Erich Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I've been studying an enormous amount about the theory or relativity, E = mc², Lorrentz Transformation, Time Dilation, the Hafele-Keating Experiment. And I believe I've solved a very interesting conundrum regarding the Twin Paradox. I also work extensively with electronics and photon emission in my day-to-day job. It's quite simple really, just solve E = mc² for c. You get: c = ?(E / m) Gravity = energy, mass = energy, light = energy all proportionally of course. Eventually you come to the conclusion that "speed of light is equal to Energy". In an astronomical sense, we can consider the stars like big balls of energy, warping our perception of time. While we will always measure the speed of light in a vacuum the same, that rate at which we can propel an interstellar craft is indeed well beyond that from a relative Earth observer. Think of it this way. The further away you are from the sun, the slower your timezone ticks. Force becomes more effective and as theoretical light speeds are approached, space bends around you. If viewed in a telescope, a relative rocket that would take 12 onboard human years to travel 560 lights years would appear to make the trip going back in time 548 years. Although no time travel actually occurred, we will indeed break the speed of light. Cannot find any experiments to disprove this. And Einstein's famous E = mc² was already providing the key to it! In the Hafele-Keating Experiment, we are merely "winding" ourselves around time dilating factors. Whereas if we were to shoot ourselves away from an astronomical body in a straight line, then shoot in a straight line right back to our point of origin, time dilation would be mostly negated. Hence, time should be considered a constant and light should be considered a distance relative to energy. Muhammad Farrukh 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahorsepip Veteran Posted January 1, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 1, 2012 Haven't I heard before back in 2003 that it was breakable? Anyway nice story ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMH Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 I wish I could understand this. :( Can you explain it in much more simpler terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahorsepip Veteran Posted January 1, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 1, 2012 I wish I could understand this. :( Can you explain it in much more simpler terms? The time we know is based on the speed of light, if we move faster then the speed of light, which is possible(as sayed above), we could go faster then our time and so go back in time :D (I hope my conclusion is correct :p) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMH Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The time we know is based on the speed of light, if we move faster then the speed of light, which is possible(as sayed above), we could go faster then our time and so go back in time :D (I hope my conclusion is correct :p) I know this, I have read 'A Brief History Of Time'. Never understood the, 'how'. Seem two very things to me, like length and mass, to be related to each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgpwr Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 The time we know is based on the speed of light, if we move faster then the speed of light, which is possible(as sayed above), we could go faster then our time and so go back in time :D (I hope my conclusion is correct :p) So from this, one could conclude that the speed of light = 88 miles per hour Raa, Duffydemon, Pow and 2 others 5 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahorsepip Veteran Posted January 1, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 1, 2012 something seems wrong with your solve: m*c2 != (m*c)2 So you solved it wrong I think :/ edit: my fault... correct solve as you did but negative was skipped?: E = mc² -> c² = E / m -> c = ?(E / m) or c = -?(E / m) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 So from this, one could conclude that the speed of light = 88 miles per hour This is heavy doc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippleman Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 think you have to be autistic to understand time stuff! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahorsepip Veteran Posted January 1, 2012 Veteran Share Posted January 1, 2012 think you have to be autistic to understand time stuff! :) I know enough of those and some of them even can't understand normal math, not all of them are smart as people always think :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 I wish I could understand this. :( Can you explain it in much more simpler terms? I can try. The speed of light, is actually infinite. Time is warped by the surrounding energy. Mass has LOTS energy being that it's capable of explosive power when the atom is split. All this spatial, electromagnetic and gravitational energy is combined into our time-warping medium of life and matter. It's can be a difficult concept for some to rethink light as more like "our distance in space" and time as "proportional to Energy" which makes our constant c = "the speed of light" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMH Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I can try. The speed of light, is actually infinite. Isn't it a fixed number, like 3x108ms-1? Edit: Okay, superscript is not working, but you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Personally I propose moon pools to be used as reflectors... http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/09oct_liquidmirror/ Not only could they be used as telescopes for gazing closely at the stars. But we can design a laser power transmission system quite similar to Tesla's Power transmitter and receiver. We simply tune the frequency higher and higher as the spacecraft accelerates away from us counter-acting it's redshift. The spacecraft will essentially have a power lock with the laserbeam that will bend through space (not time). We're not doing any time bending, just space bending. Which is why I figure the claim "faster than the speed of light" is an accurate one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion#Photonic_Laser_Thruster_.28PLT.29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 You can't move the square around like that as you're ignoring the units c represents, and c^2 isn't a speed. Additionally, any values of m and e that wouldn't yield the constant value of c would be wrong because that would break the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cast Iron Leader Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Gravity is not equal to energy. Gravity is a interaction between physical objects/bodies with mass. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum. 'The further away you are from the sun, the slower your timezone ticks.' - I am sure that if you check with NASA they will tell you that they haven't exactly encountered this problem with either the Pioneer or Voyager probes and I don't think Einsteins going to be worried by most of the bad science that we will see in this thread Tekkerson and Muhammad Farrukh 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Isn't it a fixed number, like 3x108ms? Edit: Okay, superscript is not working, but you know what I mean. Well yes, it is a constant. As someone with a deep understanding of radio frequency, light wavelengths, interference and that sort of thing. It's an extremely difficult fundamental piece of information to break yourself free of. And for all intensive purposes, you're always going to measure the speed of light as that. But let's say you're travelling in a rocket at 150,000 m/s towards earth. When you turn your highbeams on, how fast does the light hit earth? At 300,000m/s or 450,000m/s? Well the only correct answer is 300,000m/s, but if an observer on earth were to use his space coordinates and take the time results from person flying on the 150,000 m/s rocket. We'd find out that indeed light has different velocities relative to us. The time dilation that occurs at different levels of gravity is kind of like the time plane you're on. Einstein Quantum Entanglement as "spooky" interactions at a distance. When in fact he had already solved the problem with c = ?