Time and Speed food for thought
	Post Reply		Forum

Posted by: randykimball ® 07/04/2008, 08:36:30 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Allow me to insert a puzzler. After you read this, remarks are requested. This puzzle is based on the thread of when I made the mistake of using 360 (number of degrees in a circle) improperly in the wrench flat offset question. Years ago, many scientests and engineers thought wierd and horrible things would happen if we were ever able to go one mile a minute. Scores of apparently and otherwise brilliant people could not seperate out in their minds that the number of seconds in a minute and the distance which equals a mile were simply values assigned to a measurement of time and a distance so we would have a standard in which to all use to be alike all over vast parts of the world. The fact that we were suddenly able to travel a speed that crossed two of those quantitive values had nothing to do with actual physics. We now all understand that concept earily in our math and science learning. Now let me take you to the time, speed of light theory and ask you to rethink the issue. I am going to suggest a scenerio and let you think it over. Many claim again that if we travel faster than the speed of light time will reverse and magical things will happen. .... hummm.. let's see. For the sake of this example we are gong to assume that we have mastered the ability to "beam me up Scotty". (for those not emersed in American TV, this means we pretend we can step into a futuristic machine and transport someone to a distant place by disassembling them on an atomic level and then reassemble them in tact at that new location). Now, let's say for simplify of the math this process happens at exactly twice the speed of light. For this problem let us round off the speed of light to 186,000 miles per second. So now we are being transported at 372,000 miles per second. Stay with me. You have a telescope and scientists have picked out a place "out there" that is exactly 2 light hours away. Ok, then this place is 372,000 miles away and holding. You and everyone here are watching that spot on a nice new LCD screen wired into the telescope's image chip. (tossed that in so no one would miss this imaginary happening). So our beam machine has the ability to put us on any exact spot in the universe at twice the speed of light... ok? I step into the machine and we beam me to that spot. It takes me one hour to get there (remember I'm traveling at twice the speed of light so I get there in one hour). I wave and wink, and we beam me back for one hour. Now.... DID I TRAVEL FASTER THAN TIME?? I say NO. I was gone for two hours. I traveled there for one hour and back for one hour. However, you were watching the image of me winking and waving on that distance spot while I reassembled next to you and I even got a glimps of myself on the LCD before I left the location ...(ok, the beam machine is slightly faster than twice the speed of light... give me that one). I SAY...I did not over travel time but over traveled the image which could only travel at the speed of light.... no different than the jets that flew over me in Viet Nam faster than the speed of sound so that we watched them fly by and then heard them. When you looked at me wink on the LCD you were not looking at me but only my image. .... go think on this. ...one mile a minute... faster than the speed of sound... faster than the speed of light... ???? no difference. Faster than the speed of sound - can't hear it yet. Faster than the speed of light - can't see it yet. ok... tease on this additionally... I'm standing next to you... did my image get here yet? Can you see me standing next to you? Yes.. but if you were able to watch my image tavel through space back to you it would not arrive for another two hours. Wouldn't that be a kicker???? I say... the speed of light only effects image light waves at our eyes.. just as the speed of sound effects hearing sound waves at our ears. Would there be two of me about two hours after I was beamed home? No... There would be a me and an image of me merging into me. I believe we need to seperate out time from images. And for the purists, yes we only see images and nothing is exactly where we think we see it.... One image is of me materilized here at twice the speed of light and the other image of me won't get here for another two hours, the when it catches up to me it will merge to the other image (if I move slow enough... no problem, I'm 60 years old). Remarks welcome... Rebukes need to have solidity (need to use physical facts not theories). The worst suggestion of your lifetime may be the catalyst to the grandest idea of the century, never let suggestions go unsaid nor fail to listen to them. Modified by randykimball at Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 09:16:16

Replies to this message

: Time and Speed food for thought
: Time and Speed food for thought -- randykimball	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: jaredheitsch ® 07/21/2008, 15:12:45 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Randy, you said: " I wave and wink, and we beam me back for one hour. Now.... DID I TRAVEL FASTER THAN TIME?? I say NO. I was gone for two hours. I traveled there for one hour and back for one hour. However, you were watching the image of me winking and waving on that distance spot while I reassembled next to you and I even got a glimps of myself on the LCD before I left the location ...(ok, the beam machine is slightly faster than twice the speed of light... give me that one). " However, you would get a glimpse of yourself if the machine transports you ANY faster than the speed of light. Keeping with the 2x you have proposed, you would be back to earth in one hour after your departure from the far off location to which you transported, but you image would take two hours to get back. You'd be standing next to me for a full hour before we saw you appear on the other planet. Just to add my own opinion, I think the fear of traveling faster than the speed of light is due to the fact that such speeds are only theoretical at this point. To the best of human knowledge, nothing has ever traveled faster than light. It's the fear of the unknown. We've known it's possible to travel faster than the speed of sound for quite some time (thunder and lightning anybody?). Let me know what you think...

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : Time and Speed food for thought
: : Time and Speed food for thought -- jaredheitsch	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: randykimball ® 07/26/2008, 21:14:28 Author Profile eMail author Edit

I say, there was a time when it was said one could not send pictures over the air or through a wire. BUT, we managed to figure out a way to break the pictures down and send them.. through magnetic energy... highlight MAGNETIC ENERGY... and even more beyond their dreams, we are using them to do most of our office work now. We MUST be open minded and realize nothing is impossible. Gravity is a force that is related to magnetism. Time is simply a method of tracking days and years in a way we all can use to cooperate in a standard focus, bringing product and information together in a "timely" fashion, together. As we learn more about forces and waves and digital management, AND magentic energies, ANd as computers help us to dig deeper into concepts and test our thoeries, (and test out fresh ones) we will find that we can do things we have not even conceived of yet. Put yourself back to a time when all caculations were done on paper before the slide ruler, a time when you sailed with sails or rode wheeled contraption pulled by an animal, or... the animal itself. .. From that point of perspective, ... was it possible most of the world would some day be managed on a plastic keyboard while staring at a world wide shared flat panel image in real time? ... we are no different.. we have a similar perspective ... of only a few years in the future ahead at the speed of techonology advancement. I am convinced of a fact, we as of yet, still do not fully understand the relationship between gravity and magnetism, no telling what amazing things will be possible when we finally do grasp the true relationship of these energies. We do have a theory of how electricty and magentism are interlocked.. but I believe this is only a theory that works well as a tool for engineering with these energy forms. I can't help but think we need more investigation in that direction, I am afraid our thoery is working so well for us that it shields us from seeking a better theory.. when we correct our theory (or added some new properties to it)..and we will.. we will learn some amazing concepts we are limited from understanding until then... Did the people that built huge things with heavy stones have a method to levitate them... I dauh know... but I think we are going to feel awfully stupid in a few years.....IF they did....!!!?? OR not... Still,, we are going to realize some great things to come.. provided earth cycles don't put an end to our researches for a few more hundred years.. The worst suggestion of your lifetime may be the catalyst to the grandest idea of the century, never let suggestions go unsaid nor fail to listen to them. Modified by randykimball at Sat, Jul 26, 2008, 21:28:16

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

: Time and Speed food for thought
: Time and Speed food for thought -- randykimball	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: CCR5600Design ® 07/04/2008, 12:02:53 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Did you eat ALL the Doritos? LOL! Ron

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : Time and Speed food for thought
: : Time and Speed food for thought -- CCR5600Design	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: randykimball ® 07/04/2008, 13:11:45 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Last I saw them you had 'em headed for the front porch. The worst suggestion of your lifetime may be the catalyst to the grandest idea of the century, never let suggestions go unsaid nor fail to listen to them.

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : Time and Speed food for thought -- randykimball	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: CCR5600Design ® 07/04/2008, 13:30:09 Author Profile eMail author Edit

But.... Was it me, or just my image you saw heading for the front porch? Ron

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : : Time and Speed food for thought -- CCR5600Design	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: Kelly Bramble ® 07/04/2008, 14:12:40 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Time out! I'm actually formulating and answer to Randy. I have had similar thoughts he has had without cravings..

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : : : Time and Speed food for thought -- Kelly Bramble	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: john2003 ® 07/24/2008, 22:01:38 Author Profile eMail author Edit

I have always thought there is a problem in physics and engineering in using distance versus time to express speed, i.e., 60 miles per hour or a light year or whatever. Instead of of saying that a rock is falling a certain number of "miles per hour" why not say that its falling with a certain "amount of energy" and that will be independent of time and possibly avoid time paradoxes and conundrums. Distance is what separates matter and time is that which separates events. How can "that which separates events" ever really move faster or slower, or move at all for that matter ? With time you are basically comparing at least two events, if there are no events taking place, and nothing is moving or happening, you cannot really define or have time at all. It's hard to define time in a total vacuum. The earth rotates around the sun and we call this a year and make comparisons between the earths orbit and some other event. A clock hand rotates 360 degrees and we call this an hour and then make comparisons between the motion of the clock hand and some other event. Time seems to be nothing more than a mental tool that we use to compare events. The light travels through space for one year and we call this a light year. There we go again, comparing distance to an event like the earths orbit. Why not just say the light is traveling with a certain amount of energy ? After all, without energy, there are no events or motion, and therefore no time. I think energy is what it all comes down to. John

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought -- john2003	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: Kelly Bramble ® 07/25/2008, 11:51:46 Author Profile eMail author Edit

John2003, interseting points, however I think measuring velocity in terms on energy per time would be confusing. Energy allways includes mass as in momentum. So, an object that has a millions grams of mass traveling at 20 miles per hour has a different energy level than an object that only has 1 gram of mass traveling at 20 miles per hour.

