Ok, now this isn't my field at all, and I have basic knowledge of this. So if it cannot be done, it was just an idea. 🙂 That being said, from what I understand, if you are in a high gravity area, for example, an event horizon, time slows down to you to almost a standstill. Would it be possible to create minature event horizons on a ship, where people can, hibernate for a better word. Using this, they could travel from place to place, ariving only slightly older than when they had orignally left.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Idea about gravity and space travel
- Thread starter sonz70
- Start date
Hiya!
You are misunderstanding slightly.
First, what happens is that as you approach the Event Horizion you are accelerated at an ever increasing pace. Current thinking is that at some point you would exceed the speed of light and the *image* of you would remain suspended at the Event Horizion to an outside viewer. I don't remember the specific methodology atm, but I'll find it in my texts. Key point is though, you do not become suspended, an image of you does.
To create Event Horizions, you'd first have to create "Minature" Gravity Wells, these wells would function as any other and pull not only what it's centered on towards it, but also everything surrounding it. What would happen is that these minature Gravity Wells would actually cause whatever superstructure it was contained in to begin to warp towards it and most certainly destroy whatever it was centered on. At least this is what would occur with any building materials known to us presently, because none of them would be likely to be able to withstand Gravitational Stress of those levels.
Remember, Size isn't important in Gravity Wells, Mass is. Black Holes aren't very large as far as the actual object itself, but it's Mass is enourmous. Little Gravity Wells could have devastating results depending on how much Mass it has/accumulates.
You do touch on something I've been considering for a long time though.
The Speed of Time.
Time itself is a measurement of an order of events, nothing more and nothing less. The concept of Time that we generally accept to be true is actually a Measurement of Speed. For example, Let's assume for a moment that a Day begins with Dawn and ends just before the moment of the next Dawn. We break it down by Hours, Minutes, and Seconds. We know how long each one lasts. Now, let's assume for a moment that our species was created on another Planet with a longer rotation. How long is an hour now? Or a minute? It becomes longer because the speed of rotation is longer.
So, The actual meaning of Time is an order of events. But the accepted meaning is the Speed of Events.
So, if we go by the accepted meaning and use Time as a measurement of Speed, then Time has a Speed. That Speed is how fast one must move to travel between two points instantaneously, and that Speed differs depending on the length between those two points.
Since Time has a Speed in this meaning, the Speed of Time can be achieved.
But before the Speed of Time can be broken, the Speed of Light must be broken. It's my understanding that as one approaches the Speed of Light one's Mass increases exponentially in direct relation to how close one is to the Speed of Light. Eventually achieving Infinite Mass. To move Infinite Mass one must have Infinite Energy.
Obviously, that's going to be a very hard rule to break. So, what we're left with is a need for Propulsion Systems that don't function within the Laws of Physics.
Although, this leads to my next thought, which I'm unsure of because my grasp of Magnetics is lacking.
If an object is completely suspended within a Magnetic Field, levetating, does it retain it's Mass?
Because if the Magnetic Field eliminates the Mass of the suspended object and replaces it with it's own Mass, then the Laws of Physics might change because now we're not trying to accelerate Mass but rather Energy. But whether or not that'd make a difference I don't know...
You are misunderstanding slightly.
First, what happens is that as you approach the Event Horizion you are accelerated at an ever increasing pace. Current thinking is that at some point you would exceed the speed of light and the *image* of you would remain suspended at the Event Horizion to an outside viewer. I don't remember the specific methodology atm, but I'll find it in my texts. Key point is though, you do not become suspended, an image of you does.
To create Event Horizions, you'd first have to create "Minature" Gravity Wells, these wells would function as any other and pull not only what it's centered on towards it, but also everything surrounding it. What would happen is that these minature Gravity Wells would actually cause whatever superstructure it was contained in to begin to warp towards it and most certainly destroy whatever it was centered on. At least this is what would occur with any building materials known to us presently, because none of them would be likely to be able to withstand Gravitational Stress of those levels.
Remember, Size isn't important in Gravity Wells, Mass is. Black Holes aren't very large as far as the actual object itself, but it's Mass is enourmous. Little Gravity Wells could have devastating results depending on how much Mass it has/accumulates.
You do touch on something I've been considering for a long time though.
The Speed of Time.