(E / m) . Since distance and time are all variable relative to energy. Electromagnetic bonds can be considered as propagating faster than the speed of light when delivered monochromatically and infinitely. Essentially, we think of that star as 560 light years away, as directly entangled with us right now. FMH 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Gravity is not equal to energy. Gravity is a interaction between physical objects/bodies with mass. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum. 'The further away you are from the sun, the slower your timezone ticks.' - I am sure that if you check with NASA they will tell you that they haven't exactly encountered this problem with either the Pioneer or Voyager probes and I don't think Einsteins going to be worried by most of the bad science that we will see in this thread I agree with your comments about gravity and the speed of light, but time dilation is real and his been tested, although he said it in reverse. The closer you are to a large body the slower time passes. light has different velocities relative to us That defeats the entire point of c being chosen as the equivalence constant for the equation. The passage of time is different, not light's velocity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warboy Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 I can try. The speed of light, is actually infinite. Time is warped by the surrounding energy. Mass has LOTS energy being that it's capable of explosive power when the atom is split. All this spatial, electromagnetic and gravitational energy is combined into our time-warping medium of life and matter. It's can be a difficult concept for some to rethink light as more like "our distance in space" and time as "proportional to Energy" which makes our constant c = "the speed of light" Isn't this concept flawed due to a rocket that was created by man, would be using both mass and energy depending upon the tech used. Let's say we are using a rocket based on some of NASA's prototype of nuclear propulsion. Which releases mass amounts of energy. or in this concept Say a nuclear test was happening somewhere in the world. Does that mean that time happens faster for people closer to the event and thous falls out of sync with the rest of the world due to the mass amount of energy released by the bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Gravity is not equal to energy. Gravity is a interaction between physical objects/bodies with mass. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum. 'The further away you are from the sun, the slower your timezone ticks.' - I am sure that if you check with NASA they will tell you that they haven't exactly encountered this problem with either the Pioneer or Voyager probes and I don't think Einsteins going to be worried by most of the bad science that we will see in this thread Time dilation tests are inline with what I speak. Voyager doesn't have any advanced clocking systems built in. Not sure about Pioneer, but I've researched this very thoroughly. And it's actually exactly in line with Einstein's theories of relativity I'm not reinventing the wheel, the just trying to develop understanding. I can design tests to prove what I'm talking about, it's quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob.derosa Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Rearranging the equation tells you no new physics, it still states that matter and energy are directly related by the constant 'c'. You haven't discovered wondrous new physics just because you know basic arithmetic. Whereas if we were to shoot ourselves away from an astronomical body in a straight line, then shoot in a straight line right back to our point of origin, time dilation would be mostly negated. Hence, time should be considered a constant and light should be considered a distance relative to energy. They flew atomic clocks around the world and have measured time dilation. If there was such an effect when moving towards or away from a celestial object (i.e. the sun), this would have been measured as the plane flew west/east towards sunset/sunrise. Also.. light should be considered a distance relative to energy? I'll have what you are smoking :rolleyes: But let's say you're travelling in a rocket at 150,000 m/s towards earth. When you turn your highbeams on, how fast does the light hit earth? At 300,000m/s or 450,000m/s? Well the only correct answer is 300,000m/s, but if an observer on earth were to use his space coordinates and take the time results from person flying on the 150,000 m/s rocket. We'd find out that indeed light has different velocities relative to us. The time dilation that occurs at different levels of gravity is kind of like the time plane you're on. No, light has a constant velocity no matter what reference frame you are in, this is one of the basic principles of relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMH Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 ... Thanks for the great explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erich Posted January 2, 2012 Author Share Posted January 2, 2012 Isn't this concept flawed due to a rocket that was created by man, would be using both mass and energy depending upon the tech used. Let's say we are using a rocket based on some of NASA's prototype of nuclear propulsion. Which releases mass amounts of energy. or in this concept Say a nuclear test was happening somewhere in the world. Does that mean that time happens faster for people closer to the event and thous falls out of sync with the rest of the world due to the mass amount of energy released by the bomb? Time is always in sync. It's the great constant. Current time dilation tests have tested "floating through" dilated time zones. But they haven't tested straight lines from astronomical bodies. Whenever a ship returns to earth, time dilation anomalies are always minimal and not even calculated for because of the sync we have with our sun. Check out Noether's Theorem and consider how that would be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhpuqrgrpgvirzhpujbj Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 They flew atomic clocks around the world and have measured time dilation. If there was such an effect when moving towards or away from a celestial object (i.e. the sun), this would have been measured as the plane flew west/east towards sunset/sunrise. I'm assuming you're implying in this that you know the clock in the plane ticked faster than the clock on the ground. That contradicts the rest of what you said because the time dilation that they measured from that was a result of distance to a celestial body (Earth). (Unless you meant the act of flying away and not just due to differences in gravity closer and further away.) Tekkerson 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalfox Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 WOW :wacko: After reading this topic + it's reply's, I think I have to go back to school and learn a bunch of new things :s Really cool topic :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) No, light has a constant velocity no matter what reference frame you are in, this is one of the basic principles of relativity. Almost everything in physics can be reframed, because we always fall back on mathematics to model it, and that just inherently falls out of our definitions. I like to think of the speed of light as the speed at which a massless particle inherently travels by virtue of being massless. It makes a lot of high-energy physics make more intuitive sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts