|
|
|
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
|
|
|
I THINK I'M WRONG!... AGAIN!
OK, I would like to denounce my previous two theories on lightspeed travel. They are based on a principle I no longer believe to be true: Time dilation.
Time dilation is a THEORY that states that the faster you move, the slower time progresses for you and the faster it progresses for everyone else. My previous two theories kinda half supported that... Well, now I think that time dilation is the STUPIDEST thing of which I've ever heard!
Time is absolute. Nothing we do can affect it in anyway. It is not tangible and will continue ticking on as it always does, always has, and always will.
If this is the case, then the speed of light is no more a barrier than the speed of sound. Sure, weird things happen when you reach it, but it IS surpassable.
So if you're traveling at the speed of light on a round trip to a star 3 lightyears away, it will take you three years to get there and three years to get back. When you return to Earth, six years will have passed. If you travel three times the speed of light, a round trip would be two years. There are no fluctuations in time.
Because mass increases as speed increases, traveling near and beyond the speed of light would require engineering to combat the gravitational forces on the "ship" and its passengers. Although we do not have these capabilities now, they are possible.
If I am right and time does NOT dilate, traveling to the stars is still quite a long journey, even at many times the speed of light. Therefore, there are only two theoretical ways of making voyages to the stars plausible: Space ships that can travel THOUSANDS of times the speed of light, or wormholes.
Neither of these options are proven to exist or be possible, and as of yet we're still stuck with a measly 25 miles per second for our fastest flying ship. Voyages through space are still quite a ways off.
posted by Rick at 7:41 PM
5 Comments:
-
huhhh... Is that your FINAL answer???
What you said about the round trip taking 6 years is not necessarily true. You see, if you went to a star 3 lightyears away and it took you 3 years to get there, chances are you're probably not going to say "Well, we saw it. It took us three years of our lives to get here, let's go home now." Scientists would stay longer to study this new system that took THREE years to get to. Look for martian life, study the atmosphere of the stars, name them... all the crazy things scientists do in space. Thus, the amount of time to get there (accepted time: 3 years) + the time to study, etc. (months, years?) + the time to get home (accepted time: 3 years) would all together total up to be OVER 6 years.
Ha HAH! I am victorious over the mighty indecisive Rick! What do you have to say for yourself now?
By , at 12/01/2005
-
Happy B-day! I decided to leave you a more positive comment since it's your special day. I though telling you off and proving my intellectuality is superior to yours would bring you down a bit. Besides, no one leaves you comments anyway. :-P
Now that you're 18, don't do anything stupid. Yes, I know I'm hoping in vain, I'm probably already too late. Oh well.
Enjoy the rest of the week. I know I won't. :-)
By , at 12/12/2005
-
That poll is SO biased. I'm sure you answered it like a million times so sax would win. Loser.
It's kinda sad, your train of thought is rather slow. :-D And that I'm the only person writing you now.
Can't come to the game tonight. (grumble) Have plans. Yes, I have plans. Hope the Lions win this one, don't want a repeat of football season. :-0
See you at the concert Mr.I-have-awesome-ear-muffs-that-I-
use-to-make-fun-of-Helina-b/c-she-
wants-to-see-them-for-JUST-ONE-SECOND-
but- I'm-too-mean-to-let-her (whew!)
By , at 1/06/2006
-
I love you, rickypoo!
For just a second, did I make you laugh?
By , at 1/27/2006
-
If time does not dialate, then explain how clocks are off seconds in jets, how geocentric satellites with GPS needed their clocks to be fixed before they could actually tell where we were.
-Phil
By , at 2/22/2006
<< Home
|
|
|
|
