Time Travel possible? Maybe.

[A 15 year old]

My name is James Reinlie, I live in Central Florida. I'm 15 years old and I am very interested in Einsteins theory of Relativity.
But I feel that he has a flaw in his formulas. He states that no object can travel the speed of light besides light energy itself. But, if a object were to travel at .95 the speed of light through space, and a projectile were to be launched from this object at .06 the speed of light. Thus, accelerating the object to travel at 1.01 the speed of light. Which would, I believe, give it the ability to jump over dimples in space time. Which I believe is a quantem leap? if I am wrong please tell me. I believe that space time has dimples. There has to be changes in time, Picture space time as a giant graph, or volleyball net if you trow a ball into it . At the point of impact the grid would flex in, space time is said to have areas like this. If you were to travel fast enough, then you could jump across these dimples in space time.
http://img44.exs.cx/img44/8018/Space1.jpg
Please let me know if my theory has been proved before, I am very curious
and eager to know the answer.

[chroot]

Hello,

Welcome to physicsforums.com.

While I do not want to scare you off, I must warn you that you are violating our site guidelines by posting your personal theories about dimples in time. Please refrain from posting this sort of speculation in the future.

To answer your question about the 0.95c object expelling a 0.6c projectile: you are not adding velocities properly. Velocities do not add linearly in relativity like you're used to them adding.

Please see this thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39886

And this site:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html

- Warren

[A 15 year old]

I am sorry that I violated your forum policy. I did not understand. But can you please tell me why I cannot post this theory?


EDIT: Nevermind I read the sticky.

[check]

From Wikipedia


Quantum Leap
In physics, a quantum leap or quantum jump is a change of an electron within an atom from one energy state to the next. This is a discontinuous change in which the electron goes from one energy level to another without passing through any intermediate levels. This phenomenon contradicted expectations set by theories older than quantum mechanics that energy should always change continuously.

[A 15 year old]

I am not a mad scientist or anything, It was just a theory on time. I'm not challanging anyone or anything. Thanks for the info on the "Quantem Leap".

[chroot]

That's okay, A 15 year old -- you've caused no great harm. We just like to keep this forum about real science. :smile: Stick around, you'll probably learn a ton here.

- Warren

[A 15 year old]

Well, what do you call real science?:) All real science was based on theories at one point. After all, I just might be right....Did'nt know you could'nt share your ideas. I feel like a scientist in the old days. Burned like a witch for contesting the general science. All fun though. I always felt that my intellectual level was higher then my fellow classmates. Just to let you know I scored 142 on the Mensa IQ test. I feel at home here already, I do intend to stick around and play sponge for a while.

[chroot]

Well, for starters, dimples in time and things going faster than light are not, in current understanding, real science.

- Warren

[The Bob]

A 15 year old, you say about Einstein being wrong but he can't be proven wrong properly until objects can travel faster than the speed of light, which we know is impossible because of Einstein's Law of Relativity. You are in a loop-hole here.

Oh and you are not the only young mad scientist around. I am only 16 and I am into Space-Time and Quantum Mechanics. The trouble is I understand even less than you. :cry: Hehe :biggrin:

Have fun here.

Post around. :biggrin:

The Bob (2004 ©)

P.S. I am in the guidelines to say that, right Chroot??

[A 15 year old]

I never said he was wrong, just that he had a flaw in his formulas. Nobody is perfect. I'm glad to see that i'm not the only young one around here.

[arildno]

He doesn't have a flaw in his formulas.
You've got a flaw in your thinking by assuming the Gallilean addition of velocities is valid in all cases. It is not. Period.

[HallsofIvy]

A 15 year old, you say about Einstein being wrong but he can't be proven wrong properly until objects can travel faster than the speed of light, which we know is impossible because of Einstein's Law of Relativity. You are in a loop-hole here.



OUCH! That's an even worse statement that "A 15 year old" gave!

You are the one who is in a loop hole. We don't "know" objects moving faster than light because of Einstein's theory (not "law") of relativity. We THINK that's true because there is plenty of experimental evidence for the theory but if someone COULD show such that would invalidate the theory.
I, for one, happen to believe that nothing can travel faster than light but, like any theory, the theory of relativity is not perfect and it is possible that we will eventually learn that it is completely wrong. Of course, whatever is true would still have to include length and time contraction since those have been shown to be true experimentally.

