Alien abduction or time travelers?

[Ratman_tf]

Yeah, it sounds whacky, but bear with me here.

Let's assume that some of the abduction claims are true.
Personally, I find the theory that these creatures are descendants of humans from the future to be much more plausible than extraterrestrials.

That would explain why they look very similar to humans (as opposed to comparing a human to a hermit crab, for example) and would be interested in our DNA, bodies, and breeding.

Heh, or maybe I watch too much Sci-Fi?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Let's assume that some of the abduction claims are true.
Personally, I find the theory that these creatures are descendants of humans from the future to be much more plausible than extraterrestrials.
I choose the more Star Trek approach and assume all these aliens came from another star system. Not because I believe they came from a star system, but because I believe it'd make a better movie.

That would explain why they look very similar to humans (as opposed to comparing a human to a hermit crab, for example) and would be interested in our DNA, bodies, and breeding.
Well, bilateral symmetry is the most logical form of symmetry in nature.

Cephalization (meaning all neural functions are controlled in a centralized "head" region) also seems like the most logical course of evolution for more "advanced" animals.

As far as arms and legs go, I'm not sure. It would be benificial for a species to be bipedal if it wanted to evolve more intelligence. Two arms would be necessary for "doin' stuff". You wouldnt want too many limbs, that might cause some kind of sensory overload, then the brain is more attended to working the other limbs rather than working through problems and learning.

I'd imagine that aliens dont look too much like bugs or have exoskeletons. Gravity would be too much for them.

Why not tails? Sure, they can have tails if they want...

I'm basing my observation on the nature I know of on Earth (and the Venusians), I'd assume most of the other animals on other worlds look pretty similar to Earth's animals.

Heh, or maybe I watch too much Sci-Fi?
Any real conspiracy theorist would look around the room and say something like "Yes, you are watching too much Sci-fi, and asking too many questions, what do you know?"...

[Iamme]

Ratman_tf---It has to be aliens. The theory of going back in time is whacked, I think. Has this been debated over at the Scholar part of the JREF board? Probably, eh? Going back or forward in time relies on relativity with the speed of light. That is what science SAYS, anyway. I simply believe that what happened, happened, and that is the end of it. To VIEW (a distant place) as to what happened in the past, is one thing. We do that, now. But to actually travel there to see the past, first hand?...I think someone err's in reasoning.

I think they simply think that since we can see the past in distant stars and planets...that if we can zap ourselves there, we would then actually BE in the past. The flaw in this thinking is that the past, is not really the past, AT that star or planet. The light that we are getting at the present, from that star or planet, is SHOWING us the past. This part I agree with But out AT that star or planet, it too is at present status with us here on earth.

I can't see what the speed of light has to do with anything. I have heard that if you go off in a space ship and exceed the speed of light in your travels...that when you returned, time would have greatly changed when you returned. What if you kept your eyes closed the whole time, and landed back on earth at night. :)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iamme
Ratman_tf---It has to be aliens. The theory of going back in time is whacked, I think. Has this been debated over at the Scholar part of the JREF board? Probably, eh? Going back or forward in time relies on relativity with the speed of light. That is what science SAYS, anyway. I simply believe that what happened, happened, and that is the end of it. To VIEW (a distant place) as to what happened in the past, is one thing. We do that, now. But to actually travel there to see the past, first hand?...I think someone err's in reasoning.

I think they simply think that since we can see the past in distant stars and planets...that if we can zap ourselves there, we would then actually BE in the past. The flaw in this thinking is that the past, is not really the past, AT that star or planet. The light that we are getting at the present, from that star or planet, is SHOWING us the past. This part I agree with But out AT that star or planet, it too is at present status with us here on earth.

I can't see what the speed of light has to do with anything. I have heard that if you go off in a space ship and exceed the speed of light in your travels...that when you returned, time would have greatly changed when you returned. What if you kept your eyes closed the whole time, and landed back on earth at night. :)

Woah woah woah here! You're talking about general relativity. If you had a spacecraft able to approach the speed of light (You could never attain or break the speed of light with any technology we know of now.) as you got closer and closer, time dilation would take effect. Time would seem to pass normaly for you. Awake, asleep, taking a shower, playing video games, drinking a cup of coffee, everything in said spaceship seemd absolutley normal. (Except maybe the view out the viewscreen.) But time passes much slowly for you. You just aren't aware of it. When you got back to earth, you would be in the future from your perspective. From the perspective of the people you left behind, you would have left a long time ago, maybe hundreds or thousands of years ago, but for you, it only seemed like months or years.