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought -- Kelly Bramble	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: john2003 ® 07/25/2008, 15:31:43 Author Profile eMail author Edit

It just seems to me that in certain situations, it may be best to try to forget concepts of time, distance, and speed, and concentrate more on how much energy is present, or focus strictly on the role that energy plays in whatever your trying to figure out. An object in motion must have or be expending some energy to stay in motion, so perhaps it would be better to focus more on energy levels and less on concepts of time, distance, and speed. The object must be traveling with some force or have had some force applied to it. Perhaps it's better to try to focus on the "amount of energy" and try to forget about time, and speed. They did experiments where they put clocks on airplanes and satellite's and after retrieval the clock's where behind, but that only shows that a mechanical mechanism slowed down for some reason, not time. Time is not a clock, time seems to only be a mental tool we use to compare events, or "that which separates events". I lean towards the thinking that the only time that has ever existed is "now" and the past and future are only figments of our imaginations. There is no future or past to "travel into or through" and time is not something that can speed up or slow down. Of course I could be wrong but that's how it "presently" no pun intended, seems to me.

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought -- john2003	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: randykimball ® 07/26/2008, 20:46:40 Author Profile eMail author Edit

I absolutely agree !! However, as I have stated, time is a tool we have broken down into segments for the use of cooperation between working parties for the use of measurement of work value and organizing events. We use time in physics as a constant across the board to measure forces. Most of our theories would be in trouble without our concept of measuring time for use as that constant. I think it is possible there are things or forces traveling around in the universe far faster than the speed of light of which we have no knowledge or understanding at this time. What I am saying is, it would be foolish of us to allow ourselves to think we understand all the forces that exist.... simply because we don't know about them. ... We do not want to close the patent office in London again, do we? The worst suggestion of your lifetime may be the catalyst to the grandest idea of the century, never let suggestions go unsaid nor fail to listen to them. Modified by randykimball at Sat, Jul 26, 2008, 21:41:20

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread

| Next | Current page

: : : : : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought
: : : : : : : : : Time and Speed food for thought -- randykimball	Post Reply	Top of thread	Forum

Posted by: john2003 ® 07/27/2008, 19:31:18 Author Profile eMail author Edit

Hi Randy, I see your point, but perhaps the theories would be in trouble anyway :- ) or perhaps if they forget the concept of time constants then they could come up with some new theories or unify the ones they have. If it works just make sure to log my IP so I can get my Nobel Prize.. Ha ha.. Seriously though, I completely agree with you that it would be foolish to think that we understand all the forces that exist. We may not even have all the senses to experience much of what actually exists. How would you explain color to a person who was born blind ? When a person who was born blind dreams, what type of images do they "see". Similar audible points can be made regarding a person born deaf. I would go so far as to say we would be foolish to think that we really understand much of anything. The universe is quite large and has been around for much longer than we have. And again, we might not even have the senses to detect much of what actually exists. Or, we cannot detect much of what actually exists from our present perspective. Some physicist say that the universe is finite, however, I think at the very least there must be infinite space. How can they possibly know with 100% certainty that they are detecting all the matter, energy, and/or forces that actually exist everywhere ? It also seems mathematically impossible that there is not intelligent life on some other planet. But then, how do you traverse the distance unless you go (many times) faster than light, travel through a worm hole, or stop aging so you can survive the journey ? Time is an interesting subject to me, on one hand it seems real and on the other hand it seems to only exist in our minds. I think the true nature of time is somewhat elusive which is what makes it interesting. I think another interesting question is where did matter and/or energy come from ? For some reason a complete and total vacuum (infinite nothingness) does not or perhaps cannot exist, but what is the reason ? I like to learn but our life spans are "seemingly" so short. I think it was Charley Chaplin who said that "were all amateurs, we don't live long enough to be anything else". Physicist are good at creative thinking and coming up with theories but they seem to get locked into almost thinking that the theories are fact, and more than that, unchanging fact. If your going to creatively solve problems, you can't be afraid to make mistakes and look a little foolish sometimes. In an infinite universe I think what we don't know is always going to be much larger than what we do know, but I guess that's what keeps things interesting. I guess the point I was trying to make is that time may not be quite what we think it is. There's an elusive aspect to time that I find interesting, and since time is a part of most of the theories, perhaps changing the way we think about time could allow for some new theories, or perhaps make more sense of existing theories. When most people think of light going through space, they probably think of it as traveling almost through a vacuum. However, what if there is "something" there, i.e., some type of medium that the light is traveling through, just like sound travels through the air. What if light needs this medium to travel just like sound needs a medium to travel through, but we just don't realize the medium is there ? Could altering the medium just in the vicinity of the light beam (or whatever is moving) allow for speeds faster than normal light speed ? After all, the speed of sound in space is zero because it has no medium (or does not have the right medium) to travel through. And yet in all the sci-fi films you hear those explosions in space :-) but there would be no sound in space. Change or alter the medium just in the vicinity of the moving object (perhaps this can be done even if the existing medium is basically a near vacuum) and perhaps you can change speed limits. I think it most likely is possible to travel faster than the speed of light. Einstein was very smart but he (nor any of us) really know of all forces or tools that we have available to work with. Were just barely scratching the surface of knowledge and it's just too early in the game to say "never". John

Post Reply Tell a Friend (must be logged in) Alert Admin About Post

Where am I? Original Top of thread