If this is true then am I proving Einstein wrong?

sampsihoyos

sampsihoyos

Active member
I posted this in the thinker's cult but heres to any of you newschoolers who are interested in this kinda stuff. Again hit me up for an invite if you want in.

If a piece of mass was to travel faster than the speed of light then it would not go into the future. I came up with this yesterday: if something can possibly travel faster than the speed of light then it's still travelling in the present time, but the light that's coming from it is travelling slower than the object so anybody watching the object (entirely theoretically) would see the light coming from the object the previous instant, thus seeing what the object was doing in the near past. The light that we see coming off of an object does not determine whats going on in the present time, but actually an instant later (a very very very short instant). Light is just something that humans can sense coming from an object an instant later, not the current present. The speed of light is not relative to the speed of the object, instead vise versa and therefore an object cannot travel into the future after breaking the light barrier. If this is true then does anybody know if I'm proving any great scientist incorrect or does everybody already know this????
 
Well your main problem is that there is no proof that going faster than the speed of light would make you go into the future, its just a theory. I'm sure you are not the first to think of it.
 
you would have to prove it in order to prove eintstein wrong. i don't think the scientific community would like to accept thaqt einstein was wrong very well. but that deffinatly is a plausible theory in my head at least.
 
I think maybe you should try to understand the theory of special relativity before you go saying its wrong.
 
if he thoght of it while going way faster than the speed of light then maybe it would be like if he thought of it a while ago and then maybe in that case he could be the first person ever to think of it.

...or maybe not
 
Einstein has been proven wrong. E=MC^2 only works if light is always constant. We've since been able to manipulate the speed of light. And since discovered things that travel faster than the speed of light. Tiny particles around the sun are traveling faster than light.

Technically all of science is theory. Absolutely everything. Yeah, there are laws, but then there are always exceptions those laws, and in turn exceptions to those exceptions. 
 
Einstein has been proven many many times. Being Einstein doesnt mean he was never wrong. and the science comunity doesnt get upset when one of its theories is shown ot be false

your confusing scientific community with the religious community
 
thats true. good thing i didnt say it was wrong. everything that i said intuitively made sense. tell me why its wrong. I read a little bit about the principals about special realativity after your post and don't understand a few parts. mostly how light's speed is constant to all obseververs independent of their placement. i thought time could curve by gravity. i may be wrong but how does that apply to what i wrote above?
 
well its pretty much agreed that there's no such thing as proving a scientific theory. You can't prove gravity, you can only make a generalization about what it does.
 
ok wait are you saying that if something where going faster than the speed of light it won't travel into the future? That kind of seems obvious because light and time aren't related... as far as we know and you have nothing suggesting that they are
 
ill ask my buddy who well lets just put it this way: is really smart. This will turn into a full lunch hour debate tomorow.
 
how is one called a genious when all he did was write some nubmbers down on a paper... i mean.. its a huge concept.... but its so huge it does not affect us at all..
 
It takes an infinate amount of energy to go faster then the speed of light. If you're really interested, Stephen Hawking is a professor who likes this kind of stuff. Here is one of his lectures about space-time: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html .

Also I recommend you check out a movie called "The Elegant Universe" at your local library. It talks about the string theory(the theory of everything) and has parts called 'Einstein's Dream' and 'Welcome to the 11th Dimension'. I watched it with some friends while tripping mushrooms... crazy and interesting stuff about parallel universes and really good animations of what things might be like throughout the universe.
 
son of a bitch. i hate those religious people. i am such a hypocrit. well thanks for elightening me everyone.
 
well ... you know..... all this info is in a book.. the bible is a book.... .... how is one better then the other.. GO SKI.. thats the only real thing i know in this universe.. i aint going to heaven.. i aint going to some new dimesion.. dont need to travel time........ so ... FUCK!
 
You are absolutely correct. But remember the term "future" is relative too.

If

I were to observe a spaceship traveling faster than the speed of light,

I'd see what it was doing instant an instant ago (relative to the

spaceship). Therefore, the spaceship would actually be in the future

(relative to what I'm observing). It all depends on the wording: the spaceship would be in the future relative to the observer AND the observer would be in the past relative to the spaceship. The important thing in Einstein's famed paper is that the speed of light is a constant.
 
to the best of my knowledge (and everyone else's), there are no exceptions to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so sciense isn't all theory.
 
ummm, which tiny particles are moving around the sun faster than the speed of light? cause ive yet to hear of this, and i am in astrophysics.

E=MC^2 isnt Einstein's theory either. Einstein's theory is that E=[1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]MC^2.

i think that you are thinking of the fact that einsteins "famous theory" is only true for particles which are not accelerating. which is true. but einstein knew that. so hes not been proven wrong. and we can only manipulate the speed of light by refraction, which isnt anything special, einstein knows about that one too.

there are tiny particles moving out of the sun called neutrinos, but they are moving at or near the speed of light. a few other things move at the speed of light, like gravitational waves.

not all laws have exceptions. take lenz's law for instance, or or ampere's law. take einstein's law that says that light moves so as to mazimize its "proper time". no exceptions there. i could keep going if you like.
 
oh, and to whoever started this, your question is irrelevant really, because nothing moves that fast. you could change your question to make it massless, but still, that doesnt make it any more plausible
 
you said that the speed of light is not relative to the speed of the object. thats been proven already. see maxwell's equations. objects can travel into the future!! if you are higher up in a gravitational field than another object, than after 100 seconds for you, the other person will still only have travelled 90 seconds through time lets say. so technically, you are further into the future than he is.
 
