# A Brief History of Time



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm still reading the book by Dr. Stephen Hawking (Brief History of Time)and find it a fascinating read. 

He possesses a rational, scientific, philosophical mind that is probably far above our level of understanding
of physics, and what makes the universe go round. He has to be recognized as one of the important highly educated minds 
of our times.

I will try an post updates on what I have read and learned in the next few days. You are welcome to make comments,
but keep it on this topic "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" and our universe in a nutshell. 

In his book, he emphasizes that "The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe"
That is a lofty goal indeed and may not be achieved in his life time or several lifetimes at that, or if ever, and the complexity of understanding boggles the mind.

Perhaps the best approach is to determine if there are laws that tell us how the universe changes with time.
From a point of singularity, the big bang theory, and questioning the initial state of the universe.

The problem of understanding this complex question requires to break it into smaller bits and come up with a lot of partial
theories that have to be proven in time. Even if this is the wrong approach to achieve complete understanding, it is the
way we have made progress in the past.

Relativity and quantum mechanics. Some theories support each other in some ways, yet others are inconsistent with
each other. 

In chapter 3, the expanding universe, he mentions that our galaxy somewhere in the middle of the "Milky Way Galaxy"
is one of a HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION galaxies that can be seen with modern telescopes. 
Each galaxy in itself containing some HUNDRED THOUSAND MILLION stars and some of those stars, like our
sun, itself a yellow star (mid point in it's life cycle), has a planetary system around it. 

So one would think that just from sheer coincidence, evolved and intelligent life exists somewhere out there.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You realize, that the book is an oversimplification and, by his own admission, much has already been proven wrong by himself and others since it was written...

Mankind is a funny creature. It has the arrogance to believe it can understand everything just by coming up with a plausible sounding theory, yet seems surprised when he discovers things are a little more complicated...

Not saying we'll never be able to explain how the universe works, but we've only really been doing science seriously for around 100 years. Same with medicine, yet we seem to think we can cure anything by now...

As George r.r. Martin would write "you know nothing Jon snow". It's propbably a better way to look at our understanding of the universe.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Oversimplifcation or not, entirely accurate or not, it is still a worthwhile read. As Just a Guy points out, we have just gotten started and things change every day. I miss Assimov and Sagan although there are a few writers today who can make 'science' readable for the masses. Did anyone see the movie? 'The Theory of Everything'. I wanted to but figured I'll catch it on the small screen. I have seen a couple of TV movies based on his life. I meant him in Vancouver in 1991 I think it was. He was wheelchair bound and using a computer to talk then and at that time I think everyone thought not long for this world. Pretty incredible mind.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> Oversimplifcation or not, entirely accurate or not, it is still a worthwhile read. As Just a Guy points out, we have just gotten started and things change every day. I miss Assimov and Sagan although there are a few writers today who can make 'science' readable for the masses. Did anyone see the movie? 'The Theory of Everything'. I wanted to but figured I'll catch it on the small screen. I have seen a couple of TV movies based on his life. I meant him in Vancouver in 1991 I think it was. He was wheelchair bound and using a computer to talk then and at that time I think everyone thought not long for this world. Pretty incredible mind.


I remember reading Carl Sagan's book "Murmurs of Earth" a few years ago. Forget what happened to it, I must have given it to someone else to read and forgot to ask for it back..anyway...in his book he described the design and orbital trajectories of the two deep space probes at that time, Voyageur 1 and Voyageur 2. 

Both space probes where equipped with nuclear generators (radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) mounted on a boom) to provide power for all those years of space flight. 


> power output of the RTGs does decline over time (due to the short 87.7-year half-life of the fuel and degradation of the thermocouples), but the RTGs of Voyager 1 will continue to support some of its operations until 2025.


Dr.Carl Sagan is gone now..but his creations live on and still are on their way into the interstellar cosmos. 



> In March 2012, Voyager 1 was over 17.9 billion km from the Sun and traveling at a speed of 3.6 AU per year (approximately 61,000 km/h (38,000 mph)), while Voyager 2 was over 14.7 billion km away and moving at about 3.3 AU per year (approximately 56,000 km/h (35,000 mph)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, I just have learned to take it for what it is.

Speaking of Sagan, did anyone watch the remake of Cosmos? I've got it stored on my machine, just haven't had to watch TV much…kids and their sports/activities.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> You realize, that the book is an oversimplification and, by his own admission, much has already been proven wrong by himself and others since it was written...
> 
> Mankind is a funny creature. It has the arrogance to believe it can understand everything just by coming up with a plausible sounding theory, yet seems surprised when he discovers things are a little more complicated...
> 
> ...


We may never be able to explain everything, but we are certainly able to explain far more than we have been able to in the past. Each successful attempt builds a bit more, and adds to the understanding that will be. 

I would suggest that humans have been doing science seriously for far more than 100 years. Many of our scientific principles have been laid down hundreds of years before.

BTW, what is the "much" that has been proven wrong? Did a quick google search, and couldn't find much.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

It is so difficult to fathom the size of the universe.

When I look up at the night sky and I see 2 stars, it is so hard for me to fathom that they are not really there. They WERE there, maybe 1500 years ago, or something like that, but have almost certainly moved by now. Also, those 2 stars might never have been side by side. Their light was side by side at some point in time and now their light is side by side hitting my eyeballs tonight, but I have absolutely no idea where those stars or their light is, right now. Those stars might not even still exist. They might have gone supernova 500 years ago and my eyes have not got the message yet and maybe never will in my lifetime.

It's literally mind boggling.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Guban said:


> BTW, what is the "much" that has been proven wrong? Did a quick google search, and couldn't find much.


Well, you could read some of his books which he wrote after a brief history of time...

Or you could google things like "Stephen hawking admits he was wrong" (where he talks about how his famous theories about blacks holes has been wrong from the start), or you could google "Stephen hawking wrong", ignore the religious rebuttals and look at some of the other scientific papers...not saying they are right either, but many have proofs to disprove hawking theories (which is the basis of scientific process)...

You have to remember, scientific explanation isn't "this is the truth" it's more "this is our best guess" to try to explain until we come up with a better guess...I don't think any real scientist would ever say "this is the whole truth, we've got it nailed". They already tried that around the turn of the last century in physics...and that was before Einstein....let alone quantum theory, string theory, and a myriad of other discoveries...the only thing they "discovered", was how little they actually knew.


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, I just have learned to take it for what it is.
> 
> Speaking of Sagan, did anyone watch the remake of Cosmos? I've got it stored on my machine, just haven't had to watch TV much…kids and their sports/activities.


I'm not old enough to have seen the original Cosmos. It looked interesting in the ads and hype, but was turned off with the first episode since it was rather over-simplified. And I thought the thing about inserting Neil Degrasse Tyson into a CGI spaceship that cut through all the scenes was pretty cheesy.

Seemed it was geared toward people with very little knowledge of science rather than someone with a developed amateur interest.

I suppose to really give it a chance, you'd have to watch more than the first episode.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Science is fun and Hawkings enjoys explaining, and has no qualms about admitting things he was wrong about and things he doesn't understand. I wish many of our climatologists would show the same professionalism.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The original cosmos also had a cgi "starship of the mind" and it's cheesy moments. And, like most science is really out of date...

As for being geared towards people with little knowledge, I think the same could be said for most popular science books including Stephen Hawking's popular books (as opposed to his scientific papers).


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm in the process of watching "Cosmos" on Netflix. yes, there are some cheesy CGI moments, but there is also some information that I didn't
know before hand.

I''ll give an opinion about this series after I finish watching the last episode (10th).
Certainly better than watching Startrek or some of the other Hollywood space movies.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Sagan's books 'The Demon-Haunted World" and "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" are amazing- two of my all-time favourite books.

I used to read a lot of 'lay physics' - one of my favourites is Lee Smolin.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Candle in the dark was also good.

You should try james burke's connections and the day the universe changed. There were also TV series.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Candle in the dark was also good.
> 
> You should try james burke's connections and the day the universe changed. There were also TV series.


"Science as a Candle in the Dark" is actually the subtitle of "Demon Haunted World". It's pretty much my favourite book of all time; one of those 'everyone should read this' books. Connections is great. I'll look for The Day the Universe Changed- thanks!


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

He also wrote the pinball effect but, like the connections sequel series (there were three) the others weren't as good.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Well, you could read some of his books which he wrote after a brief history of time...
> 
> Or you could google things like "Stephen hawking admits he was wrong" (where he talks about how his famous theories about blacks holes has been wrong from the start), or you could google "Stephen hawking wrong", ignore the religious rebuttals and look at some of the other scientific papers...not saying they are right either, but many have proofs to disprove hawking theories (which is the basis of scientific process)...
> 
> You have to remember, scientific explanation isn't "this is the truth" it's more "this is our best guess" to try to explain until we come up with a better guess...I don't think any real scientist would ever say "this is the whole truth, we've got it nailed". They already tried that around the turn of the last century in physics...and that was before Einstein....let alone quantum theory, string theory, and a myriad of other discoveries...the only thing they "discovered", was how little they actually knew.


Umm, this response is not really helpful. His book is a couple of hundred pages? and there are a few things that have since been overturned? I would hardly call that "much".

I believe that you are correct that scientists would hesitate to say that anything is the whole truth, but to say that science proposes a bunch of best guesses is a bit insulting, don't you think. Humans really do understand quite a lot, due to science, and granted, while our knowledge of science is constantly changing, it is usually the case that our understanding is being modified, rather than being rewritten completely. Newton's laws got humans to the moon, and work just fine in many circumstances. They fail in the extremely small (quantum), the really fast (special relativity) or the massive (general relativity).

When scientists discover something, I think that they really do discover something, not how little they know. Of course new discoveries often open new areas of searching, but to say that each discovery or realization makes them think that they know less is a bit insulting.

Is this how you felt when you learned science? By learning about states of matter, you found out how little you knew? Did you have the same feeling when you learned about the elements? I hope not. While you may have found out that there was lots to learn, I hope that your understanding of the world around you improved just a bit more. That s the way with science learning too. In the past, and now.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe it had to do with university courses where the prof would come in each year and state, "basically everything you learned last year was wrong, and here's why..." 

The higher up you go with learning, the more you realize how simplified the basic education is...

True, it's good enough for the layman, but things are a lot more complex than most people realize.

I'll try to remember some titles of layman style books which may show what I'm talking about...

Maybe try bad astronomy by Phil plait. Not really the right book...I'll have to look through my shelves. I read a lot, so I forget specific titles...


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

Earlier this month, a massive 4.3GB Hubble pic of our nearest galactic neighbour and future merger partner, Andromeda, was released. Watch in full screen and whatever resolution you can handle. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Guban said:


> Umm, this response is not really helpful. His book is a couple of hundred pages? and there are a few things that have since been overturned? I would hardly call that "much".


+1 ^



> I believe that you are correct that scientists would hesitate to say that anything is the whole truth, but to say that science proposes a bunch of best guesses is a bit insulting, don't you think. Humans really do understand quite a lot, due to science, and granted, while our knowledge of science is constantly changing, it is usually the case that our understanding is being modified, rather than being rewritten completely. Newton's laws got humans to the moon, and work just fine in many circumstances. They fail in the extremely small (quantum), the really fast (special relativity) or the massive (general relativity).


+1 ^



> When scientists discover something, I think that they really do discover something, not how little they know. Of course new discoveries often open new areas of searching, but to say that each discovery or realization makes them think that they know less is a bit insulting.


+1 ^

Science; astronomy, astrophysics is a continuing study and expansions on theories that are refined as time progresses.
Many have been involved in this evolution of man's knowledge from the first days of Copernicus. 

Without the discoveries of Newton and his laws of motion, Einstein and his theory of relativity, and other scientists and astronomers, space flight would not have been possible, nor the space probes of our planetary system to date.

I'm glad that things have changed enough that we don't take "somebodies" word for it that is the gospel truth..
..(ie: "the church" in the 15th century)..that the world is flat,
and *you better believe in that*, otherwise you are a heretic punishable by death.

We have come a long way since then, (for better or worse). Some things have changed,
while other things have not, as we see in world events today.

Much have we learned in the last 400+ years and much more we will learn in the next 400 years.. 
that is if we survive that long.. and don't pollute our environment to the point it is no longer liveable.

To summarize; quoting from Stephen Hawking's book;



> "It turns out to be very difficult to devise a theory to describe the universe all in one go. Instead we break the problem
> up into bits and invent a number of partial theories . Each one of these* partial theories describes and predicts *
> a certain limited class of observations, neglecting the effects of other quantities, or representing them by a simple set of numbers.


(he goes on to say)



> It may be that this approach is completely wrong. If everything in the universe depends on everything else in a fundamental way, it might be impossible to get to the full solution by investigating parts of the problem in isolation.
> Nevertheless, it is the way that we have made progress in the past. The classic example is the Newtonian theory of gravity..."


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> Earlier this month, a massive 4.3GB Hubble pic of our nearest galactic neighbour and future merger partner, Andromeda, was released. Watch in full screen and whatever resolution you can handle. Enjoy!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU


It boggles the mind. That is just a partial view from the Hubble, one galaxy amongst hundreds of millions of galaxies..


> According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at least *one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.* They've counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe


Some are so far away, that the light that originated from them left millions of light years ago, hundreds of millions or even thousands of millions of light years away...and we are told that the universe as we know is..still expanding.

Here on earth, most of us are oblivious to what is happening out there, or what will happen to us eventually. 
IF there is a "heaven" as some religions lead us to believe..will our "souls", if we want to call our "life force" 
that is within us and keeps us going...have to travel "forever"to get to another galaxy where "heaven" may be...
or perhaps be destined to travel forever "to somewhere". 
Can science ever disprove popular belief influenced by religions? 

We go about our daily infinitesimal lives, worrying about this or that, the falling interest rates, the price of gold,
or how much "gold" we have, the possibility of another recession triggered by oil prices falling further..gov'ts in a quandary what to do next,as they reach into their cookie jar contingency funds...and come up empty...

Yet way, way out there..some cosmic event can trigger a catastrophe causing us to be extinguished in an instant...not knowing what happened.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

$1600 Gold by 2011 said:


> Earlier this month, a massive 4.3GB Hubble pic of our nearest galactic neighbour and future merger partner, Andromeda, was released. Watch in full screen and whatever resolution you can handle. Enjoy!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU


mind=blown

That was astounding.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

indexxx said:


> mind=blown
> 
> That was astounding.


Yes. It was. But keep in mind. Andromeda does not actually look like that. That is what the light that hit the telescope looked like at that moment in time, however the light that left the objects we saw all originated at some different time in the past.  In a lot of cases the amount of time difference is many 1000s of years, and hence those stars would all be in different places at that moment in time, and some of those stars may not even exist anymore.

I will admit, however, that it probably looks pretty close to that image ... and it does make ones mouth drop a little.

How in the world did one single bang create all of that?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I think you all are misunderstanding what I'm saying...im not saying their stuff is garbage, just that in say 400 years to use your number, our relatives will look back at all the silly, quaint ideas we used to have...similar to us looking back.

Btw, the fact that the world is round has been well known for a lot longer than the false history which says that the church insisted that the world was flat. There are even historical church records which accept which show they didn't believe the world was flat. However, most people still preach the false history...I beleive the whole thing came out of comments made on the closed mindedness of the church, which suddenly became "fact". Something which continues on to this day...

George Washington never had wooden teeth, he didn't chop down a cherry tree, Newton never had an apple fall on his head, a kite and key weren't used to "discover" electricity, Edison didn't "invent" thousands of things, he designed a patent factory and took credit for a lot of other people's discoveries...


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> How in the world did one single bang create all of that?


Wow, not an easy question. 

OK, how about big bang, had very high temperatures/energies that condensed into matter (mainly hydrogen and helium) as it cooled and expanded. 

Gravity caused stars to form that generated heavier elements by nuclear fusion. Supernovae disperse these elements, and new stars form. Gravity causes stars to circle around a huge black hole in the middle. Collisions between galaxies happen. Repeat for 13 billions of years. Voila, this is the galaxy we see now, or as you point out, as it existed in the past. For Andromeda, 2 odd million years ago since it is 2 odd million light years away. 

Or you can say that a creator miraculously made it. 

Your pick.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> Yes. It was. But keep in mind. Andromeda does not actually look like that. That is what the light that hit the telescope looked like at that moment in time, however the light that left the objects we saw all originated at some different time in the past.  In a lot of cases the amount of time difference is many 1000s of years, and hence those stars would all be in different places at that moment in time, and some of those stars may not even exist anymore.


For M31 (Andromeda) light left over 2 million years ago, so things in that neighborhood have likely changed a bit.

BTW, from a fairly dark sky one can see M31 naked eye though it's much nicer in binos/telescopes.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

cainvest said:


> For M31 (Andromeda) light left over 2 million years ago,


Yes. That is what I am talking about. That is a mind boggling amount of time for light to travel. So looking up at the night sky, it's not so much WHAT I am seeing but WHEN I am seeing and because of this, I can't actually see WHERE.

It is just hard to get a wrap around that kind of thing. 

As for the big bang. I listen to the religious people explain things, choke on that for a while and say "no that can't be it", then I listen to the scientific community speak, choke on that for a while and say "no that can't be it". I keep going back and forth in circles, around and around and around.

I suppose I will never know, but hey the questions are fun!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Guban said:


> Wow, not an easy question.
> 
> OK, how about big bang, had very high temperatures/energies that condensed into matter (mainly hydrogen and helium) as it cooled and expanded.
> 
> ...


Here is the current dilema...time as we know it can only be thought of as a few seconds AFTER the big bang.
Present theories is that the universe will expand forever, but forever is well beyond the normal human epoch on earth. 

Dr. Stephen Hawking mentions in his book;


> " mathematicians cannot handle infinite numbers"; At the time of the big bang, the
> density of the universe and the curvature of space time would have been infinite'; this means that the general theory of relativity
> predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what
> mathematicians call a singularity. In fact all of our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time
> is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the big bang singularity where the curvature of space time is INFINITE.





> This means that IF there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what WOULD HAPPEN
> AFTERWARD, because the predictability would break down at the big bang."


Maybe future mathematicians using existing theories can modify them, but is an insurmountable task to
provide any evidence of proof. You cannot go beyond infinity. 




> It states that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements *place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago*, which is thus considered the age of the universe.
> After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. *The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on*.


So, we can only go back so far, bearing in mind that the light from galaxies in our expanding universe which is still expanding is the light that occurred well after the big bang. 

On a side note, in trying to synchronize with the modern science, the Catholic church seized the big bang theory model in
1951 and officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible. 

Interesting isn't it..that if the church has no theories other than a 3 thousand year old Bible, written before the discovery
of telescopes and star gazing, they decreed that the earth was flat and if anyone dared to disagree with their theories,
it was considered heresy!


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> It is just hard to get a wrap around that kind of thing.


No doubt, hard to grasp and understand of some concepts. Way, way back I was interested in string theory and did a lot of reading on the subject, the prerequisites alone to gain some basic understanding were huge and I soon backed out of that rabbit hole.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> 1. Here on earth, *most of us are oblivious to what is happening out there....*
> 2. *Can science ever disprove* popular belief influenced by religions?
> 3. We go about our daily infinitesimal lives, worrying about this or that/yet way, way out there..some cosmic event can trigger a catastrophe causing us to be *extinguished in an instant*...not knowing what happened.


*1.* Considering the exact same could be said about what is happening here on Earth, why is that surprising?! :biggrin:
*2.* What makes science possible?
*3.* Is there a point in worrying about being 'extinguished in an instant' by what is 'way out there'? I'm more worried about non-cosmic events.

IMHO, the creation/universe will remain an enduring mystery, that no human brain will ever solve in its entirety.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Yes. That is what I am talking about. That is a mind boggling amount of time for light to travel. So looking up at the night sky, it's not so much WHAT I am seeing but WHEN I am seeing and because of this, I can't actually see WHERE.


I thought you meant more that when we look at star A and star B in the sky, we might be seeing star A as it was 50,000 years ago, and star B as was 1000 years ago - the relative differences between things we see "together" now. But either way, yes, things like "now" can get pretty fuzzy at relativistic speeds and distances... 

2.5 million (light-)years to Andromeda is a mere nothing. The universe in most reckonings is just under 14 _billion_ years old, and I believe they've now seen a galaxy dating from only 700 million years after the big bang, so its light has been travelling for 13 billion years to get to us - so long that it has "red-shifted" and has to be viewed by infrared detectors.

Even better, the universe is expanding. So in the 13 billion years that light took to get to us, the space between us has grown, and it is "now" over 40 billion light-years away, not 13. The entire universe we can observe today forms a sphere centered on us something like 45 billion light-years in radius (or 90+ billion light-years in diameter). But because our observable universe is expanding from the Big Bang, as you go back in time it was smaller and smaller, and at some fraction of a second after the big bang, all the space and "stuff" in our 90 billion light-year diameter observable universe was compressed in a volume the size of a grapefruit. And that's _after_ it went through (in most theories) an incredible exponential "inflation" from a ridiculously smaller size at an even earlier infinitesimal fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

And that's just our observable universe - beyond that there is either very very much more (or infinite), space and stuff pretty much just like ours, which we'll never interact with because of the speed of light limitation.

The general consensus seems to be that the physics of the universe back to about when it was a millionth of a second old are generally well known - the formation and relative abundances of particles, elements, and the general evolution of the universe. Before that point is where things are less sure, as the various natural forces presumably unify, the whole "inflation" hypothesis kicks in, gravity and the other forces need to be understood together, and ultimately the question of what, if anything, was before the big bang, etc.

Also, the question of what to have for breakfast tomorrow...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> It boggles the mind. That is just a partial view from the Hubble, one galaxy amongst hundreds of millions of galaxies..
> 
> Some are so far away, that the light that originated from them left millions of light years ago, hundreds of millions or even thousands of millions of light years away...and we are told that the universe as we know is..still expanding.
> 
> ...


 ... and to boggle the mind even further more and add another dimension to our own Milky Way galaxy:

*Wormhole to another galaxy may exist at the centre of our Milky Way, astrophysicist claims*

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/geekquinox/space-travel-through-wormholes-like-in-210918680.html

Perhaps, just perhaps, heaven is on the other side of this wormhole?


Note to self: Need to re-review the thread in its entirety once closed.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and to boggle the mind even further more and add another dimension to our own Milky Way galaxy:
> 
> *Wormhole to another galaxy may exist at the centre of our Milky Way, astrophysicist claims*


Ah! the space-time continuum....a mystery that will take us probably thousands of years to prove that it exists and
it is a portal to another universe of dark matter and antimatter that we will never be able to see for ourselves.



> "Wormholes" are basically two black holes that are separated by vast cosmic distances but are connected together via a special bridge that crosses both space and time. These bizarre tunnels would basically bend space-time such that two places far apart are much closer together. This could allow travellers to zip across immense distances – from hundreds to millions of light years in space – in very short periods of time.


Another theory that for now, will probably never be proven. 
Here is what Stephen Hawking says in his book (chapter called "Black Holes ain't so black") and Chptr10 (Wormholes and Time Travel);



> "if we sent an expedition to the centre of our galaxy, it would take at least a hundred thousand years before it came back. The theory of relativity does allow for one consolation, this is the so
> called " twins paradox."


Science fiction writers (HG Wells Time machine); had to suppose that one day we discovered how to travel faster than light, which modern theories have proven it is impossible. As you approach the speed of light, your mass gets heavier and heavier and you slow down accordingly.

The wormhole concept of time travel exists only in warp space-time.



> 'The idea of wormholes is not purely science fiction, but also mentioned in a paper by Albert Einstein in 1935, that general relativity allowed what they call "bridges", now known as wormholes. To prevent the wormholes from 'pinching" off or to warp space-time in any other way to permit time travel, one can show that one needs space time with negative curvature.
> 
> Ordinary matter, which has a positive energy density gives space time a positive curvature like the surface of a sphere.
> What one needs in order to warp space-time that will allow travel into the past is matter with NEGATIVE ENERGY DENSITY. The classical laws of energy would have ruled out any possibility of time travel."





> However quantum laws allow for energy density to be *negative *in some places *provided that this is made up by postive energy in other places*, so that the total energy remains balanced. The possibility of time travel remains open, but I'm not going to bet on it."





> Perhaps, just perhaps, heaven is on the other side of this wormhole?


Perhaps it all depends on your religiious convictions.:biggrin:

We are after all " stardust"..we are made of the same materials of that primordial "soup" and energy that is found on our earth and in our universe.
We are primarily carbon..the most plentiful of the elements.

Time travel is a paradox..because we cannot go back in time and change what has happened in the past. The *past is fixed*
and we can only observe it from recorded history and events. 

For instance, you could not go back and prevent the Holocaust from happening...because it has already happened..if you could even do that, you would disturb future chaining of events and outcomes. 

Unlike the movie "Back to the Future", you can't go back and meddle with things like which boyfriend your mother takes up with and marries.:biggrin:

Nor can you travel into the future and see what will happen in world events, such as the price of oil, outcome of conflicts and significant events that
will happen in the future that you could bring that back to the present.in order to change anything.

Just like the big bang theory states that it was an colossal event of singularity, and that all events and event horizons move forward from there, we can't go back beyond that.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

The problem with time travel is also that time isn't real...

For example, if you take two twins, one stays on earth and the other takes off in a rocket and travels at the speed of light. When he returns, he find his twin much older...has he travelled into his twin's future?

If they switched roles, and the other returned, they'd be the same age again.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Just a Guy said:


> The problem with time travel is also that time isn't real...
> 
> For example, if you take two twins, one stays on earth and the other takes off in a rocket and travels at the speed of light. When he returns, he find his twin much older...has he travelled into his twin's future?
> 
> If they switched roles, and the other returned, they'd be the same age again.


Is that real time travel (as most people see it) or just time dilation?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... and to boggle the mind even further more and add another dimension to our own Milky Way galaxy:
> 
> *Wormhole to another galaxy may exist at the centre of our Milky Way, astrophysicist claims*
> 
> Perhaps, just perhaps, heaven is on the other side of this wormhole?


*Beav*; Einstein's theory: E=MC2 (squared), defines how fast anything can travel in our universe. Nothing can travel at the speed of light BUT light particles themselves in our universe, nothing can travel faster than light. 

Well, Neutrinos apparently can, but they are the exception.

So if you want to get "there' and your "life force" that defines you as a person is not made of neutrinos, 
you better find another form of transportation to get "there".:biggrin:

Some people believe in re-incarnation...where you can come back from the 'dead' and occupy another body...but here's something to think about...as a human being, we cannot go back beyond the instance of our conception. 
At that point we are just DNA from each of our parents, with no recollection of what happened in the past. 

All we know once we are born and once we acquire intelligence to understand, is that we don't carry any recollection of our past lives..if we had any to begin with. Each life begins at an instance in time and moves forward from there and ends at an instance in time.
All we know is that in order for us to be, our biological parents had to have an environment around them for us to begin life..or "begat" as the Bible refers to. 

We barely remember events in our childhood, and certainly not anything before we are born and experience life.
Why is it any different when we finally end our lives? 

Do our energy lifeforce that keeps us alive just leave our bodies and fly through the time-space continuum to find a wormhold (where no GPS exists)..then "pop" down that wormhole like a rabbit to come out on the other side to find the "pearly gates'...and perhaps recognize all of our friends and love ones that have gone before?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> *The problem with time travel is also that time isn't real...*For example, if you take two twins, one stays on earth and the other takes off in a rocket and travels at the speed of light. When he returns, he find his twin much older...has he travelled into his twin's future?
> 
> If they switched roles, and the other returned, they'd be the same age again.


 ... so how do you define time?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

carverman said:


> Why is it any different when we finally end our lives?
> 
> Do our energy lifeforce that keeps us alive just leave our bodies and fly through the time-space continuum to find a wormhold (where no GPS exists)..then "pop" down that wormhole like a rabbit to come out on the other side to find the "pearly gates'...and perhaps recognize all of our friends and love ones that have gone before?


Be careful. You may just be starting the beginning of a whole new religion. I do believe it is that type of thinking that starts them all. 

Will you be starting to pass a donation basket around now? lol.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

From what I've read in physics, the current thoughts on time is, it doesn't really exist. It's just our brain's way to try and explain an observation.

I think hawking once proved we were living in negative time for a while...

Here's another take on time travel...

Two people both take off to explore a distant planet, one travels by a fast rocket, the other finds a wormhole and gets there first...he then returns and meets the other rocket part way there and tells what he's found. They decide to turn around and go back...by finding the wormhole, did the first guy change the future for the second?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so how do you define time?


Time as we know it, is a mathematical measurement of our lives based on the rotation of the earth (in hours, minutes, seconds, etc) and rotation around our sun in years, which happens to be 3651/4 years..so that model being imperfect, we just add another day every 4 years to our calenders as a leap year.

Once we leave our earth and planetary system, time becomes immaterial. 

It is measured in light years, ie: the time light particles travel in one earth year from their origin to an observable point on earth. Light has been calculated to travel at 186.282 miles per sec. Our lives are measured in years, the time it takes the earth to orbit once around our sun. 

Our life spans are defined by our DNA and it's eventual breakdown, where our cells no longer reproduce
themselves at the rate we need to sustain organ functions....barring any diseases or tragic accidents that
takes us out before "our time" is up. 

That is why interstellar space is so vast and far away....when it takes thousands, millions of light years to reach our nearest star.



> 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second), and in theory nothing can travel faster than light. In miles per hour, light speed is, well, a lot: about 670,616,629 mph. If you could travel at the speed of light, you could go around the Earth 7.5 times in one second


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Carver, "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" isn't quite true in itself either...

"Relatively speaking, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" was what Einstein said. There is a difference, depending on the observer. If you were on a rocket travelling at the speed of light, you could move forwards and backwards all you want, someone outside the rocket would see you frozen in time but, theoretically you could be said to be moving faster (though you technically aren't) and no one on the outside can see you doing it, unless they are moving at some speed relative to you.

Also, I wonder if it's more nothing can be observed travelling faster than the speed of light because we have nothing that can detect it as we use electromagnetic wavelength for our observations. Anything in front of the light would be invisible since we need light to see/detect it.

That's why, if the sun exploded, we'd never see it until the earth was destroyed (even though it happened 8 minutes earlier) since the destructive front of the explosion travels at the speed of light, the first we'd see is the last thing we'd see...unless we were very far away where the radiation couldn't harm us.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> The problem with time travel is also that time isn't real...
> 
> For example, if you take two twins, one stays on earth and the other takes off in a rocket and travels at the speed of light. When he returns, he find his twin much older...has he travelled into his twin's future?
> 
> If they switched roles, and the other returned, they'd be the same age again.


How is this not real? They would both be older. For example if Twin A ages 1 year while Twin B ages 9 years in the first trip, then Twin A ages 9 years while Twin B ages 1 year in the second trip. After both trips, they would both be 10 years older. What's odd about that?


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

carverman said:


> *Beav*; nothing can travel faster than light.
> 
> Well, Neutrinos apparently can, but they are the exception.


Your information is a bit out of date. Apparently the faster than light neutrino thing was an equipment calibration error, or something like that. Special relativity is still good.
See:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112551696/cern-confirms-neutrinos-not-faster-than-light/


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Carver, "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" isn't quite true in itself either...
> 
> "Relatively speaking, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" was what Einstein said. There is a difference, depending on the observer. If you were on a rocket travelling at the speed of light, you could move forwards and backwards all you want, someone outside the rocket would see you frozen in time but, theoretically you could be said to be moving faster (though you technically aren't) and no one on the outside can see you doing it, unless they are moving at some speed relative to you.
> 
> ...


Einstein's theories state that matter, energy and information can't move at or greater than light speed. There are examples of things moving at greater than light speed. A pulsing laser rotating very quickly in a circle firing at a cylindrical wall surrounding the laser is an example. The dot of the laser could be seen to be moving at a speed greater than "c". Of course, there really isn't a transfer of matter/energy/information from one dot location to the next, so that is ok from a special relativity point of view.

Interesting. Your example showing things can't go faster than light speed has the rocket going at light speed, which is something that Einstein says can't happen. Relativistic math breaks down at light speed, not beyond. (The whole divide by zero problem) Any conclusions drawn from the example are then suspect.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Sorry, I was using a common analogy, just like Einstein and hawking (though I think they used a train, now that I think about it).

You do realize a theory, by definition is not a fact. It's an idea. Since we can't seem to (yet) accelerate masses up to the speed of light, the theory seems to be true. That, however, is not the same as the theory *is* true. We may find ways in which we can speed up masses to the speed of light, and maybe beyond, at which point we'll revise the theory.

It's happened many times in the past, to many theories...why do you suddenly feel Einstein was different?


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Sorry, I was using a common analogy, just like Einstein and hawking (though I think they used a train, now that I think about it).
> 
> You do realize a theory, by definition is not a fact. It's an idea. Since we can't seem to (yet) accelerate masses up to the speed of light, the theory seems to be true. That, however, is not the same as the theory *is* true. We may find ways in which we can speed up masses to the speed of light, and maybe beyond, at which point we'll revise the theory.
> 
> It's happened many times in the past, to many theories...why do you suddenly feel Einstein was different?


Sigh. I write it again. The whole idea is that we can't speed things up to the speed of light. Are you asking physicists to speed things up to "c" to disprove his ideas, but since we can't do this, this is proof that he may be wrong? Seems like circular reasoning. Until we prove that a mouse is heavier than an elephant, we can't say that an elephant is heavier? 

Einstein and Hawking never used a train travelling AT the speed of light. NEAR the speed of light is an entirely different idea, and time dilation and length contraction prevents the observer in an outside frame of reference from seeing any motion beyond light speed.

There are many experiments that have masses speeding very near the speed of light, and they confirm Einstein's ideas. Did a quick google search and found this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

I understand what a theory is. What is your definition of a fact? Something that can not be disproved? See your reasoning above. 

Did you follow my previous description of the progress of science? The theories of relativity have many experiments that show that they work, so within the constraints of conditions for the theory, we haven't been able to find any flaws. If/when they are found, new science theories tend to modify the old. Newton said something like: "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants that have come before me".


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Ah, I see the issue now in that I didn't say "near the speed of light", though I believe I've read theoretical examples where they used "the speed of light", I could be mistaken. 

Fundamentally, the more I read this, the more I think we're actually agreeing on things...we both seem to be arguing the same thing, but differ on semantics. I admit to probably oversimplifying things, and maybe not wording things goodly.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Guban said:


> Your information is a bit out of date. Apparently the faster than light neutrino thing was an equipment calibration error, or something like that. Special relativity is still good.
> See:
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112551696/cern-confirms-neutrinos-not-faster-than-light/


 Ah yes, a calibration error. When it involves time in such minutiae, it can happen. Thank goodness we have CERN to prove or disprove those particle/antiparticle theories. 

I'm still shaving with OCCAMS RAZOR. Good thing I have PLANCK'S CONSTANT to sit on, while I ponder my GUT (Grand Unification Theory) on all this. 
I'm still a long ways off finishing this book and my brain may be starting to turn into a SuperNova..:highly_amused:

Carry on gentlemen...(and ladies)....maybe if we put our thoughts together.. maybe it will form the basis for a best seller?


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

"The universe by nuts in hell" by the canadian money forum


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Or "The Heavenly Universe" as written by the angels of CMF .. it's Friday so don't ruin everyone's weekend (forecast: mild Polar Vortex) ! :cheerful:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> "The universe by nuts in hell" by the canadian money forum


We have to leave CMF out of this. :biggrin:

Ok I will digress from the topic a bit.

Now,assuming of course, that there are those out there that will pay good money for a book that further explains
complex theories and assumptions in "layman's terms', there could be quite a windfall that we need to split..3 ways,
depending on the believability factor of each contributions. Since I started this thread, I would think that
I get at least 50% of any net profits.:biggrin:

BTW..there was a kid that 'died,went to Heaven and came back. He "wrote" a book with his dad about it when he came back. 
Apparently it was a best seller, (for a while) but his mother claims he had no part of the profits.



> A boy whose tale of dying and going to heaven after a car crash that *became a best-selling book *has admitted to making the whole thing up.*Alex Malarkey*, now 16, lay in a coma for two months and was left paralyzed after the wreck in 2004, but when he awoke, he amazed doctors and his parents with a
> 
> 
> > story of how an angel had lifted him up to heaven where he met Jesus and Satan.
> ...


Hmmm "malarkey" eh? Imagine meeting Jesus and Satan at the same time.

*Obligatory content for this thread: * Must have gone through that "wormhole" twice and back, it would seem.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Through thenwormhole with Morgan freeman was a good science series as well. No sign of the kid though.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> ...
> 
> Now,assuming of course, that there are those out there that will pay good money for a book that further explains
> complex theories and assumptions in "layman's terms', there could be quite a windfall that we need to split..3 ways,
> ...


 ... sure you can have the net profits .. .I would rather go for the royalties ... :greedy_dollars: :biggrin:



> BTW..there was a kid that 'died,went to Heaven and came back. He "wrote" a book with his dad about it when he came back.
> Apparently it was a best seller, (for a while) but his mother claims he had no part of the profits.
> 
> ... .


 .. for every argument, there is a counter-argument. No retraction from this kid - 



> *Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back is a 2010 New York Times best-selling Christian book written by Todd Burpo and Lynn Vincent .*..


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_Is_For_Real ... a movie (2014) was made also based on this book.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I think we are getting off topic again on my thread, and while humour is appreciated, we don't want to stray off topic..we have too much to cover on this subject.:biggrin:

Alrighty then....
Neutron stars/anti neutrons....somewhere in the universe, they exist. In Hawking's book he refers to them as "a radius of 10 miles or so,
(that would be a diameter of 20 miles or so..or 32km) Not very large for a star.."but with a density of millions of tons per cubic inch".

"At the time they were first predicted, there was no way neutron stars could be observed, they were detected much later".

Any thoughts on that? if there is no light being emitted from them (they are essentially ALMOST a black hole) and can still emit Xrays even if it appears to be orbiting around a black hole whose immense gravitation forces are attracting it to "come inside". A pulsar is a variation of a rotating Neutron star.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Here's a more important question about time travel...

If we can't travel into the past, ever, doesn't that imply predetermination? If we can "skip ahead in time" by travelling nearer the speed of light, but can't benefit from the knowledge by returning to the past...doesn't that imply that the future (even where you travel into it) has already happened?

Maybe there is no point to investing, as our future financial health has already happened or not...

Of course, there is the multi-dimensional theory which says that every possible history happened, just in a different, parallel dimension. I don't tend to buy that one, as the idea of "every" possible outcome, just from one person's perspective leads to a mind boggling number of variations...(in this possible future, your intake of breath was a microsecond slower than the last one...) then multiply that by each ("insert name" of the smallest particle in the universe, which we still haven't discovered) and the number of parallel universes grows to a ridiculous, yet still not infinite (so possible) number.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Here's a more important question about time travel...
> 
> If we can't travel into the past, ever, doesn't that imply predetermination? If we can "skip ahead in time" by travelling nearer the speed of light, but can't benefit from the knowledge by returning to the past...doesn't that imply that the future (even where you travel into it) has already happened?


Time travel would require your physical mass to be accelerated up 99.9% of the speed of light, (186K miles per sec).
The energy required to transport your entire body is beyond what can be generated with what we know so far.

In his book (Brief history of time), he mentions "There is a problem with breaking the speed of light barrier. The theory of relativity states that the rocket power needed to accelerate a spaceship gets greater and greater the nearer it gets to the speed of
light.

"evidence in particle accelerators (CERN) we can accelerate particles to 99.99 percent of the speed of light
but no matter how much power we feed in, *we can't get these particles beyond the speed of light barrier*

That might rule out rapid space travel and travelling back in time. However there is a possible way out if one can
warp space time so that there is a shortcut between A & B..as in creating a wormhole. .so wormholes would allow one to travel into the past. ..to do this or even warp space-time in any other way so as to permit time travel, one needs to (find) a region of space-time with negative curvature"..



Of course this is going "Back to the Future" and scenes from Startrek come to mind..

"Beam me up, Scotty"

Now that is what we really need.. a particle transporter to disassemble our physical bodies, at point A, map the relationship of each atom in our cells to each other and then...as particles it may be possible...just make sure that there is no other matter in the transporter when you arrive at point B...like a fly..(The Fly). 


and Star Wars... to travel at hyper light speed...


BEN (Kenobi)
"How long before you can make the jump to light speed?"

HAN (Solo)
"It'll take a few moments to get the coordinates from the navi-computer."

Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Actually, you don't have to approach the speed of light to time travel. It's been fairly well documented that flying a jet around the world will shift you (though it's very small), and many astronauts have already jumped seconds into the future (relatively speaking).

As for the transported...if the computer "buffers" the pattern, couldn't we easily save the pattern and print off unlimited copies at will from basic molecules? A lot cheaper than cloning.

But, it begs to wonder, what a duplicate you will do to your consciousness. The second you transported that copy would "die", but you may never know. The copies would continue, each thinking they'd just transported...but now there are two or more...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^^


> *carverman: *... Now that is what we really need.. a particle transporter to disassemble our physical bodies, at point A, map the relationship of each atom in our cells to each other and then...as particles it may be possible...just make sure that there is no other matter in the transporter when you arrive at point B...*like a fly..(The Fly). *


 .. bleh :frog: no thanks.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

I don't understand what all of this travelling at light speed to time travel is all about. We all time travel! Wait a second... There you've time travelled a second into the future. Only time travelling into the past requires worm holes or other exotic stuff. What JaG sounds like he is referring to is slowing down time by travelling quickly via time dilation. Not weird, and there are no noticeable effects.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a Guy said:


> Here's a more important question about time travel...
> 
> If we can't travel into the past, ever, doesn't that imply predetermination? If we can "skip ahead in time" by travelling nearer the speed of light, but can't benefit from the knowledge by returning to the past...doesn't that imply that the future (even where you travel into it) has already happened?
> .


I don't follow this reasoning. How does not being able to return to the past imply that the future has already happened? Doesn't this happen now? Isn't the past always already happened, by definition, and if you are in the future looking back, everything in the past?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Guban said:


> I don't understand what all of this travelling at light speed to time travel is all about. We all time travel! *Wait a second... There you've time travelled a second into the future*. Only time travelling into the past requires worm holes or other exotic stuff. What JaG sounds like he is referring to is slowing down time by travelling quickly via time dilation. Not weird, and there are no noticeable effects.


On earth we cannot achieve "time travel" because everything rotates with the earth. That is why there is an international date line.
At the most, you would be out 1 calendar day and that is only because of our system of calendar dates (365.25 days) vs how long it takes the earth to revolve on it's axis...which is changing ever so slightly over the centuries.


> The average of the true solar day during the course of an entire year is the mean solar day, which contains 86,400 mean solar seconds. Currently, each of these seconds is slightly longer than an SI second because *Earth's mean solar day is now slightly longer than it was during the 19th century due to tidal friction.* The average length of the mean solar day since the introduction of the leap second in 1972 has been about *0 to 2 ms longer than 86,400 SI seconds*


1 solar day; 86,400 solar seconds (60x60x24hrs = (3600 x 24 = 86,400)

Even discounting the slight variations in the earth's rotation, a traveller flying a jet plane around the world against its rotation or with its' rotation would not be doing any time travel, perhaps only the arrival time due to crossing time zones and the jet stream effects acting on the plane. 

Time travel, if it is possible would have to be outside of earth's realm in cosmic time rather than solar time and "bending" the effects of space-time. Wormholes and black holes...if their is any relationship between them, perhaps *someday far into the future it may be possible*..who knows.

Remember that just over 200 years ago,they were saying "If man was meant to fly..he would have been given wings!"

In the 20th century, not only have we mastered supersonic flight, but managed to go to the moon as well as sending
out space probes to the outer planets. Given enough time and building new theories to try out, based on old existing proven theories..these things we speak about may be possible..perhaps not in our lifetimes but in future generations that come after us. 
That is as long as we don't destroy ourselves before that knowledge is fully understood.

As an example radar was invented during WWII. The first transistor was invented in 1947. It is now 2015 and we can
look around us at the *huge quantum leap in communications in just 68 years*. At the rate that science is
progressing where we will be in the next 100years?


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

^ actually, I was referring to JaG's quote about time travel.



Just a Guy said:


> Actually, you don't have to approach the speed of light to time travel. It's been fairly well documented that flying a jet around the world will shift you (though it's very small), and many astronauts have already jumped seconds into the future (relatively speaking).
> ..


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Yes, I was talking about Time Dilation. http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.VMRRQUvoX88


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Guban said:


> ^ actually, I was referring to JaG's quote about time travel.


In essence, we are all "time travellers", from the moment we are born to the day we pass on. Some of us spend more
time here, others not so much. We can't go back in time, only look at events in recorded history. Travel into the future.
which hasn't occurred yet, is equally difficult.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> Yes, I was talking about Time Dilation. http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.VMRRQUvoX88


There is a point here..but..even at the highest speeds we can attain with spacecraft originated from earth and using the gravitational fields of our largest planets in our solar system for that needed "kick" to speed up the velocity of the spacecraft...it will take a *long long time* 
(in reference to our reference of time on earth)........... to achieve any realistic form of time travel.

*From your link above:*


> If we convert this to a more convenient time scale we find that it is just under one hour! After 80,000 years travelling through space at 35,500mph Voyager 1 will be only one hour "younger" than the Earth!


So here is the dilema..if we humans are going to explore even the nearest neighbours of our solar system, we are not going to get there alive being intact in our physical bodies constrained to earth time DNA breakdown. 

If the mean average lifespan is 80 years here on earth (some a bit more, others a lot less), and we could in some state of hibernation, travel in a spaceship at speeds of 35,500mph for 80 years* ( *referenced to earth time), 
that is only 1/1000 of an hour younger than a comparable person at the exact same age left on earth.
1/1000 of an hour = 3.6 secs. ( I used the same formula as in the link. )

So I guess we could say that we have "travelled into the future" by 3.6 seconds, if we get on the spacecraft as babies and travel for 80 years into outer space compared to a person born at the same time,
and the same age on earth.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

carverman said:


> So I guess we could say that we have "travelled into the future" by 3.6 seconds, if we get on the spacecraft as babies and travel for 80 years into outer space compared to a person born at the same time,
> and the same age on earth.


I would say that the space traveller goes 80 years minus 3.6 seconds into the future. NOT 3.6 seconds.

Note that evolving technology allows for much faster speeds than has been achieved by rockets. Of course, we are not yet near relativistic speeds, but who knows what the future will bring. See:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

Just a Guy said:


> If we can't travel into the past, ever, doesn't that imply predetermination? If we can "skip ahead in time" by travelling nearer the speed of light, but can't benefit from the knowledge by returning to the past...doesn't that imply that the future (even where you travel into it) has already happened?


There are actually theories (look for "block universe", etc) where time is a fixed dimension just like the basic three spatial dimensions, and the entire 4-dimensional "block" "exists", or is equally real. We move from one slice to another in the block. Obviously, this can raise some troubling questions about free will, determinism, etc. There is actually a lot of this sort of thing that comes along with special relativity. In general, anything to do with time is up for grabs depending on which theories you look at; you can't get agreement from physicists on big-picture time concepts!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> There are actually theories (look for "block universe", etc) where time is a fixed dimension just like the basic three spatial dimensions, and the entire 4-dimensional "block" "exists", or is equally real.
> 
> We move from one slice to another in the block. Obviously, this can raise some troubling questions about free will, determinism, etc. There is actually a lot of this sort of thing that comes along with special relativity. In general, anything to do with time is up for grabs depending on which theories you look at; you can't get agreement from physicists on big-picture time concepts!


Thanks for the tip on "Block Universe'..still reading it...



> It is true that there is a time dimension defined within the universe. And *for an observer within the universe, objects appear to change with respect to this time axis. However, this apparent flow of time is just an illusion of human perception due to the asymmetry of the time dimension.*
> As there is no clock outside the universe, there is no "external" time axis, and the *external view of the entire universe structure can therefore never change with respect to that non-existent external time axis. *This lack of temporal change in the entire universe structure has the following implications:


http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_block_universe.asp


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Here is the paradox..the universe is neither expanding nor contracting..it just IS. 



> The Grandfather Paradox is solved. If you've seen the movie Back to the Future (or virtually any episode of Star Trek) then you are aware of the so-called grandfather paradox. The paradox poses the question: "What happens if you were to travel back in time to kill your own grandfather?" If you do kill your own grandfather, then you are never born. But if you are never born, then you cannot go back in time to kill your own grandfather. So it's a real puzzle: your grandfather appears to be in an oscillatory state of being dead, then alive, then dead, then alive again, etc.





> But the block universe model provides a solution to the grandfather paradox. And, as the block universe model has been derived by a solid, logical approach, we can say that this is a definitive solution. According to the block universe model, all of space and time is laid-out in an unchanging spacetime block. There can be no place for an oscillatory grandfather: the grandfather must be defined as being in an unchanging state of either dead or alive. It can never be possible to change that state. The only possible time loops would be consistent time loops.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

OK. I have been thinking about this lately and I think I have "the theory of everything" all figured out.

One thing about physics has perplexed me for quite a while and it is this:

1) Why does light travel at the same speed even when it is originated from a moving object? It is the only medium that does this.

2) Why is light speed the universal speed limit? Nothing can travel faster.

3) Why does light speed have anything to do with how matter and energy relate to each other, as evidenced by the Einstein equation: E = MC^2, 

Where E= Energy, M = Mass and C is the speed of light. I mean WHY does the speed of light factor into that equation? It makes no sense.

It finally came to me. We are not real. Nothing is real. We are essentially a hologram. In other words, light makes up everything. All matter, all energy, all life, everything.

All I have to do now, is prove it...and of course figure out where it came from...and then figure out what was there before that...

Well, maybe I haven't figured it all out after all, but it does seem like something is going on with all that LIGHT !


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> One thing about physics has perplexed me for quite a while and it is this:
> 
> 1) Why does light travel at the same speed even when it is originated from a moving object? It is the only medium that does this.


Because it can...unless it encounters another phenomena of the universe..a "dark hole"..a collapsed star where the Mass is minimal yet the gravitational effects are so huge, it defies explanation.
Light also can be slowed down slightly when travelling through a medium such as glass (prism) or water, maybe
our atmosphere depending on what is happening at the time. 
but as soon as it leaves that medium, it returns back to its nominal speed through a vacuum. 



> 2) Why is light speed the universal speed limit? Nothing can travel faster.


because it is now ACCEPTED as a constant in our universe... 299,792.458 km/per second. 



> The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a* universal physical constant important in many areas of physics*. Its value is exactly 299,792,458 kilometres per second, as the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time.[1] According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all matter and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed at which all massless particles and changes of the associated fields (including electromagnetic radiation such as light and gravitational waves) travel in vacuum. Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2.





> 3) Why does light speed have anything to do with how matter and energy relate to each other, as evidenced by the Einstein equation: E = MC^2,
> Where E= Energy, M = Mass and C is the speed of light. I mean WHY does the speed of light factor into that equation? It makes no sense.


Because they are an integral part of Einstein's energy equation, I would think.


> It finally came to me. We are not real. Nothing is real. We are essentially a hologram. In other words, light makes up everything. All matter, all energy, all life, everything. All I have to do now, is prove it...and of course figure out where it came from...and then figure out what was there before that...
> Well, maybe I haven't figured it all out after all, but it does seem like something is going on with all that LIGHT !


LOL!...when you got it all figured out, let us know.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

OptsyEagle said:


> 3) Why does light speed have anything to do with how matter and energy relate to each other, as evidenced by the Einstein equation: E = MC^2,


Probably want to read up on Wave-particle duality, that might shed some light (pun intended) on the matter and energy relationship.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

carverman said:


> Because they are an integral part of Einstein's energy equation, I would think.


Don't you think that it is a little peculiar, however, that energy and matter interrelate to each other by EXACTLY the speed of light, squared? Why not the weight of water or the breaking point of iron? Why the speed of light? I just think there is a lot more to this then a coincidence.

As for us being a hologram. Who knows. I am sure that's not it exactly but maybe we are simply the creation, in an aquarium, by some 9 year old equivalent god who didn't like tropical fish and decided to build a universe to entertain him, for the last 14 billion years...but this aquarium is more like a movie theatre using light. This almost makes as much sense as Einstein's equation.

Anyway, like Einstein and the billions before me, I am sure I will go to my grave without ever figuring it out, but as I said before...the questions are fun.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Don't you think that it is a little peculiar, however, that energy and matter interrelate to each other by EXACTLY the speed of light, squared?


No, I like many others have accepted Einsteins theory and formula for relativity. You can't change that.
Light partices (photons or whatever you want to call them is E (ENERGY). if you dont believe that, just take a magnifying glass on a sunny day and concentrate the sun's light (photon) energy on a piece of paper....it will start to smoke and catch fire.





> Why not the weight of water or the breaking point of iron? Why the speed of light? I just think there is a lot more to this then a coincidence.


No, because the weight of water is dependent on the gravity of the planet it is on. On earth;The weight of one litre of water, at sea level, is around 9.81 newtons. On the moon it would weigh a lot less if compared to what it weighed on earth. In outer space water is weightless..as you may have seen from experiments on the ISS.

1kg = 0.101971621Newtons



> 1 N is the force of Earth's gravity on a mass of about 102 g = (1⁄9.81 kg). On Earth's surface, a mass of 1 kg exerts a force of approximately 9.81 N [down]..... (or 1.0 kilogram-force; 1 kgf = 9.80665 N by definition)





> Anyway, like Einstein and the billions before me, I am sure I will go to my grave without ever figuring it out, but as I said before...the questions are fun.


What is there to figure out? You are created from the same materials that the earth was created. If you take the billions of atoms that make up the specific cells of your body, it can be demonstrated that you are basically "star dust"...and as we all know from the famous grave site saying " Ashes to ashes, dust to dust"..given enough time, our biological bodies will eventually represent the basic elements of the earth, from which we came.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I am OK with all that. Basically I just want to figure out what was going on BEFORE the big bang, WHEN all that stuff was created. Created from WHAT? From WHERE? By WHO or WHAT?

It just seems that the more answers we discover, the more questions arise.

I still think it is more then a coincidence that energy and matter relate to each other in any respect to the speed of light. The equation could have ended up simply E= M x 5... or... E = M x expanding speed of the universe, but it didn't. It ended up being:

E- MC^2. 

Most people simply accept it, as I do, but my mind likes to know WHY an equation works the way it does. This part of Einstein's work has not been completed. I am sure my hologram guess is way off, but I still think there is something here that can be answered and when it is done it will probably answer a great many questions.


----------



## NorthernRaven (Aug 4, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> I am OK with all that. Basically I just want to figure out what was going on BEFORE the big bang, WHEN all that stuff was created. Created from WHAT? From WHERE? By WHO or WHAT?
> 
> It just seems that the more answers we discover, the more questions arise.
> 
> ...


A lot of it is baked into the root definitions of physics. Basically, energy is "force" x "distance", "force" is "mass" x "acceleration" (good old F=MA from school physics), and acceleration is velocity over time, or distance over time squared. When you work it all out, energy is going to be in units of mass x units of velocity squared. The speed of light ("c") is the natural unit for velocity, so you get E = mc^2. For proof, and why there aren't any other terms messing it up, you have Herr Professor Einstein's work on special relativity.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I agree that the factor of how Energy and Matter relate is going to end up being a speed, but I am just curious as to why it is the speed of light.

Not that this is remarkable math, but if I rearrange Einstein's formula of E=MC^2 to solve for C, I get this:

C= square root of E/M. 

This seems to be telling me that energy and matter don't just relate to the speed of light but that all energy and matter ACTUALLY are the speed of light. Since it is very possible that all the light we see is simply any particle travelling at that exact speed, then we can possibly say that: ALL MATTER and ALL ENERGY are simply just LIGHT. 

Hence my statement that we and everything in the universe might simply just be a hologram. 

My math skills are not perfect but this is the thinking I have been doing. In the end it probably doesn't matter but it gives me pause for the possibilities. If light does create all matter and energy and perhaps I could re-create this particular type of light, then I could possibly create matter and/or energy. I could invent the next replicator type appliance, like they have on Star Trek. It would definitely be the hottest gift item under the tree, next Christmas. lol.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It wasn't until I was in my 50s until I "really" saw the sky.

I was up north on the road leading into our cottage area, on a cloudless summer night. I pulled the car over and shut off the lights.

It was as dark as I have ever seen........no external lights at all.

The sky was breathtaking. Thousands........millions probably, of stars literally hanging from the sky.

Later on another trip in with some buddies, I let them out of the car..........drove on a couple of feet and stopped and turned off all the lights.

They couldn't believe what they saw.

It was like they were seeing the sky for the first time.

It might be a good science trip for school kids. Take them on a bus to a remote location and turn off the lights.

They will be amazed.

I thought I would get the same experience on the cruise ship..........but the lights from the ship ruined that.

What would be really cool.............is if they scheduled a stop during the night and turned off all the lights.

I bet that would be something to see.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

NorthernRaven said:


> The speed of light ("c") is the natural unit for velocity, so you get E = mc^2. For proof, and why there aren't any other terms messing it up, you have Herr Professor Einstein's w*ork on special relativity*.


Sadly, that theory is also what made the first atomic bomb possible. 


> In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter. This was expressed by the equation E=mc2 (energy = mass times the speed of light squared). The atomic bomb would clearly illustrate this principle.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> It wasn't until I was in my 50s until I "really" saw the sky.
> 
> I was up north on the road leading into our cottage area, on a cloudless summer night. I pulled the car over and shut off the lights.
> *
> ...


 ... yes, that would be a very cool experience for the school kids. But as for turning off all the lights on a cruise ship ... not sure that would be allowed or even a good idea. Guess that would depends on the water traffic in the area.

Apologies for the off-topic post here - but it would be sags who started this derailment .... :biggrin:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Not that this is remarkable math, but if I rearrange Einstein's formula of E=MC^2 to solve for C, I get this:
> 
> C= square root of E/M.
> 
> ...


I don't believe you can just solve for "C" with just juxta-positioning that equation in simplistic terms.

*Einstein's Famous Equation*



> Contrary to what many people believe, there is no "QED proof" for E=mc^2. Physics is about observation, Mathematics is a tool to model observation. In 1905, when Einstein first published the paper speculating about the property E=mc^2. It was a bold and inspired guess. Today there are numerous experiments that unambiguously confirm this relationship.


http://www.mathworks.com/help/coder/examples/introducing-einstein-s-theories-of-relativity.html


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Carverman, it is that type of thinking that is going to ruin a lot of peoples Christmas's. I was looking forward to saying:

Tea, Earl Gray, hot...and having it just appear in front of my eyes. lol.

Anyway, it has been fun. As sags alluded to a little earlier. Looking up at the night sky just seems to leave you awe inspired. With me, my mouth opens wide and then the questions just start to fly. 

Who knows, the answer might just end up ruining the experience.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Looking up at the night sky just seems to leave you awe inspired.


Indeed, and the best experiences [for me] have been in the desert. 

*World's Best Places To See The Stars* 
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/17/stars-travel-galaxy-forbeslife-cx_rr_0617travel_slide.html


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Toronto.gal said:


> Indeed, and the best experiences [for me] have been in the desert.
> 
> *World's Best Places To See The Stars*
> http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/17/stars-travel-galaxy-forbeslife-cx_rr_0617travel_slide.html


You can also use this finder chart to look for a dark sky near you,
http://darksitefinder.com/maps/north-america.html


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OptsyEagle said:


> Carverman, it is that type of thinking that is going to ruin a lot of peoples Christmas's.


Santa exists as a hologram?..no wonder he can visit all those children in the world in one night!:biggrin:



> Anyway, it has been fun. As sags alluded to a little earlier. Looking up at the night sky just seems to leave you awe inspired. With me, my mouth opens wide and then the questions just start to fly.
> 
> Who knows,* the answer might just end up ruining the experience.*


In Hawking's book,it mentions: " philosopher Immanuel Kant "Critique of the power of Reason" called these questions antinomies because he felt that was equal arguments that IF the universe had a beginning, there would be an infinite period of time before it."

"This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked "what did God do before he created the universe"?
He replied " time was the property of the universe that God created, and time did not exist before the beginning of the universe".

"that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner that it has existed forever."

Perplexing to say the least. I don't think any of us will find the answer to this question, as we sip our cup of
Earl Grey tea, in our very short lives here.:biggrin:


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

cainvest said:


> You can also use this finder chart to look for a dark sky near you,
> http://darksitefinder.com/maps/north-america.html


Thank you!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Well that's cool.

Where I was is about 40 kms north of Pte Au. Baril (north of Parry Sound on Hwy 400). and inland a few miles. It is called Harris Lake Marina Road.

It is on Harris Lake (connected to the Magnetewan river and has a canoe circle route) and they have some Bunkie rentals there on the shoreline for about $60-80 a night..........should anyone want to make the trip.

Couples used to come up, rent a Bunkie and a paddle boat, and enjoy the lake, bbq, campfire.........for a low cost. (Harris Lake Marina)

Good place to take the small kids and let them fish off the docks. 

It is identified on the map as a little area of complete darkness.

From what I understand there was some controversy there recently, as one of the Telcos put up a cell tower in the area.

That might ruin it now.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Well that's cool.
> 
> Where I was is about 40 kms north of Pte Au. Baril (north of Parry Sound on Hwy 400). and inland a few miles. It is called Harris Lake Marina Road.
> From hat I understand there was some controversy there recently, as one of the Telcos put up a cell tower in the area.


Seems like there is some hijacking of my thread going on? 
Please keep it on topic, thank you.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Just finished watching the movie on Stephen Hawking's life struggle .."The theory of everything" .

The actors were very good in portraying his wife (Jane), and himself..Eddie Redmayne certainly got into the role as a severely disabled Stephen Hawking struggling to retain what dignity there was left in his life.

I'm now going back now to his book ' A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME",m and also pondering his philosophical question in 2006 on what may lie in store for the world with the turmoil going on...this was at least 6 years before ISIS too.



> *Future of humanity*
> *In 2006 Hawking posed an open question on the Internet:* "_In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?_" A month later he confessed: "I don’t know the answer. That is why I asked the question, to get people to think about it, and to be aware of the dangers we now face.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Just finished watching the movie on Stephen Hawking's life struggle .."The theory of everything" .
> 
> The actors were very good in portraying his wife (Jane), and himself..Eddie Redmayne certainly got into the role as a severely disabled Stephen Hawking struggling to retain what dignity there was left in his life.
> 
> *I'm now going back now to his book ' A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME",m and also pondering his philosophical question in 2006 on what may lie in store for the world with the turmoil going on*...this was at least 6 years before ISIS too.


 ... so are you going to share your thoughts here?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so are you going to share your thoughts here?


 If I did, it could it change the course of history of the world as we know it.:biggrin:

In retrospect, with all the wars in recorded history,milllions upon millions of the human race slaughtered, we are still here.

The first world war, the second world war ( the largest war in the history of the world), and still it seems about 75 years later, some countries are overpopulated already. 
ISIS as brutal as they are, probably only affect a tiny portion of the ME population,
so they are not going to result in the end of civilization as we know it...it has to be something else...maybe Armageddon?


----------