And yea, I understand very well that the light reaching earth now is an image of what happened in the past. Some of the stars I'm looking at in the night sky may very well not be there (supernova, burn out, sucked into a black hole) but I can still see the image that left them many thousands or millions of years ago.

And if we're going to assume that Aliens can break or somehow get around general relativity, why not take the leap that humans in the future could figure out how to travel through time? There's just as much speculation on traveling faster than light as traveling through time, and general relativity says that the two are linked anyway. (Space and time being the same thing.)

[Hexxenhammer]

I recommend reading "Saucer Wisdom" by Rudy Rucker for the real low-down on alien abduction. It's people from the future.

[csense]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Yeah, it sounds whacky, but bear with me here.

Let's assume that some of the abduction claims are true.
Personally, I find the theory that these creatures are descendants of humans from the future to be much more plausible than extraterrestrials.

That would explain why they look very similar to humans (as opposed to comparing a human to a hermit crab, for example) and would be interested in our DNA, bodies, and breeding.

Heh, or maybe I watch too much Sci-Fi?


If you regress time, you must also regress space.
If, for instructional purposes, we conceive in our minds as traveling back in time say a year, then at that point in which we as timetravellers appear, all of physical reality must be precisely as it was, even the positions of the stars, solar systems, galaxies etc...at least in theory, because time and movement are correlated, and to travel back in time is to travel back to a correlate of space, and here space refers to all that is, or the universe.
This presents an interesting paradox since the actual (as opposed to potential in our thought experiment) appearance of a time traveller would present a correlate of space which by definition is different than the correlate in which it must logically be...

[shemp]

I suppose if I suggest that it's all a crock, you'll just say I'm part of the conspiracy. So here's my theory: They're humans from the PAST! Yes, mankind was once far more advanced than today, and developed time travel. They come here to see what a horrible mess mankind has de-evolved into.

Or it's all a crock.

[Charlie in Dayton]

I don't care which one it is. All I want to know is, when the beer goggles wear off, howcome they're all coyote dates? :eek:

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I recommend reading "Saucer Wisdom" by Rudy Rucker for the real low-down on alien abduction. It's people from the future.

Ah, I didn't know someone had gone the time traveler route in explaining abductions yet.

Course, it could be angels or demons or Atlanteans or *gasp* hysteria. I favor the last hypothesis myself.

I just find the extraterrestrial hypothesis to be equally unfounded as demons or time travelers.

[Correa Neto]

They are not aliens or time travellers!

They are intraterrestrials! They come from the great cavity in the Earth, the one with a sun inside!

How come you guys never realised this?

*gotta stop eating those mushrooms*

[athon]

Man, how wrong could you all have it?

WE are descended from THEM! Isn't it just a little odd how humans suddenly appeared where stoopid apes had knuckle-walked over the savannas of Africa?

Here's how it all happened - these aliens were doing social experiments concerning the rise of their own civilisation. They bred themselves with ape DNA, and produced us - ape/alien hybrids, called humans. Their experiment has been going on for a few million years (nothing in 'alien time') and they continue to monitor us. There are about a dozen similar alien experiments in the universe, all just to provide them with answers of their own sociological history.

And when it's all over, their going to autoclave us and publish their findings in the 'Universal Journal of Zog Sociology'.

Duh!

Athon:book:

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
I recommend reading "Saucer Wisdom" by Rudy Rucker for the real low-down on alien abduction. It's people from the future.

OK. Thanks for clearing that one up.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Course, it could be angels or demons or Atlanteans or *gasp* hysteria. I favor the last hypothesis myself.


Let's not forget the 'It's the Russians' theory.

Mind you since the walls came down they seem to be too busy importing Levi's and exporting Mail Order brides to be as keen on abducting red necks as they used to be.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by RonSceptic


OK. Thanks for clearing that one up.

No prob. Any time.

