Recommended: Simple Water Fuel

Time Travel: Einstein’s big idea (Theory of Relativity)

February 10th, 2007 | by travel |
alvrgona asked:


To watch the whole documentary in High Quality go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imaq16YuEnE

Here is a little clip of how time travel can occur. The clip was taken from: The World’s First Time Machine (Discovery Channel). Dr Ronald Mallett

DENIS

Share and Learn All About "travel"... These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Ask
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Live-MSN
  • MySpace
  • Netscape
  • Squidoo
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb

  1. 25 Responses to “Time Travel: Einstein’s big idea (Theory of Relativity)”

  2. By MrLesWhite on Feb 11, 2007 | Reply

    I figured this out when I was like 10 - the clock is not time just a measure of it so time still remains constant, just the stationary instrument is no longer accurate. Time in itself does not exist, rather it is a concept.
    Similar to a scale on the moon vs earth, you didn’t lose 7/8ths of your mass just that the scales mode of measuring ie down force, is no longer accurate.
    cliffs: just as you will not be 100lbs lighter on the moon you will not go 100 years into the future at speed of light

  3. By gdazerg on Feb 14, 2007 | Reply

    it is not TOTALY prove time travell nor theoretical or empirically.

  4. By gdazerg on Feb 17, 2007 | Reply

    im talking of course in vaccum. inside subtances everybody knows that the speed of light is less than “c”

  5. By gdazerg on Feb 18, 2007 | Reply

    ok, i got the answer BIarry. The observers (Bertrand for example) CAN NOT measure different speed of light. As it happens in spetial relativity (inertial frames), in general relativity (or accelerates systems if you’d prefer) the observers always will measure the same speed of light = c. So when bertrand brakes, the light beams of the clock will go at velocity equal “c”. And why is that? well the answer is because of the equivalence principle of general relativity. Questionme if you have a dout

  6. By Chris19CHUPAPINGAS on Feb 20, 2007 | Reply

    so it is true or not?

  7. By xxSureRainbowxx on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    I’m confussed, does the time travel really exist or not??….

  8. By MarcHanley on Feb 22, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks alot, really well explained. appreciate it.

  9. By gdazerg on Feb 24, 2007 | Reply

    well, yes, indeed that’s what happens. The concept of “synchronization” must be abandon in spetial relativity, and of course in general relativity too. You CANT synchronize two clocks because of the dilatation time effect.

  10. By MDMart on Feb 24, 2007 | Reply

    oh, cool, thanks

  11. By bottlezone on Feb 25, 2007 | Reply

    No. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Undue means soething other than undo. Travelling on a bicycle, car, or breakig the sound barrier DO affect space time, but to such a smaller degree that they are virtualy unoticeable. On the other hand, the asumption is correct. Backwards time travel is stil theoretically impssible, and past ‘events’ cannot be ‘undune’.

  12. By bottlezone on Feb 26, 2007 | Reply

    Traveling at only 100 mph, you would need to do a hell of a lot of taveling to notice any significant difference. Similar tests have been performed during hypersonic suborbital flights that verify this effect. This is regularly taken into consideration when maintaining the synchronization of satelites, a well.

  13. By MDMart on Feb 28, 2007 | Reply

    If two guys syncronise their watches, and then one of them goes for a ride in his car, driving, let’s say, a hundred m/ph. When the guy then returns to the other guy, who has been standing still al this time, their watches are -still- syncronised, but according to this vid, shouldn’t they be very much NOT syncronised? I do not believe this video is speaking the truth, sorry Einie

  14. By gdazerg on Mar 1, 2007 | Reply

    you’re welcome charrlenee

  15. By gdazerg on Mar 2, 2007 | Reply

    ok, i think i understand what’s the problem. you say that he would measure light moving at speeds othter than “c”, and then, the second postulate of constant speed of light independent of the source is violated. is that what you are saying?, i think (in vacuum) he still measures the same speed “c”, nevertheless i’m going to calculate it. when I finish i’ll show you the result.

  16. By Charrleneee on Mar 3, 2007 | Reply

    haha sorry i didn’t understand it too but i hope i will someday :) i copied his argument from another video. Thanks for answering!

  17. By gdazerg on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply

    time doesnt remain constant! einstein abandon newton’s idea of an absolute time. anyway,i dont understand what he’s talking about. Speed of “darkness”? Define darkness first. is he talking aobut dark matter? i dont know what he is saying

  18. By ShallowThoughts on Mar 5, 2007 | Reply

    Hi Marc,

    in addition to Biarry’s comment, also keep in mind that you must look at it from the point of view of the clock, not of the fellow in the chair.

    Think of tossing a coin while riding in a train. The coin just goes up and down into your hand, as you’d expect. However, to someone on the train platform, the coin magically seems to jump in the perfect elliptical path to bring it back into the coin-flipper’s hand.

  19. By Biarry on Mar 6, 2007 | Reply

    Bertrand could observe two clocks, one in front and one in the back of the ship, ticking at different rates while he’s braking - the front one going slower, and the one in the back going faster.

    And since the clock beams are traveling the same distance he can say the light travels slower near the nose of the ship and faster near the engine.

  20. By Charrleneee on Mar 9, 2007 | Reply

    “Even if one could surpass the speed of light, which is probably equal to the speed of darkness, it does not mean that it would result in the ability to undue events or processes that have already occurred. For example, traveling in a car faster than on a bike does not undue time, time remains constant. Breaking the sound barrier does not undue time, it simply speeds up the ability to get somewhere faster, these are two distinct results. ” Is this person speaking the truth?

  21. By gdazerg on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply

    the clock described using a light that bounces, is just a clock. you can use any other clock(with different mechanisim), and you still measure the same. what happen with time has nothing to do with the mechanism that uses the clock

  22. By gdazerg on Mar 11, 2007 | Reply

    and?.. i mean i dont understand whats the problem with that?

  23. By Charrleneee on Mar 13, 2007 | Reply

    nothing’s impossible. Strive harder, mankind~!

  24. By gdazerg on Mar 14, 2007 | Reply

    actually the formula of time dilatation still holds for accelerated systems: delta(t’)=gammadelta(t) where t is the proper time. The difference now is that the v that appears in the gamma factor depends now on time. BUT NEVER HE COULD MEASURE SPEEDS FASTER THAN LIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT.

  25. By MarcHanley on Mar 15, 2007 | Reply

    Lets say for example, bertrand is going half the speed of light, the light in the time clock bounces of the bottom mirror, therfore it has to anticipate where the top mirror is going to be, as it does at 3:01, so if he breaks he light will have to hit the inside wall of the clock and not the mirror??

  26. By Biarry on Mar 16, 2007 | Reply

    Special relativity works fine only for inertial systems, not accelerated. If Bertrand “hits the brakes” on his ship he cannot use special relativity formulas any more - he could even observe light moving at speeds other than c.

Post a Comment