PureBasic Forums - English

Kaeru Gaman wrote:

ricardo wrote:

PB wrote: But let's say a vehicle is invented that moves twice the speed of light. If I get
in it, and travel in it for a year, I won't have aged a year? Yeah, right.

Nop.

When you stop your trip, there will be a year passed for you, but something like 70 years for the people that dont travel with you.

completely wrong!

this what you describe would happen if you travel in a vessel at e.g. 99.2% lightspeed!

it's time-dilatation, and it's a proven effect!

traveling in a vessel with twice lightspeed would make you travel back in time....
...despite that you can't because you would have negative mass when traveling faster than light.

Where do you get that info????

The time-dilatation is not sinonimous to travel in time.

ricardo wrote:Where do you get that info????

The time-dilatation is not sinonimous to travel in time.

These are the weird effects you get once you reach close to light speed...
Time 'streaches', because in tends to zero... Above light speed you just move in space, because time becames 0 (a constant) and all you can analyse is the 'trail' the high speed mass has left behind in our slower than light space...

So:

NUME'S LAW'S FOR HIGHSPEED MASSES (faster than light)

a)
You can't analyse the mass itself, because it has already moved on.
(That's why i think Photon's don't have any, they are not there to analyse in the first place!)

b)
Photon's are the 'slowest' fastest speed objects we can perceive/detect with today's technology.

P.S.
For 2007 Noble Prize awards, please send private message at these forums

It's like taking a picture to a fast moving car....
In most cases you just get it's tail lights and not the vehicle itself...

I do time travel every day.
No really, I do.

When I drive from home at 6 am, I get to the airport at around 6:07. So, I have traveled from one spot to another and the time has changed. Definition...

GeoTrail wrote:I do time travel every day.
No really, I do.

When I drive from home at 6 am, I get to the airport at around 6:07. So, I have traveled from one spot to another and the time has changed. Definition...

That's one point of view

About the idea of Num3 about time is an abstract idea of our brain, i must say it is very correct also in my vision scheme.
@Num3: But i'd like to ask how do you explain the "existence" of space (distances), positions and movements.
As you can see, you can not explain a real existence of even only one of these 3 things if you consider "time" as a creation (an appearance) of our mind.
And now i know enough to go farer: you can not say that any of the known fundamental nature forces (any of them: gravity, electrical, nuclear strong or nuclear weak) exists for real, but as an appearance of our mind.

What General Relativity do is to stablish interfaces between what is real (if any) and what is appearant for us. Besides, General Relativity invite to continue on that way of finding more of such interfaces.

In England last week we all experienced time travelling, it was saturday night and all of a sudden we all jumped forward in time by a whole hour, really messed with our internal clocks, people were oversleeping or getting to places the next day an hour early. This time travelling is really not good.

But on the plus side, we have been told that by october (I believe) the scientists will have figured out a solution and we will all be going back in time by an hour, which should be good because we should all be able to meet ourselves and have a good talk about what is going to happen in the upcoming hour. (lets hope nothing gets changed the second time the hour happens, don't want any paradoxes!)

Derek wrote:In England last week we all experienced time travelling, it was saturday night and all of a sudden we all jumped forward in time by a whole hour, really messed with our internal clocks, people were oversleeping or getting to places the next day an hour early. This time travelling is really not good.

But on the plus side, we have been told that by october (I believe) the scientists will have figured out a solution and we will all be going back in time by an hour, which should be good because we should all be able to meet ourselves and have a good talk about what is going to happen in the upcoming hour. (lets hope nothing gets changed the second time the hour happens, don't want any paradoxes!)

Derek, we just time travelled forward an hour here. If you get back by october and we do to, we can meet for a cuppa. The distance between us has nothing to do with it right??

> Its proved.
> Not with people but with atomic clocks.

No. All that proves is that atomic clocks can be slowed, but time itself doesn't.
Atomic clocks are not time, they are just instruments set to measure what we
call time. And those instruments can be flawed if you move them fast enough,
and that doesn't mean that time itself is slowed just because they are.

Excuse me. I'm being just a bit dense here so please humour me. I notice that in this thread (and many other threads) the word "time" appears very often. As my English is not very good, could someone please tell me exactly what it means?

> There was a famous experiement done with two sync'ed atomic clocks, one
> at sea level that didn't move and one in an aeroplane that traveled around
> the world. When compared later they were different.

So what? All that proves is that two atomic clocks became out of sync due to
influences of motion. Time itself didn't stop or slow down in the meantime.

Fangbeast wrote:Derek, we just time travelled forward an hour here. If you get back by october and we do to, we can meet for a cuppa. The distance between us has nothing to do with it right??

Yeah, no problem.

netmaestro wrote:Excuse me. I'm being just a bit dense here so please humour me. I notice that in this thread (and many other threads) the word "time" appears very often. As my English is not very good, could someone please tell me exactly what it means?

For my part of this discussion; Time is our interpetation of an interval that has passed between a starting point and an ending point at any instance. For example, you woke up at 8 AM and looked at the clock and the clock said 8:00 AM. When you woke up the event of waking up was the starting point but by the time you had woken up and looked at the clock there was an interval of "time" (no matter how small) that passed before you looked at the clock. Your actual wakeup time may have been at for example .0000000000000000000001 seconds after 8:00 am. The ending point was when you looked at the clock which may have been at .0000000000000002 seconds after 8:00 am. Thus, there is a difference, an interval, between the starting point and ending point of an event - we measure this and our measure of this interval is what we call time.

Time is our interpetation of an interval... [] ...interval of "time"

Recursivity detected!

thefool wrote:Listen to Kaeru. Time has something to do with light, at least the relative time.

it isn't the light, its the velocity at which the light travels in a vacuum which is a constant (c=m/s). Light is Electro Magnetic radiation, EM radiation generally travels precisely at this constant velocity which is 299,792,458m/s. So, for a person or thing to be travelling at the "speed of light" would mean they (or the thing) will be traveling at 299,792,458m/s. However, this constant only holds true in a vacuum, when not in a vacuum the velocity will be slower, which means that the energy particles, the protons in the light from the sun for example, would have mass that can be acted upon by external forces (they run into each other or other particles) which causes them to slow down. For example, its a proven fact that sun light slows down some when it hits the earths atmosphere because the protons hit the air molecules.

SFSxOI wrote:

thefool wrote:Listen to Kaeru. Time has something to do with light, at least the relative time.

...

I thought it was because nothing travels faster, so if you move faster than anything else, it wouldnt reach you the same way