Before you assert that some thought experiment show that it can be violated, you better know exactly what the theory asserts (I'm now picking on "A 15 year old"): if You space ship is moving at 95% the speed of light relative to a specific frame of reference (that's an important part of the statement) and the space ship launches a "shuttle" at 95% the speed of light relative to the space ship then the speed of the shuttle relative to the specific frame of reference is (.95c+ .95c)/(1+ (.95c)(.95c)/c[sup]2[sup])= (1.90c)/(1.9025)= 0.9986c, still less than the speed of light.

[Alkatran]

According to relativity, each observer in a seperate frame measures a different speed, time, position.... etc etc. That means that 20 km/h to you may be 19.999999km/h to the guy walking next to you, and 0 km/h for the guy in the car. It's all very confusing at first, it was for me. But the main thing that helped me understand was a simple picture. Look here:
Excellent site which explains relativity (http://origins.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/paradox.html)

[The Bob]

OUCH! That's an even worse statement that "A 15 year old" gave!

Can I ask how please.

You are the one who is in a loop hole. We don't "know" objects moving faster than light because of Einstein's theory (not "law") of relativity. We THINK that's true because there is plenty of experimental evidence for the theory but if someone COULD show such that would invalidate the theory.
I, for one, happen to believe that nothing can travel faster than light but, like any theory, the theory of relativity is not perfect and it is possible that we will eventually learn that it is completely wrong. Of course, whatever is true would still have to include length and time contraction since those have been shown to be true experimentally.

Sorry. I was useing the theory to say that as far as we know there is nothing with matter that can travel at the speed of light. I was saying that tehre is a loop-hole because unless we find something, that was not created by humans, then we can do nothing but believe the theory is accurate. This is because if we add more energy (as fuel or force) then we must increase the mass as a byproduct. As the mass increases we must increase the amount of 'fuel' to increase the speed further, which in turn means more mass etc.....

I apologise for not knowing enough to make a well stated statment. I just thought I would have a go.

The Bob (2004 ©)

[Alkatran]

What about this train of thought:

Let's say you "theoritcally" can reach and exceed the speed of light with less than an infinite amount of energy. What happens when you hit light speed? Your time STOPS (or goes infinitely fast, depends on your idea of time). As such, if you were to reach the speed of light, it would be difficult/impossible to change your speed since acceleration requires time.

Another point is that, technicly (TECHNICLY) you can exceed the speed of light. If you constantly accelerate for a few hundred years, then decelerate, you'll find that the time that passed for you compared to the distance you've travelled (as seen by your current frame) is much higher than c. The reason you never exceeded c is space was contracted when you were moving faster (relative to your current frame).

[A 15 year old]

The faster you travel, the less time goes by correct? This topic is becoming very interesting to hear your ideas and theories on time travel.

Cheers.

[eljose79]

-You can find objetcs travelling faster than light in theories they are called tachyons their mass is imaginary and they can not go slower than light speed (the lower boudn for their speed is c).

[Deeviant]

Wow the board sure did get a influx of new members here, always great to see new faces.

But for some reason I can't shake the feeling of deja vu.

[A 15 year old]

New members with new ideas, you might say.

[employee #416]

Yea, I'm aware of tachyons.

E= \pm mc^2

So, that is where they get tachyons from. Doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered theoretical. Although, neutrinos at one point were (still maybe) considered tachyons. I don't know though. Whatever floats your boat. :smile:

[employee #416]

Wow the board sure did get a influx of new members here, always great to see new faces.

But for some reason I can't shake the feeling of deja vu.

Isn't it great. New memebers are just as good as old members. Deja vu...Of what?

[russ_watters]

My suggestion A_15_year_old, is that you try to learn the existing theories and experimental evidence before striking out on your own. You could avoid a lot of spinning your wheels in place, developing ideas which we already know can't work.

If you stay, you'll find this site is an excellent place to learn about physics (and a lot of other sciences).

[bino]

i thought the speed of light was constant?

[employee #416]

In accordance to the currently accepted theory, yes, it is constant. Whether if that theory is right or wrong, I am not allowed to say. :rolleyes:

[bino]

so if i were going the speed of light, the light would be faster still? since light will always be going that spee.d

[employee #416]

You are unable to go the speed of light. You can only go under the speed of light. No matter how fast you go (.9999999999999999c) you can never reach c.

[employee #416]

Theoretically, if you were to go c, time would stop. Light would be going the same speed as you. Time stops because light is unable to illuminate things before you, rather it does it at the same time.

[bino]

so then would it be dark?

[bino]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992796

[employee #416]

That's a nice little article, but it may get you chewed out by certain people on this forum. I don't think these people are able to incorporate their findings. It's been two years since that article was written, and you do not see the data in use anywhere.

[employee #416]

No, it would not be dark. Light just illuminates everything at the same time, so nothing moves.

[bino]

good point. i dont think that it is impossable to go faster than the speed of light. it just not possable at this time. do you think time travel is possable?

[bino]

sun light maybe but are house lights and things light flickers on and off.

[employee #416]

No, I think it is impossible.

[bino]

what about viewing things in the future?

[employee #416]

That is not possible.

[employee #416]

How is one to "view things in the future?" How do you define that as?

[bino]

what about if we flew away to a star far away traveling near the speed of light? the people on the ship would age slower than people on earth.

[bino]

see that would mean there was destiny and things all happen for a reason and all kinds of phisphical questions come up

[employee #416]

Arg, listen you are going to get banned. Don't express your ideas on the forum. If you want to talk, PM me. I'm open to all ideas, while others are not. They will freaking own you.

[employee #416]

Time dilation has already been discussed previously in this thread.

[bino]

i wasnt expressing my views i was saing that if you could view the future a lot of question would arise.

[bino]

this is my first time here i dont know how to pm yet

[A 15 year old]

contact him on AIM.

[bino]

i dont have aim

[bino]

why are we not allowed to express our own views and theories?

[canopus]

You are unable to go the speed of light. You can only go under the speed of light. No matter how fast you go (.9999999999999999c) you can never reach c.

Why do you think like that? How do you know that? I think, we can't talk about certain things, if we talk, we must be sure the definiteness of ''everything''. I guess we can reach the speed of light, but now we can't go faster than light ( because of the lorentz transformation)!

PS: Sorry for my late-reply because of the dial-up.....

[bino]

but whos to say what is definite? things change

[jcsd]

No-one minds you presnsting your own ideas and views as long as you back them up with sound physical reasoning, where necessary utlizing the language of physics - maths. However if you post wild speculation backed up with cod-philosophy then people will get annoyed as this is a physics site.

Again nobody minds people making mistakes, but what people do mind is the absolute refusal to accept corrections esp. when the corrections are obvious.

[jcsd]

but whos to say what is definite? things change

Why do not say things are definite, but if you have a theory, but you have no justification for your theory, your theory is worthless and it is a waste of time to even discuss.

[bino]

ok i understand that you should be able to back up what you said but some things really back up. take perpetul motion, some people think it is impossable but the earth is moving around the sun with no energy going into it.

[jcsd]

ok i understand that you should be able to back up what you said but some things really back up. take perpetul motion, some people think it is impossable but the earth is moving around the sun with no energy going into it.

The Earth doesn't need energy to keep on moving, as long as it's kinetic enrgy stays the same, all else being equal, it will move in the same way. So no energy is bieng created out of nothing (which is the basic defintion of perpetual motion). Infact the Earth's motion is changing over a long period of time.

[bino]

but it is always moving forever or until something else stops it

[bino]

if we took a whole lot of wire wrapped it round the general area that the earth moves would that not create electricity?

[A 15 year old]

Why do planets move in circles around the sun? Gravity you might say. But that is not possible because *IF* in proportion the sun is not big enough to keep entire planets in orbit, in proportion to the gravitational pull on earth. Unless the sun has a huge magnetic core, which we *Think* is not possible based on theories. And if it is magnetic pull, why can't we detect such a huge force here on earth?

[jcsd]

Do you have justification? Do any of us? Who is to say that you are right by saying his theories are a waste of time? I'll bet if Einstien came up with the same theory you would believe it. Because of his hyped reputation you pathetic followers would believe him anyways.

Yes I have justification, infact I very rarely believe things without justifcation. I didn't say anyones theories were a waste of time, but as I said any theory wihtput justification is a waste of time, this should be obvious.

I don't know which theory you're tlaking about, but I was always try to be objective and judge a theory on it's own merits. I ceratinly disagree with alot of Einstein's pronouncmenats on QM (infact if physics is some sort of Einbstein-cult, how do you explain the importance of QM in modern physics?).

