I see it like this, technically our galaxy is moving so fast in a direction that no matter what we do we can no change our general direction or speed. At most we can slow our speed down a tiny bit.
Maybe our time traveling is due to momentum, we can only go in one direction because we are unable to reverse our path.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
I say the same about this current non-discussion. Shame on you, Robosteve. Shame on you.
Quote from: Raist on June 30, 2009, 11:14:38 AMI see it like this, technically our galaxy is moving so fast in a direction that no matter what we do we can no change our general direction or speed. At most we can slow our speed down a tiny bit.In what frame of reference?Quote from: Raist on June 30, 2009, 11:14:38 AMMaybe our time traveling is due to momentum, we can only go in one direction because we are unable to reverse our path.Temporal momentum would be unit equivalent to mass. And how do you suppose we might obtain a source of temporal thrust without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy?
We're all jealous of Raist.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 30, 2009, 11:20:40 AMI say the same about this current non-discussion. Shame on you, Robosteve. Shame on you.There exists a frame of reference which, relative to our own, is moving backwards through time. It does not matter whether it is occupied.
I should stop posting.
I believe it was instilled at the same moment as time. We have momentum, not a change in momentum, therefore there is no need for more energy to be added.
Yes. We call it "God."
Quote from: BOGWarrior89 on June 30, 2009, 11:35:29 AMYes. We call it "God."God is a superluminal reference frame?
How do you know it exists if it is unoccupied?
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
Time travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass. To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself.
Quote from: Euclid on June 30, 2009, 06:04:27 PMTime travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass. To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself. Einstein's mass dilation idea given credence. w00t.
Quote from: Raist on June 30, 2009, 06:27:33 PMQuote from: Euclid on June 30, 2009, 06:04:27 PMTime travel within special relativity is impossible only because we have mass. To travel backward in time requires a speed greater than c, which is a speed a massive object can never obtain.To put it another another way, the "one-sided-ness" of time is only a consequence of us having mass; it does not seem to be a property of time itself. Einstein's mass dilation idea given credence. w00t.Fixed that for you.
I don't see how traveling faster than light would make you go back in time.
Traveling faster than light just means you are going really fast. There is absolutely no way you can magically go back in time. Or else you would be able to watch your self, making 2 of the same person and that would be creating matter, which you should hopefully know, is impossible.
But does imaginary imply going backward? I thought imaginary numbers were neither negative nor positive, they're just imaginary.
Quote from: Sexual Harassment Panda on July 07, 2009, 06:35:05 AMI don't see how traveling faster than light would make you go back in time.If you put values of v greater than c into the Lorentz transformation equation for time dilation, you actually get a pure imaginary number. But I'm no expert on Special Relativity; I'll be studying it next semester and hopefully learn the details then.
Okay I have just studied relativity in my free time. No teacher and until last year I didn't even no what a Lorentz transformation was. I will learn about the basics spring semester. However I though it was mass that got an imaginary number. I though time dilation was in reverse at faster then the speed of light.
Last random though. If time is another dimension then shouldn't we be able to measure it in units of length. I always though of time sort of like a flip book. each page being one plank second apart. so what is the distance between the pages. it makes sense to me that all dimensions would have the same minimum length so that one plank meter would be equal to one plank second. so you should be able to convert seconds to meters and vice versa. like I said a random though.
Quote from: Raist on June 30, 2009, 11:14:38 AMMaybe our time traveling is due to momentum, we can only go in one direction because we are unable to reverse our path.Temporal momentum would be unit equivalent to mass. And how do you suppose we might obtain a source of temporal thrust without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy?
Please demonstrate this unit equivalency.
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me.
Quote from: EvilToothpaste on July 15, 2009, 01:00:41 PMHmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me.As to me. Raist was the one who brought up the concept of temporal momentum, and I mentioned that it would be unit equivalent to mass in an attempt to point this out.
Hmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me. Isn't the speed of time 'c'? As in, the time component of the four-velocity of an object at rest, [gamma][speed of light] = [1][speed of light]
Quote from: EvilToothpaste on July 15, 2009, 01:00:41 PMHmm, that seems completely nonsensical, circular, and moot to me. Isn't the speed of time 'c'? As in, the time component of the four-velocity of an object at rest, [gamma][speed of light] = [1][speed of light]I thought the speed of yourself through time is 'c'the speed of something else through time changes by its relationship to you.
Yes, and since there are no forces either slowing us down through time or speeding us up that is completely meaningless. Temporarily we are in an inertial frame of reference.
Thusly, the time-component of four-momentum is [gamma][rest mass][speed of light], which is decidedly not unit equivalent to mass.
Quote from: Raist on July 15, 2009, 01:07:50 PMYes, and since there are no forces either slowing us down through time or speeding us up that is completely meaningless. Temporarily we are in an inertial frame of reference.Thank you for rephrasing what I said two weeks ago.Quote from: EvilToothpaste on July 15, 2009, 01:14:23 PMThusly, the time-component of four-momentum is [gamma][rest mass][speed of light], which is decidedly not unit equivalent to mass.Interesting. I've never come across the concepts of four-velocity and four-momentum before, but what you are saying makes perfect sense. Incidentally, if you don't mind explaining, how is a vector product defined in four-space?