Time itself is a measurement of an order of events, nothing more and nothing less. The concept of Time that we generally accept to be true is actually a Measurement of Speed. For example, Let's assume for a moment that a Day begins with Dawn and ends just before the moment of the next Dawn. We break it down by Hours, Minutes, and Seconds. We know how long each one lasts. Now, let's assume for a moment that our species was created on another Planet with a longer rotation. How long is an hour now? Or a minute? It becomes longer because the speed of rotation is longer.
So, The actual meaning of Time is an order of events. But the accepted meaning is the Speed of Events.
So, if we go by the accepted meaning and use Time as a measurement of Speed, then Time has a Speed. That Speed is how fast one must move to travel between two points instantaneously, and that Speed differs depending on the length between those two points.
Since Time has a Speed in this meaning, the Speed of Time can be achieved.
But before the Speed of Time can be broken, the Speed of Light must be broken. It's my understanding that as one approaches the Speed of Light one's Mass increases exponentially in direct relation to how close one is to the Speed of Light. Eventually achieving Infinite Mass. To move Infinite Mass one must have Infinite Energy.
Obviously, that's going to be a very hard rule to break. So, what we're left with is a need for Propulsion Systems that don't function within the Laws of Physics.
Although, this leads to my next thought, which I'm unsure of because my grasp of Magnetics is lacking.
If an object is completely suspended within a Magnetic Field, levetating, does it retain it's Mass?
Because if the Magnetic Field eliminates the Mass of the suspended object and replaces it with it's own Mass, then the Laws of Physics might change because now we're not trying to accelerate Mass but rather Energy. But whether or not that'd make a difference I don't know...
CrimsonCutie
Senior member
Gravity is accuatlly the weakest of all forces.. as you just pointed out with your reference to magnetic power. A mangetic field suspending something doesn't affect its mass at all.. if it were to change it mass... (ie removeing it to make it lighter resulting in les gavitaional attraction between the object and the major soruce of gavity around it... ie the planet earth) it would have to release alot of eneregy---can we can atomic bomb... because you can't just remove mass. Something suspended in a magentic field has the same mass as befor.. mass is constant... gavity is merely a force of 11-dimensional properties of 2 bodies of mass and their propensitiy to move towards eachother.
The weakness of gravity can also be seen by looking at the universe.... with all the mass all around us... we are still expandings and gaining speed... the "vacumme energy" property of space that seems to be a constant force acting out against matter in it absence. Where as 2 galaxies move fruther apart their attractive force (gravity) lessens the vaccume reuplusive force remains contant... so they speed up moveing faster and faster apart.
First off: There is a standard measurement of Time that does not rely on the Earth.
It is determined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of specified transition in Cs-133 atom.
This is one second. Now the term second is a throw back to earth time. But the standard
itself is not. There is also the Natural unit of time which is the smallest time interval
thought to exist which is the Planck Time Tp = SQRT(hG/c^5). (Check out Wikipedia).
It is in extreme gravity situations that Time itself is warped (remember Time is a part of
Space-Time and gravity affects Space-Time). The higher the gravity field the more time
is warped. Time relatively slows down when in higher gravity fields. (Lets not forget that
gravity itself is really a factor of how mass curves space-time.)
This is the same factor that accounts for extreme velocities causing time dilation.
Since the lowest measurement of time accepted at this day and age is the Planck time
there is no real definition of instantaneous. There is an ambiguity detailed in that.
That could be defined as the meaning of instantaneous but it is relative.
One's mass does not increase exponentially as one reaches the speed of light it is
through the Lorentz Transformation that you can calculate relativistic mass. (Although Energy is probably the better usage here, along with momentum.)
When an object is levitated through magnetic levitation the mass of the item is still
the same as before the magnetic force was applied. Gravity being the weakest of the
4 fundamental forces and can easily be overcome by any of the others at small scales.
(Small scales here being less than galactic or when not near huge mass sources).
Basically I think the original idea introduced by the OP is one that is not practical.
I beleive most of Gatt's argument is correct for why it would not work.
If you could get the ship to safely go relativistic speeds then you would have something.
The only problem is it is one way "time travel". (Unless you want to start talking about
time variant wormholes.)
It is determined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of specified transition in Cs-133 atom.
This is one second. Now the term second is a throw back to earth time. But the standard
itself is not. There is also the Natural unit of time which is the smallest time interval
thought to exist which is the Planck Time Tp = SQRT(hG/c^5). (Check out Wikipedia).
It is in extreme gravity situations that Time itself is warped (remember Time is a part of
Space-Time and gravity affects Space-Time). The higher the gravity field the more time
is warped. Time relatively slows down when in higher gravity fields. (Lets not forget that
gravity itself is really a factor of how mass curves space-time.)
This is the same factor that accounts for extreme velocities causing time dilation.
Since the lowest measurement of time accepted at this day and age is the Planck time
there is no real definition of instantaneous. There is an ambiguity detailed in that.
That could be defined as the meaning of instantaneous but it is relative.
One's mass does not increase exponentially as one reaches the speed of light it is
through the Lorentz Transformation that you can calculate relativistic mass. (Although Energy is probably the better usage here, along with momentum.)
When an object is levitated through magnetic levitation the mass of the item is still
the same as before the magnetic force was applied. Gravity being the weakest of the
4 fundamental forces and can easily be overcome by any of the others at small scales.
(Small scales here being less than galactic or when not near huge mass sources).
Basically I think the original idea introduced by the OP is one that is not practical.
I beleive most of Gatt's argument is correct for why it would not work.
If you could get the ship to safely go relativistic speeds then you would have something.
The only problem is it is one way "time travel". (Unless you want to start talking about
time variant wormholes.)
I have not seen much mention of the relation of speed to time, in that the speed of Time, is a side affect of Speed to the stationary observer. To the passenger, time is normal, but to the observer, time will either, be observed to speed up or slow down, depending on what is being observed and how. And this applies to a passenger observing as well.
Time passes. Regardless of what we observe or do not observe. Time only exists if we measure it, which is not the same as saying time does not exist if we don't mark it.
But the results of the observation will both, interfer with time, and also determine it.
So the method is almost as important as the reason for measuring.
Saying time speeds up or slows down is more a comment on the observation, than it is about the action itself.
We need not determine time itself, but rather how it fits into our algorithim. To say that mass approaches the infinite as speed approaches the speed of light, is more a comment on the mistaken results of the observational algorithim, rather than on an actual conversion of mass. Some component is missing or being misused.
Math is limited, and anytime we approach the edge of our current mathmatical understanding or methods, and see these twisted results, such as mass shifting in any way, is merely showing the error of our math.
My take is, the reason our algorithims show mass increasing, or time shifting, is just parts of our math, that are weak or misapplied. Perhaps just waiting for someone to develop the constant of half of zero or some such odd twist.
The mysteries infront of us only reveal the level of our current understanding.
As in the past, our best path has always been to adapt.
It is the one thing that has set us apart from the paths led by the rest of the animal kingdom here on our little corner of the universe.
We do not need to understand gravity, we need to learn how to use it.
At this time, unless someone can point me at the answer, we do not even know why or how energy exists, where it comes from, or where it goes. We have tons of theories about it....No real proof of anything much...
but we do have tons of uses for it. And we do use it. Of course we may be using a house to dust our delicates. But that is the way of ignorance.
When we are able to use without understanding, we adapt it. And doesn't gravity seem to want to fit that bill.....
Time passes. Regardless of what we observe or do not observe. Time only exists if we measure it, which is not the same as saying time does not exist if we don't mark it.
But the results of the observation will both, interfer with time, and also determine it.
So the method is almost as important as the reason for measuring.
Saying time speeds up or slows down is more a comment on the observation, than it is about the action itself.
We need not determine time itself, but rather how it fits into our algorithim. To say that mass approaches the infinite as speed approaches the speed of light, is more a comment on the mistaken results of the observational algorithim, rather than on an actual conversion of mass. Some component is missing or being misused.
Math is limited, and anytime we approach the edge of our current mathmatical understanding or methods, and see these twisted results, such as mass shifting in any way, is merely showing the error of our math.
My take is, the reason our algorithims show mass increasing, or time shifting, is just parts of our math, that are weak or misapplied. Perhaps just waiting for someone to develop the constant of half of zero or some such odd twist.
The mysteries infront of us only reveal the level of our current understanding.
As in the past, our best path has always been to adapt.
It is the one thing that has set us apart from the paths led by the rest of the animal kingdom here on our little corner of the universe.
We do not need to understand gravity, we need to learn how to use it.
At this time, unless someone can point me at the answer, we do not even know why or how energy exists, where it comes from, or where it goes. We have tons of theories about it....No real proof of anything much...
but we do have tons of uses for it. And we do use it. Of course we may be using a house to dust our delicates. But that is the way of ignorance.
When we are able to use without understanding, we adapt it. And doesn't gravity seem to want to fit that bill.....
The 'speed of time' concept is a strange one. All objects travel at lightspeed through spacetime, in thier rest frame... methinks. As one speeds up towards c, time 'slows' and it takes you progressivly less local time to get anywhere; if you are going at 99% c, itll take.... about 1/10th of a year to travel 1 (external) light year, in your frame. So getting across the galaxy at that speed would be a matter of a mere 5000 years. Ha. But if you have a night infinite energy source, you could get there quicker, though in the end itll be peak power output that will determine peak acceleration and hence length of journey.
Wahsapa the only things that slow down when it gets cold is all molecular motion...nothing major 🙂 at -273K melocular motion stops and that would.....do what? I dont think we figured that out yet for sure.
I think the notion that the speed of light can never be achieved because mass and energy would be infinite is a play on the theory of supersymmetry and that for every boson there will be a fermion thus creating the infinite mass/energy relationship.
First off, Time is always going to be constant. The only thing that changes when time changes is our perception of time. If You wanted to make a space ship for time travel You would not actually travel through time but alter Your own personal perception of time. As Gatt infered, as one accelerates faster than the speed of light our perceptions of time change because the light/radiation/forces we "see" is what happened in our own personal past.....they just haven't caught up to us yet. Everyone else saw all the 'previous' light/radiation/forces You missed therefore perceived time was constant for everyone but us.
I dont think You could actually accelerate Yourself into getting Younger which would be a reversal of time. If the theory of time slowing as one approached the speed of light was true, You would actually get younger until You didn't exist at all given that You stayed at the speed long enough. Ok You could argue that You can't 'turn back' all the cell divisions that took place to make You but then if that didn't happen would You have really traveled BACK in time or again just altered Your own personal perception of it?
What is time? We "measure" time with reference to a set number of molecular oscillations. So as such, it is basically only a perception based on comparison to something else.
Is that really time? What if that perception was based on another "something"....would time change? If that is how we understand time then we could basically make it anything we wanted if we just changed the founding rules of what time is (what it's compared to) to something else.
The fact is we dont know if time really exists in the physical world at all. How do We know that time isn't just a made up 'thing' that we used to get to work on time which developed into an action/force/theory to help us explain theories that originally didn't make sense until we "made up" time?
Speed is the TIME it takes to get from point A to point B....can it be compaired to time? well it's based on time so how can You logically compare it to time when anything You do to time to test a possible comparison would change speed.
Well I'm out of time and have to go
Lazien
btw, I know that was lame 😛
I think the notion that the speed of light can never be achieved because mass and energy would be infinite is a play on the theory of supersymmetry and that for every boson there will be a fermion thus creating the infinite mass/energy relationship.
First off, Time is always going to be constant. The only thing that changes when time changes is our perception of time. If You wanted to make a space ship for time travel You would not actually travel through time but alter Your own personal perception of time. As Gatt infered, as one accelerates faster than the speed of light our perceptions of time change because the light/radiation/forces we "see" is what happened in our own personal past.....they just haven't caught up to us yet. Everyone else saw all the 'previous' light/radiation/forces You missed therefore perceived time was constant for everyone but us.
I dont think You could actually accelerate Yourself into getting Younger which would be a reversal of time. If the theory of time slowing as one approached the speed of light was true, You would actually get younger until You didn't exist at all given that You stayed at the speed long enough. Ok You could argue that You can't 'turn back' all the cell divisions that took place to make You but then if that didn't happen would You have really traveled BACK in time or again just altered Your own personal perception of it?
What is time? We "measure" time with reference to a set number of molecular oscillations. So as such, it is basically only a perception based on comparison to something else.
Is that really time? What if that perception was based on another "something"....would time change? If that is how we understand time then we could basically make it anything we wanted if we just changed the founding rules of what time is (what it's compared to) to something else.
The fact is we dont know if time really exists in the physical world at all. How do We know that time isn't just a made up 'thing' that we used to get to work on time which developed into an action/force/theory to help us explain theories that originally didn't make sense until we "made up" time?
Speed is the TIME it takes to get from point A to point B....can it be compaired to time? well it's based on time so how can You logically compare it to time when anything You do to time to test a possible comparison would change speed.
Well I'm out of time and have to go
Lazien
btw, I know that was lame 😛
EightySix Four
Diamond Member
Now that was headache inducing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
