009, 12:21:38 AM » |
|
Hey, shouldn't we start by making spacecrafts able to fly 10% of c before trying to make wormholes work? Shouldnt we start making boats that travel across the atlantic in less than a day before we try to make airplanes? Frankly near-lightspeed spacecraft would be pretty useless, outside the solarsystem at least. Might as well aim for the few technologies that would be useful for all future, rather than a crawling pace |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Naru523
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2009, 12:23:07 AM » |
|
Yup!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2009, 12:33:41 AM » |
|
Hey, shouldn't we start by making spacecrafts able to fly 10% of c before trying to make wormholes work? Shouldnt we start making boats that travel across the atlantic in less than a day before we try to make airplanes? Frankly near-lightspeed spacecraft would be pretty useless, outside the solarsystem at least. Might as well aim for the few technologies that would be useful for all future, rather than a crawling pace No comments... Airplanes and boats both use speed for traveling... By the way we want to go to Mars, we could do it in hours instead of years.  But yes, I didn't really mean it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
monmarfori
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2009, 01:24:13 AM » |
|
By the Time Traveler. in 30,000,000 years from now. can have to see in that year. in the night sky. The dead stars are shown, and the moon gone, and some rings on outer planets (except Pluto) may be disappeared. but in 100,000,000 years, the rings of largest planets. Jupiter and Saturn. would disappear.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FGFG
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2009, 05:45:25 AM » |
|
By the Time Traveler. in 30,000,000 years from now. can have to see in that year. in the night sky. The dead stars are shown,
? and the moon gone, and some rings on outer planets (except Pluto) may be disappeared.
Pluto dosn't have rings.... but in 100,000,000 years, the rings of largest planets. Jupiter and Saturn. would disappear.
We don't know this for sure... Some scientists say that the rings of the gaseous planets are only temporaneus phenomena so that may desappear in "a few" hundred thousends years. Going back to time travel.... I've heard that another way to timetravel (in the past of course) would be using the immense gravitational field of a Black hole, but I don't know much about the argument. However if we find the way to use a black hole to time travel we still have to reach one of them in a reasonable time as the nearest is hundreds of light years away. Another interesting thing about Einstein's Relativity: To travel to the nearest star at the speed of light, the space ship will need more that 4 years RELATIVELY TO THE EARTH, infact because of the distorsion of time, the astronauts (depending on how fast the spaceship is moving) can finish the jurney in a few months or even a few days. We are still speaking of a very high fraction of c, like 99% of it... Later I will add the formula, I just have to find it |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hbmp88
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2009, 10:20:34 PM » |
|
I think traveling through black holes is a ridiculous idea, and I certainly don't want to be the first to test is. Wouldn't you be immediately vaporized with such intense gravity. Atoms would be crushed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
monmarfori
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2009, 11:38:02 PM » |
|
Supermassive black holes may appear in 40 billion years from now. the starting of Black Hole Era.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2009, 02:21:52 AM » |
|
Yes, ofc if I should hear any evidence showing that black holes do anything besides having a huge density making it impossible for light to escape, then I'd gladly believe in all the strange things I hear about "black holes connecting to each other" or black holes making time travel possible. If I think logical, all I get is that the matter inside the black hole is very hot, unstable and extremely dense. But the matter cannot escape the black hole, like the light can't. If we enter a black hole, 1) we die, since the gravity crushes us into quarks, 2) our matter will be caught inside the black hole. No, I'd not like to be the first to test it either... Or, then I won't have to go to school anymore, tempting. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hbmp88
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2009, 09:17:36 AM » |
|
It's so stupid. Gravity doesn't create vortexes. It just creates a dent in the gravitation web. I think Einstein is a old coot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FGFG
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 31, 2009, 02:06:50 AM » |
|
When i told "would be using the immense gravitational field of a Black hole" i didn't want to say "we have to go into a black hole to time travel"  . I think that there is another method so that you can still fly out of the event horizon and go back in the past. Don't ask me how. Probably we need a specific kind of black hole (maybe rotating, maybe another one). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 31, 2009, 02:59:34 AM » |
|
Sorry, I wasn't refering to you neccesarily (hope I spelled that sentence right!  ) The thing is just that I don't see why the black hole should "curl"(?) the spacetime (if that's what needed?) just because it has a big gravity or density or something like that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FGFG
