chris Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 I do not know if this can happen. But I was thinking and this came to mind: Light travels at ~3x10^8m/s. (thanks faf). Now if we could get a strong enough telescope (or a transponder, if we were to recieve any tv images) far away enough earth. Would it be possible to look into the telescope and view the images from earth from the past? Or is it impossible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 It's possible, but long way off. In order to see any decent amount of time into the past, the telescope would have to be far outside our solar system, as I believe light can't take more than a few hours to travel to the edge from Earth. Seeing detail from this range would require imaging ability we simply are not capable of. Looking into the distant past would require a telescope to have imaging technology millennia ahead of what we've got now, and to be practicle it would need to be extremely far away, on the order of several KPcs (kiloparsecs, 1 parsec=3.24light years). So, it's possible, but not plausible. At least not anytime within the next few thousand years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 20, 2002 Share Posted July 20, 2002 If we can reach time into the future relative to C and start caching up to the past at C+ then it may be possible that the past is stored in the C+ realm. Even right here on the microcosom C+ realm. We seem to have to keep the past with us and relative to us to exist in the present. We are only incrementally separated from it. I don't think it would be the actual past but the data of the past. Not interactable but possibly in the future observable right here on Earth. Just for thought. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragoon Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Well. the past is here just not visible to the eye of course as you know or you'd be seeing doubles and triples of everything you are doing and just did. Such as a movement trail or you walking down the street if you looked backwards you'd see yourself a few minuites or secounds ago depending on the past's time traveling speed compared to our own speed of what we are presently in now at this state of time and space. To go into space and see what we have done would be to go back in time in a sense and such as a black hole theory of taking you for an instant into another time frame. you would have to pull yourself outta our time and look into "our time frame" or what you said as C+ and you urself would need to be in a C time frame that should present what we are doing but to you it would be in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 One of the examples you were citing, dragoon, assumed that time was sequential slices not being completely erased as they pass, creating paradoxes. If time is incrementaly changing slices then the present slice must vanish before the next is expressed. If time flows then that opens up the big microcosom can of worms where there is an infinite amount of dividable time in a fluid second. We can't even divide a second physically beyond atomic vibrations. We can't really even get our foot in the door to know what is going on smaller/faster than that. Just for thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragoon Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Not yet we cant but if our technology keeps increasing we might have a way to divide it and actually prove if that was correct or not from what i said. There really isnt yet a way to prove or disprove it, as of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 you could yes, but since you can'e get faster than the speed of light anyway and overtake the light signals, then the best you can do is see stuff that is going to happen in the future, from a long way away. for exampel, when we look at the moon, we see what it was like on the moon a fraction of a second ago, and if we fly to the moon and look at the earth, we will see what happened on the earth a fraction of a second before we looked.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 :nono: Can't get faster than the speed of light YET. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 What light hits your retina travels by nerves five inches to the back of your brain at 400ft/sec. That means you don't see it until 1/960thsec after the photons hit you. We are always looking at the past by an incredibly large measurement by quantum scales. We aren't stuck behind in time though because our minds can extrapolate what we expect to see in the future and hope it agrees with what really happens. We aren't very efficient machines. Our hearing is about two inches and a delay of 1/2400thsec until it is processed. Maybe if we could get our brains to operate at superconductive speeds, we could see the nature of time, in real time.:flame: Just for thought Just aman:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 I think we would see stuff pretty much the same, ignoring the cact that the brain itself would run a tad faster. and yes fafalone, my apologies - yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted July 28, 2002 Author Share Posted July 28, 2002 So what aman is saying that we are interacting with the present, but relizing it in the past? :scratch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragoon Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 No i think he is saying that we are always sorta in the present cause thats how we are taught to look at it but that it takes a lil longer then instantly for us to recognize what we just saw. So our mind is trained to already guess/expect what is going to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted July 28, 2002 Author Share Posted July 28, 2002 I dunno about that dragoon. btw. -mage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragoon Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 btw me know. <- andwhowhat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted July 28, 2002 Author Share Posted July 28, 2002 anywho. we should just let ed decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted July 28, 2002 Share Posted July 28, 2002 Since your retinas can only generate signals to your brain at a slow chemical reaction speed and at a limited frequency, then you would process the information faster in near real time but be limited by the parameters of the eye. The cillia in the ear and the eardrum are mechanical and you would still hear the same output a little faster so you might here a different range of frequencies. I think the only real difference is your reflexes might be faster and you could learn faster. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lilbabynushi Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 I love astronomy and so i did this research by myself on space-time travel.Time is the fourth dimension after X,Y and Z. I found that if we somehow come up with a space ship that can travel faster than the speed of light we can travel so far into space that checkin' out other galxies wouldn't be a prob.Black holes will not be able to suck the ship in as the centrefugal speed of it's pull is somewhat close to that of the speed of light.If we leave Earth and travel in space for two days in that ship then back at earth 200 or maybe thousands of years would have passed.It's all about time contortion. I'm just in high school...so don't get me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Actually gravitational space-time dilation on a black hole is only c at the exact event horizon, closer towards the center it's much greater than c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 I have a question. Light always moves at 3x10E8 relative to any reference frame, right? If A is moving at 3x10E7 light would be moving 3x10E7 + 3x10E8 relative to A. Couldn't B then accelerate to speeds in excess of 3x10E8 since the light relative to A is moving faster than that? (You'd still be slower than the light...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted February 16, 2003 Share Posted February 16, 2003 What I meant was, move faster than 3x10E8 relative to a stationary reference frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris Posted February 26, 2003 Author Share Posted February 26, 2003 no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 :embarass: :flame: I posted the below message twice accidently and couldn't delete it because the force is not with me so I erased it. Ignore this and read below. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 As you approach the speed of light in a ship you flatten to outside stationary observation but appear normal to yourself. If you launched a scout ship and it accelerated ahead you would see it speed ahead normally but an ouside observer would only see the flat disc of your ship with a flat scout ship pressed against its front passing near the speed of light. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSX Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Raider I have a question. Light always moves at 3x10E8 relative to any reference frame, right? If A is moving at 3x10E7 light would be moving 3x10E7 + 3x10E8 relative to A. Couldn't B then accelerate to speeds in excess of 3x10E8 since the light relative to A is moving faster than that? (You'd still be slower than the light...) Originally posted by Raider What I meant was, move faster than 3x10E8 relative to a stationary reference frame. hehe, that's what would happen with simple Newonian mechanics. But @ speeds approaching c, relativity begins to come into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raider Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Are you saying there is a stationary reference frame and one can only approach c relative to it? How do you find this stationary reference frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now