hmm I wonder how that works.

by Jtull 2008-12-11, 16:57

hey sorry I just thorght I could help you figure out scientific princibles for example how time works. its kinda what I like talking about so why not discuss it here.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:00

ok then, which theory do you believ more. time is linear, time is more like a river, time is still, we're moving through it, we're still and time is moving through us

by me naam is m 2008-12-11, 17:03

i think it's just more like a dimension.

you know, if you'd live in a cube, you can move left, right, onwards, backwards, up, down, so is it like with time, only currently we haven't figured out how to go daster or slower yet.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:04

but what about the movement, back forth etc. is it possible, or are we only dreaming. time is more of an enigma than anything else at the moment

by Jtull 2008-12-11, 17:04

well I dont think its either. realy think of it this way.

we exist in a 3D univerce and we move through it. consider time another dimencion we can move ourselves in it but we have a consistant velosity though it.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:07

ok, to take from an SG-1, time is relative. is this true?

by Jtull 2008-12-11, 17:08

yes time is conected to space.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:11

so then how does that work with your constant velocity theory?

by me naam is m 2008-12-11, 17:11

Jtull wrote:well I dont think its either. realy think of it this way.

we exist in a 3D univerce and we move through it. consider time another dimencion we can move ourselves in it but we have a consistant velosity though it.

exactly.

but somehow, we can influence our speed through time by our speed in 3D

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:13

if that's true, than there should theoritcally be a way to travel to all points in time.

by me naam is m 2008-12-11, 17:20

Darkwing wrote:if that's true, than there should theoritcally be a way to travel to all points in time.

theoretically. in fact, at the appolo missions, there were too super-exact clocks. one was located on earth, one went into the spacecraft.

the clocks had an inaccuracy of about 1 sec / 1,000,000,000 years.

when they came back, after traveling faster than any man has ever gone before, the appolo clock was a few seconds behind compared to the one staying on earth. that effectively proves Einstein's relativity theory.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:22

so, does space affetc time, or does tiem affect space?

by me naam is m 2008-12-11, 17:28

both, because speed = s/t, where s is the path you took, and t the time you took. since speed does affect time, apparently, does space/time affect time!

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:29

by Shemuel 2008-12-11, 17:31

I personally believe in the theory that there is no such hing as time. Just now. No past, no future.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:32

hm, but now just happened, and so did now, and now, and now is yet to come, so i thinks i disagree

by me naam is m 2008-12-11, 17:37

LOL, thinking hurts, eh?

so, what does this have for an influence on FTL?

sice it costs an certain amount of energy to reach a certain speed, if you need 1 time the energy to reach a certain speed in vacuum, you'll need 10 times the energy to reach 10 times that speed.

but here comes the problem.

that energy is Q/t where t is time for you as traveler. but for you, as accelerating traveler, the time will get slower and slower, compared to somebody just standing still.
the increase in speed however, is in s/t^2. problem is, here is t in time for the bystander, absolute time.
so to increase in absolute speed, you'll need more and more energy per relative second.
when you reach C, the speed of light, time will stand still, time is 0. that means you'll have to have ∞ energy / second to accelerate still.

that's why it's impossible to achieve FTL in this dimension, because in the end, you'll need infinite energy.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-11, 17:51

sure, i'll believe you

by me naam is m 2008-12-11, 17:57

hahahaha

by Jtull 2008-12-11, 18:01

hoold on I didn not contradict my therom we have a relitvly constant speed through time we can slow it down.(and possibly speed it up.) but when we come back to your "Zero" velosity we return to our constant temprol velosity.

by Shemuel 2008-12-11, 19:09

BBC-Horizon

by me naam is m 2008-12-12, 04:35

(can't see that outside the UK)

by Shemuel 2008-12-12, 13:21

LOL. Sucks for you. Sorry, it won't be on surfthechannel I don't think.

by me naam is m 2008-12-12, 13:29

*throws a tantrum*

by stewi0001 2008-12-12, 13:32

I believe that time is not real. It is a man made tool for measuring and organizing. It's based on the earth's rotation.

by Shemuel 2008-12-12, 13:35

That makes two of us.

But even so, we need that tool.

by stewi0001 2008-12-12, 13:45

till we can comprehend infinite or in other words that not everything has a beginning and end.

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 16:21

I know alot of people that hold that position. and as for going at the speed of light. mathmaticly its impossible but not to go faster than the speed of light.

by stewi0001 2008-12-12, 17:42

Nothing is impossible our minds just can't comprehend alot of things.

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 17:46

yea. science throws alot of stuff like that at you.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 17:46

it's impossible for me to bend my finger backwards without breaking it

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 17:49

no if you dislocate it you can with out breaking it.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 17:59

it's impossible to do that without pain

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 18:01

no worng agin pain kilers. Laughing

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 18:03

don't seem to work

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 18:05

it's impossible for me to fly without any technological aid (no, hurricanes don't count)

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 18:12

actualy it is the knack to flying is to throw your self at the ground and miss. Wink

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 18:13

nope, it's been proevn that that the bone density of a human is to heavy, and we do not have an aerodynamic shape, therefore we can't fly

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 18:14

think about it a satilite is throwing it self at the ground and missing. thus my previos statement is correct. Cool

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 18:17

i'm not a satellite. and a satellite is technology, with technology to aid itself in flying (rocket thrusters etc)

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 18:21

ok maybe your right then. confused

by stewi0001 2008-12-12, 19:34

my point is we can find a way thus making nothing impossible ex: to fly we made the plane.. etc...

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 19:36

ok, if you must

by Earthdeath 2008-12-12, 19:37

yeah, we can do almost anything.like i always said, if you fail, try, try again and if you dont you will get hit in the face with a shovel.thats a good philosophe

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 19:39

that's about as good as mine i posted today:

Darkwing wrote:listen jtull, everything's complicated. there's nothing easy (except maybe bashing dondon) but that's not the point. if at first you don't succeed, try try again, until you're either dead, or so completely embarassed that you wished you were dead

by Earthdeath 2008-12-12, 19:40

huh, i didnt read that post.i guess we have similar philosophies.

by **Darkwing** 2008-12-12, 19:43

it was in pandora's box

by Jtull 2008-12-12, 20:00

yea it was. im bord agin everyone left.

by me naam is m 2008-12-12, 21:50

i didn't.

Spoiler:

by Earthdeath 2008-12-12, 21:51

you were always insane MNIM.

by Sponsored content