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2009, 04:30:06 AM » |
|
The fact is that the high density make black holes create the horizon event the escape velocity of which is the speed of light: near it strange things happen as the only ones which can exist there happen at nearly the speed of light, and Einstein relativity teach us that events nearly c are strange (spacetime distorsion over all). I'm not a physic so I don't know what else could happen there...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bessy
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2009, 11:29:03 AM » |
|
how about using a ring of magnetic coils and sending electrons around at .99c ant forever increasing amounts what would happen to time in the center of the ring
maybe the field would cause the space within the ring to start bending slowing time inside to a slower rate to was was out side the ring
yer on that event horizon of a mass where escape = c there are 2 possibilities that i can think of
1 say you could keep in tact as you approach it time for you stays the same and you hit 99c and keep falling at that speed as you look back on the universe to see it all collapse in behind you and as you look forward you see that the back hole opens out and you come out as part of a big explosion that starts a new universe
2 it is just a heavy mass and you hit the event and you hit speed c all the electrons that orbit your atoms can no longer orbit as the cannot go in front of your atoms and as they need to go fast than c to do it so your broken down in to energy and your protons fall to the surface and your electrons get shot off at c in a big radiation burst
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deoxy99
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 17, 2009, 07:32:22 PM » |
|
How about a spaceship that goes nearly the speed of light? Even at that speed you could time-travel! Or at least that's what I think...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
qwew80
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2009, 05:30:56 AM » |
|
I know that we couldn't use tackeyons, but it may be possible that you could time-travel when going at higher speeds thann light.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2009, 06:07:32 AM » |
|
Isn't it impossible to travel at higher speeds than light? In warp drive, the meaning is that you move or bend space itself, so you travel at below c-speeds inside the area of space which you're then moving at higher speeds than c. During the inflation, the universe expanded at a speed faster than light by expanding the space between objects, but without any object moving at a larger speed than c. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deoxy99
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2009, 10:17:31 AM » |
|
Well, traveling faster than light means you have more than infinite mass. But nothing can be bigger than infinity!
Traveling exactly the speed of light means you have infinite mass.
Traveling slower than light means you have less than infinite mass!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
atomic7732
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2009, 11:48:50 AM » |
|
Well, traveling faster than light means you have more than infinite mass.
So your saying that light is a black hole? (Speed of light is infinite mass?) You would have less than no mass. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bla
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2009, 12:26:06 PM » |
|
Deoxy99, I don't think that works. In that case, a photon would have infinite mass. It would rather be the opposite. Traveling at c requires either that the particle has no mass, or infinite energy in order to reach the velocity.
Since there isn't infinite energy, nothing can travel at the speed of light. If photons have a mass, they must travel slightly slower than c.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deoxy99
|
|
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2009, 12:56:24 PM » |
|
Yeah, you are right. I just thought it that way. On accident.
Then it has to be less than no mass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deoxy99
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2009, 10:30:59 AM » |
|
BUMP!!! By the way, go to science.discovery.com and see how you can make your own VIRTUAL time machine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FGFG
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2009, 02:12:39 PM » |
|
Well, traveling faster than light means you have more than infinite mass. But nothing can be bigger than infinity!
Traveling exactly the speed of light means you have infinite mass.
Traveling slower than light means you have less than infinite mass!
This would be more correct: The more you get nearer to the speed of light, the more your relative mass increases and relative time slows ( relative to the observers). So you should use infinite energy to reach c, unless you have no absolute mass, and travelling at c means that time doesn't pass. n Kg * infinite = infinite Kg (first case ==> "normal" objects) 0 Kg * infinite = 0 Kg (second case ==> photons, ...) In fact photons are always equal to themselves as time doesn't passes. They doesn't decay. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 30, 2009, 02:18:27 PM by FGFG »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
deoxy99
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2009, 03:50:01 PM » |
|
I already knew that. I just forgot and said it wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
General Category
Print