"Light is just something that humans can sense coming from an object an instant later, not the current present. "

Light's not something we just 'sense'. its made up of actual photon particles that travels in waves. and if anything ever travels faster than light, it won't be matter anymore. it'll be some form of energy.

how much weed did you smoke before posting this?
 
...but the light that's coming from it is travelling slower than the object...

That is wrong on one account and partially wrong on another one.

1.) if it were a source of light than it could give off light. But most objects do not give off light. It is simply a reflection of light and since you are travelling faster than light it will not be able to reflect anything going in the direction opposite its motion. However it will still be reflective in the direction of its motion.

2.) It is not possible to go faster than the speed of light. We will say for discussion purpose the object is a source of light. Now if you were looking any direction you would see your path clearly illuminated because the light will continue to accelerate away from you at the speed of light. Therein is the reason you can not travel faster than the speed of light. However if you do look back and say you are traveling in space you will see the stars and any other light source frozen in time from the moment that you broke the speed of light because the light given off by them is not traveling at the same velocity rather than, velocity plus the speed of light from the object moving at the speed of light.
 
This may be a slight departure from the topic, but I feel it is relative. My teacher discussed something about an experiment Einstein did not perform before his death but wrote about it in detail, and some scientists performed it in Africa or something. It was to see if the sun's amount of gravity would distort light from the stars behind it. Well the experiment was performed and the results found that the same plot of stars were in fact distorted as a result of the suns gravitational force. Basically, they took a plot of stars, 4-6 of them, and waited for an appropriate time when the sun fell in line with them. What they saw was that the stars appeared slightly further/closer (I forgot which) to the sun as opposed to their original positions. I am not sure what the name of this theory or experiment was, if anybody is familiar with what I am talking about, please feel free to go into more detail.
 
yea, like asac said, light is made up of actual particles. Photons have mass. So gravity can affect light.
 
photons dont have mass. they are massless particles. light is both a wave and a particle, just as you are both a wave and a particle.

gravity affects light because it curves spacetime. basically, light is trying to take the shortest path in spacetime,and in a strong gravitational field, time goes slower, so it is therefore travelling a shorter path in spacetime.
 
1165893434vortex1_med.jpg


this picture shows how gravity warps time. the mass of earth or any planet streches the time 'sheet' in space. Black holes occur when there is an infinite amount of mass thus streching the time sheet infinately.

...i think
 
yeah, this is something called gravitational lensing. basically, a planet blocks out the light from something, but it focues the light back at a point beyond it because it pulls in on the light so that it bends around it.

the experiment was actually done while einstein was alive in 1919 i believe when they saw light bend around the moon during an eclipse of some light giving off object. this can be viewed from anywhere if you know what to look for. they are using it now to try and find "dark matter" in the universe, because as it stands we cannot see 75 % of the matter in the galaxy that we know is there, so if these hidden objects focus light then we can find out where they are.
 
you need to think through what you write. you said taht objects moving in a direction opposite light cannot reflect it. well, you can only reflect shit if you have some component of relative velocity in the direction opposite to that of light. that is why light doesnt reflect off itself, because it is moving in the same direction as itself. think about it.

and your second point is really off track, but just to point out one inconsistency, if you are traveling with any velocity with respect to light (in the case you mentioned away from it), then you are moving away from it, and it will not appear frozen in time, because you are moving with respect to it.

thats what i have to say concerning what you wrote. if you want to reword it, then go ahead, because im just analyzing what you said and would love to hear something coherent.
 
not an infinite amount of mass. just a really big amount. sometimes all it takes is a star three or four times the mass of ours to collapse to form a black hole. some stars are thousands of times bigger than our, so it goes to show that its not an infinite amount. it doesnt stretch the timesheet infinitely, because the rubber time sheet/ bowling ball is just an analogy.

the supposed infinite part is that the mass is confined to a single point in space (infinitely small), but M-theory (also called superstring theory) has resoloved that. string theory is really interesting, try reading the book "the elegant universe" if you are interested, you will find out a lot more. string theory has a large number of partisans in the scientific community, but requires confirmation from experimental evidence, which is hard when you are dealing with tiny strings the size of of which fall around 10^-35m. another fun theory is that of quantum loop gravity, which is similar, and is being developed mainly by a guy in waterloo, ontario.
 
this is actually really interesting

can i take an invite to teh thinkers cult?

and yeah what the forst person said makes sense to me
 
well what do you mean by "time?" Time in relation to the procsessing speed of the human brain? Because according to your theory, it would only seem as though the object lagged in time in relation to the human brain, not time in general. This is where Einstien's theory of relativity comes in. Does time itself exist outside of the ability to chronilogically organize events in our minds?
 
time technically doesnt exsist its made up us to explain time passing (aging) and even if you could go faster than the speed of light it would be impossible to stop
 
heres what i mean by time: lets say you are standing the the direction that the object is moving towards; the object would pass you in the present and the light that is reflected off of it (if like would reflect off of it at all) would follow an instant later. The viewer would be able to detect the light coming from the object but not the object itself. Thus (relative to the time that the viewer detects the light) the object would look like it has passed before the light or "the future." While really the object would be travelling in present time (not the future) and the light would be in the past. Not to try to act smart or anything but I believe this is contrary to popular belief, in which case this is revolutionary. That's why I doubt it's anything new.
 
Time isn't even really anything, we made up clocks and seconds and all that shit. There's no such thing as a "time sheet"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top