If you think you can overthrow accepted physics without even knowing what it is, the you are sadly mistaken.

[jcsd]

but it is always moving forever or until something else stops it

That's the defintion of inertia, not the defitnion of perpetual motion.

[bino]

where do you get that the sun cant support the planets?

[jcsd]

if we took a whole lot of wire wrapped it round the general area that the earth moves would that not create electricity?

It dpends very much on the wire etc, but energy is conserved. There is no cheap way to get around things like the conservation of energy.

[Deeviant]

Boy, you guys are geniuses. I guess that article says it all, einstein was wrong, and your right!(the article did say it did not violate einstien's rules however)

I was reading a really good science article at crackpot.com that said that everything in a science is wrong and was made up by a whole bunch of stupid, clueless people. The only thing that can save our science is people that are not trained in science at all, and indeed completely reject the idea of the scientific method. Then you guys would then tell us all how stupid we all are and enlighten us in how the universe REALLY is, WOW!

I suggest you goto crackpot.com and pick up the crusade against all of us stupid old-minded dummies who are trying to repress your genius.

[bino]

Per`pet´u`al
Adj. 1. perpetual - continuing forever or indefinitely

[A 15 year old]

Do newtons laws apply? Not at high velocities, am I correct? Well, the earth travels around the sun at 100,000 km per hour. Is that not high velocity? Well , it is said that Newtons laws don't apply at high velocities, or is size and proportion involved?

[bino]

now im not at all saying that everthing in sience is wrong by any means.

[jcsd]

Why do planets move in circles around the sun? Gravity you might say. But that is not possible because *IF* in proportion the sun is not big enough to keep entire planets in orbit, in proportion to the gravitational pull on earth. Unless the sun has a huge magnetic core, which we *Think* is not possible based on theories. And if it is magnetic pull, why can't we detect such a huge force here on earth?

Absolute rubbish, where are you getting this from? It's hard to decipher what you actually mean, but let me assure you that as the first theory of gravity was in part designed to describe the motion in the solar system there is no conflict there.

[bino]

in the grand sceem of things 100,000 km per hour is not high. it is slow

[jcsd]

Per`pet´u`al
Adj. 1. perpetual - continuing forever or indefinitely

Yes, the term 'perpetual motion' can lead to confusion, but hre's a brief defintion:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine

[bino]

how do you add a picture under your name? a little off subject.

[jcsd]

Do newtons laws apply? Not at high velocities, am I correct? Well, the earth travels around the sun at 100,000 km per hour. Is that not high velocity? Well , it is said that Newtons laws don't apply at high velocities, or is size and proportion involved?

Newton's laws are corrected by special relativty at high relative velocities, however in order to say any signifcant deviation from Newton's laws the relative velocities must be a signifcnt fraction of c (~300,000 km per second). 100km/h is not a significant fraction of c.

[Tom Mattson]

In accordance to the currently accepted theory, yes, it is constant. Whether if that theory is right or wrong, I am not allowed to say. :rolleyes:

It's also according to experimental evidence.

[bino]

there are three types. http://www.phact.org/e/z/miltperp.htm

[A 15 year old]

Get a picture. Get a host to host it. Get the URL for it. Copy and paste it into the "Signature" portion in your settings.

http://imageshack.us/index2.php

[bino]

thanks A 15 year old. ill try later

[Tom Mattson]

ok i understand that you should be able to back up what you said but some things really back up. take perpetul motion, some people think it is impossable but the earth is moving around the sun with no energy going into it.

The Earth will not perpetually move around the sun. Energy is constantly being lost in the form of gravitational waves.

[bino]

where is it at physics network?

[bino]

isnt gravity constant? it is pulling at the rate all the time mattering on your distance

[A 15 year old]

WTF, who is deleting posts?

[Tom Mattson]

Do newtons laws apply? Not at high velocities, am I correct? Well, the earth travels around the sun at 100,000 km per hour. Is that not high velocity? Well , it is said that Newtons laws don't apply at high velocities, or is size and proportion involved?

Yes, Newton's laws apply for macroscopic systems. It's just that we have to use relativistic versions of those laws at high speeds. Of course, the relativistic versions are correct at low speeds too.

[Tom Mattson]

WTF, who is deleting posts?

I am. Stop using Physics Forums as a crackpot chat site.