Check out Saucer Wisdom here (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312868847/qid=1063028461/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-5318713-9803941?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

[Nucular]

Yeah I've heard the time travelling post-human idea before. Actually, whoever made some of the alleged Roswell wreckage that was photographed also seems to have had the same idea - there's some kind of writing on one bit I saw in a documentary that seemed to be kind of like our alphabet, but weirdified (presumably with the intention of making people ask why they've got a similar alphabet to our own, assuming the pieces were hoaxed).

Another point is that, if the greys are involved in an interbreeding program, that'd pretty much rule out an extraterrestrial origin for them: I think it was Carl Sagan who pointed out that if they were aliens, you'd have more chance of mating successfully with a petunia.

Anyway, I think all this conclusively proves that greys are time travellers from the future.






President Truman: What is your business here? Do you intend to create some kind of human-alien hybrid?

Zoidberg: Are you coming on to me?

[uneasy]

I think this was best argued in the 1984 movie Repo Man. :)

Miller: Well, the way I see it, it's exactly the same: there ain't no difference between a flying saucer and a time machine. People get so hung up on specifics, they miss out on seeing the whole thing. Take South America for example: South America, thousands of people go missing every year. Nobody knows where they go: they just like disappear. But if you think about it for a minute, you realize something. There had to be a time when there were no people, right?
Otto: Yeah, I guess.
Miller: Well, where'd all these people come from? Hm? I'll tell you where: the future. Where'd all those people disappear to, hm?
Otto: The past?
Miller: That's right! And how'd they get there?
Otto: How the fudge do I know?
Miller: Flying saucers! Which are really... yeah you got it... time machines.

(only he didn't say fudge)

[Hexxenhammer]

Ah, Repo Man...

Truly one of the Philosophical masterpieces of the 20th century.

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Woah woah woah here! You're talking about general relativity. If you had a spacecraft able to approach the speed of light (You could never attain or break the speed of light with any technology we know of now.) as you got closer and closer, time dilation would take effect. Time would seem to pass normaly for you. Awake, asleep, taking a shower, playing video games, drinking a cup of coffee, everything in said spaceship seemd absolutley normal. (Except maybe the view out the viewscreen.) But time passes much slowly for you. You just aren't aware of it. When you got back to earth, you would be in the future from your perspective. From the perspective of the people you left behind, you would have left a long time ago, maybe hundreds or thousands of years ago, but for you, it only seemed like months or years.



WHAT >!?! How the hell does travelling quickly slow down time? What a load of crap. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can study up on this? Because if scientists or physicists are walking around believing this crap.....man are they in for a rude shock...IMO anyway.

And who says you can’t travel faster than the speed of light? Why couldn't a ‘spaceship' just keep accelerating? There is no limit to how slow something can go, and there is no limit to how FAST something can go. Sure you wouldn’t be able to SEE where you’re going, but when you get home the same amount of time would have passed for you and the entire universe. Time is the only constant.

Please, someone, prove me wrong.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle



WHAT >!?! How the hell does travelling quickly slow down time? What a load of crap. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can study up on this? Because if scientists or physicists are walking around believing this crap.....man are they in for a rude shock...IMO anyway.

And who says you can’t travel faster than the speed of light? Why couldn't a ‘spaceship' just keep accelerating? There is no limit to how slow something can go, and there is no limit to how FAST something can go. Sure you wouldn’t be able to SEE where you’re going, but when you get home the same amount of time would have passed for you and the entire universe. Time is the only constant.

Please, someone, prove me wrong.

Um? You've never heard of Albert Einstein or his theory of relativity before?

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Nucular
Yeah I've heard the time travelling post-human idea before. Actually, whoever made some of the alleged Roswell wreckage that was photographed also seems to have had the same idea - there's some kind of writing on one bit I saw in a documentary that seemed to be kind of like our alphabet, but weirdified (presumably with the intention of making people ask why they've got a similar alphabet to our own, assuming the pieces were hoaxed).

I realise that you are being ironic here, but just incase anyone out there was wondering, the so called alien writing was infact nothing more than floral patterns on the adhesive tape that was used on the balloon. The full facts of the Roswell case are here....

Roswell Fable (http://members.aol.com/tprinty/rwell.html)

The article I have linked to is extensive and comprehensive. A great case study in how the mundane can be turned into the extraordinary in the hands of bad researchers.

[lofgoernost]

Yeah I've heard the time travelling post-human idea before. Actually, whoever made some of the alleged Roswell wreckage that was photographed also seems to have had the same idea - there's some kind of writing on one bit I saw in a documentary that seemed to be kind of like our alphabet, but weirdified

It was probably Z'Tasre&qrt's degree in Ancient Proctology.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by lofgoernost


It was probably Z'Tasre&qrt's degree in Ancient Proctology.

Only if it was printed on sticky tape.........

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Um? You've never heard of Albert Einstein or his theory of relativity before?

I have heard of it, but I didn't realise that it contained such ********. Don't we base a major section of our scientific thinking on this mans work? Do YOU believe that travelling at the speed of light SLOWS DOWN TIME?!!? It just makes no sense. I guess I’ll have to read up on some Einstein, because to me time travel is completely impossible and to think that Einstein (and the scientific community) thinks these whacky ideas are FACT scares me.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle


I have heard of it, but I didn't realise that it contained such ********. Don't we base a major section of our scientific thinking on this mans work? Do YOU believe that travelling at the speed of light SLOWS DOWN TIME?!!? It just makes no sense. I guess I’ll have to read up on some Einstein, because to me time travel is completely impossible and to think that Einstein (and the scientific community) thinks these whacky ideas are FACT scares me. Yes we do base a major section of scientific thinking on Einstein and Relativity. Sorry dude, no experiment has ever shown Relativity to be anything but correct. Just 'cause you don't understand it or its wacky doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Yes we do base a major section of scientific thinking on Einstein and Relativity. Sorry dude, no experiment has ever shown Relativity to be anything but correct. Just 'cause you don't understand it or its wacky doesn't mean it's wrong.


I don't want to argue that it's wrong without researching it first, i'll not be the next carlos. :p

I’ll be back. And I’ll be in the scientific section.

[juryjone]

Originally posted by Nucular
Another point is that, if the greys are involved in an interbreeding program, that'd pretty much rule out an extraterrestrial origin for them: I think it was Carl Sagan who pointed out that if they were aliens, you'd have more chance of mating successfully with a petunia.

Nah, man, petunias won't even give you the time of day.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle



I don't want to argue that it's wrong without researching it first, i'll not be the next carlos. :p

I’ll be back. And I’ll be in the scientific section.

Hell, that's a good place to be regardless. :D

Here's a link for you. Take note of the experiments done with muons and atomic clocks. It seems Einstein was on the money. Time slows down as you approach the speed of light.

http://patsy.hunter.cuny.edu/CORE/CORE4/LectureNotes/relativity/relativity4.htm

Macroscopic Tests:

Two experimentalists (Hafele and Keating) carried four portable atomic clocks twice around the world and compared the elapsed time on the moving clocks to a pair of clocks left at home. The theory of time dilation was verified to with 10%.

Some other experimentalists from University of Maryland few a atomic clock over Chesapeake Bay for periods of time exceeding 15 hours and verified time dilation to within 1%.


Wanna get wierder? You physically get shorter or 'squashed' in the direction of travel. You gain mass also.

If you tried to break the speed of light, you would be eternally running for a finish line that receded away from you. And it would take more energy than in the entire universe to get you that close.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Wanna get wierder? You physically get shorter or 'squashed' in the direction of travel. You gain mass also.
[/B]

Not from the travellers perspective you don't.

[Tormac]

I thought this was settled a long time ago.

So currently we have these "aliens” using seemingly magical abilities to whisk people away through walls and locked door to their "Unidentified Flying Object" where strange sexual experimentation is conducted on them.

The answer to this mystery is in the PAST, but it is not time travel. One only has to go back to the infallible Medieval Christian church to learn that these are Succubi and Incubi!

We in the modern world are blinded to the spiritual truth, and misunderstand the true nature of things. We have been brainwashed to accept naturalism by the secular humanists that teach in our public school system, the fact that there is no naturalistic explanation, that these "aliens" are really demons, seems to have completely escaped everyone.

Well either that or the whole thing is silly, but where is the fun in that?

[scribble]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
There is no limit to how slow something can go,

Okay, okay, other folks have brough you up to speed on Einstein, but this part just made me chuckle.

It's hard to go slower than stopped. I'd call that a bottom limit.

by the way - nice choice on the Avatar. Maniac Mansion was one of my favorites... next to Zak McKraken and the Alien Mindbenders.

-Chris

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not from the travellers perspective you don't.

Glad you're paying attention, Ian! That is indeed true. That's why it's called relativity.

[Explorer]

Purple Tentacle said:

"WHAT >!?! How the hell does travelling quickly slow down time? What a load of crap. Can someone point me in the right direction where I can study up on this? Because if scientists or physicists are walking around believing this crap.....man are they in for a rude shock...IMO anyway.

And who says you can’t travel faster than the speed of light? Why couldn't a ‘spaceship' just keep accelerating? There is no limit to how slow something can go, and there is no limit to how FAST something can go. Sure you wouldn’t be able to SEE where you’re going, but when you get home the same amount of time would have passed for you and the entire universe. Time is the only constant.

Please, someone, prove me wrong."

You can buy an excellent good and simple read from Amazon used book section for about £2 or $3.50.

The book is called "Relativity for the Layman" by James Coleman (Penguin Books).

It is a simplified account of the History, Theory and Proofs of Relativity. It deals with all your problems that you have for the subject. Enjoy! Thoroughly recommended.

Regards

Explorer

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Explorer
The book is called "Relativity for the Layman" by James Coleman (Penguin Books).

It is a simplified account of the History, Theory and Proofs of Relativity. It deals with all your problems that you have for the subject. Enjoy! Thoroughly recommended.

Regards

Explorer

sounds perfect. thanks Explorer.

btw, as if there is no limit to how slow u can go! "stopped" doesnt come into it, it is how long it take to go form A to B.

[Iamme]

I like YOUR avatar, also, Scribble. Something I'd like have jump out of a cake or a big Christmas present.:cool:

[Iamme]

Explorer---Thanks for the reference. But do you happen to know off hand if in Relativety, if going forward or backwards in time is a 'perspective' thing, or if it is a 'reality' thing?

Einstrein, or no Einstein...it seems hard to fathom that if you were blindfolded on earth (so the speed of light factor doesn't influence what you are seeing), and then put in a space ship and sent deep into space exceeding the speed of light, and returned at this speed (still blindfolded), and you got out of the space ship and went home (still blindfolded) and you took off your blindfold....my guess is that you neither went forward or backwards in time to any big degree.

My reasoning is thus: Light travels at 186,000 mps. You traveled 372,000 miles round trip at twice the speed of light. I say that time went forward by 1 second. (If you went at the speed of light, it would have been 2 seconds. Now suppose your traveled distance was 1000 times greater. You would arrive home in 500 seconds (about 8 minutes), instead of the 16 minutes that you would have if you went at the speed of light.

So WHAT that your travel took less time. So then... what is the significance of THIS? It be like comparing taking one trip on a train...then retaking the same trip by jet. What does this have to do with 'going forward' or backward in time?

As far as *I* see it, no matter how fast you go, time would go forward. If you traveled at even a nearly infinite fast speed (say zillions of miles per second)...time would still have gone forward...a teensy...but forward nonetheless. Why would this affect you, or your thinking about what the time SHOULD be, when you got back. If you knew you were traveling fast, wouldn't you simply expect to arrive super fast?

I just don't get this stuff. Even when I read what doctors of science/astronomy say about this (like in Discover magazine), it sounds like gibberish. I just can't get my mindset to see it different from what I posted above.

And...to actually go forward or back in time, has nothing to do with 'perspective'. It would be a reality thing.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by scribble


Okay, okay, other folks have brough you up to speed on Einstein, but this part just made me chuckle.

It's hard to go slower than stopped. I'd call that a bottom limit.

-Chris

What about going into reverse?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by scribble


Okay, okay, other folks have brough you up to speed on Einstein, but this part just made me chuckle.

It's hard to go slower than stopped. I'd call that a bottom limit.

-Chris

And what about going slower and slower yet never actually precisely stopping? (ie it only "gets to" zero in an infinite amount of time)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle


sounds perfect. thanks Explorer.


It does sound perfect. I may pick it up myself.



btw, as if there is no limit to how slow u can go! "stopped" doesnt come into it, it is how long it take to go form A to B.

While velocity is often measured by taking the time to go from point A to point B, I assure you that stopped does in fact equal 0 velocity.

(Why does that sound like the introduction to a first year calculus word problem?)

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And what about going slower and slower yet never actually precisely stopping? (ie it only "gets to" zero in an infinite amount of time)

What about it? That would be much like the story of the man who could move halfway towards his goal with each step - he'd never actually reach it.

That sounds even MORE like a first year calculus problem. Odd that you posted it while I was making my previous comment...

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What about going into reverse?

Two posts! Now you're making me respond in blocks too. Heh

What about it? Velocity is an absolute measurement unless you have some reason to bring vectors in.

Edit to add: Even if you do bring vectors in, that wouldn't change the fact that stopped is the absolute minimum velocity - it would just make it easier for someone who didn't understand math to make it look that way.

-Chris

[Explorer]

lamme, you said:

"Einstrein, or no Einstein...it seems hard to fathom that if you were blindfolded on earth (so the speed of light factor doesn't influence what you are seeing), and then put in a space ship and sent deep into space exceeding the speed of light, and returned at this speed (still blindfolded), and you got out of the space ship and went home (still blindfolded) and you took off your blindfold....my guess is that you neither went forward or backwards in time to any big degree.

My reasoning is thus: Light travels at 186,000 mps. You traveled 372,000 miles round trip at twice the speed of light. I say that time went forward by 1 second. (If you went at the speed of light, it would have been 2 seconds. Now suppose your traveled distance was 1000 times greater. You would arrive home in 500 seconds (about 8 minutes), instead of the 16 minutes that you would have if you went at the speed of light."

Most of us alive today will never be able to travel at speeds approaching the speed of light. We have to be content with maybe at best, travelling at mach 2 in Concord. Astronauts may get up to faster speeds but nowhere near the 186,000 miles per second. Therefore physics as defined by Newton, have been quite adequate. However, when we get up to the speed of light, Newton's laws are no longer good enough. Relativity is all about relative speed to an observer. A stationary observer can view two trains heading towards each other at a combined speed of 100 mph. In fact they are each travelling clocking at fifty miles an hour on their own individual speedos inside the cabins.

In another scenario where two trains on separate tracks are travelling in the same direction in parallel. Both trains relative to each other are stationary, but to the observer watching from the side, both are moving away from him at fifty mph.

Now at speeds close to light speed, something wierd happens. For example, if a rocket was travelling at the speed of light and it fired a missile ahead of itself at the speed of light, relative to a stationary observer, the missile speed would still be at the speed of light and not double the speed of light as expected.

Einstein has calculated this and can express the effect mathematically. He also says that at speeds of light for a traveller relative to a stationary observer, time would slow down, although the traveller would not be aware of this. It is theoretically possible for a space traveller to set off on a light speed journey and have his young sons wave him goodbye, only to return two or three years later to meet his sons who are now older than him.

This time dilation effect has been proven scientifically by setting two very accurate quartz clocks to identical times and sending one off in a jet for several hours. On the return, the clock that flew was a few nano seconds slower than the clock that stayed behind. The degree of time slowing calculates out exactly to Einstein's formula.

The same effect would be created if you approached the event horizon of a black hole. Time would dilate in exactly the same and predictable way relative to an oberver not affected by extreme gravitational force. So time, gravity and space are all interelated in this way. In fact Einstein said that gravity is simply a deformation of space caused by mass. If you can imagine an elastic membrane steched out flat and you place a ball bearing on top of it, it would distort around the area of mass. A body approaching the deflected area would tend to move towards the ball bearing caught by the curvature surrounding it. Eventually after rotating around it a couple of times or more (i.e. orbiting) it fall in and touch it as if gravity had been the cause. Space distorts in the same way. If the ball bearing has exceptional mass the membrane would distort to such a degree that a deep hole would form, and this is the analogy to a black hole.

You must read the book as recommended above, for a much better and more facinating narrative.

[Iamme]

Thanks again, Explorer. But in the trains scenario, it sounds like we are taking observations rather than reality, again. Actual time travel, forward or backward would have to be based in reality, not just what is relative to something else, I would think.

Regarding time dilation with the quartz watches? I read the same test, once. I scoffed and mumbled to myself that the scientists are jumping too hastily to conclusions. That maybe there are other forces at work that slowed the traveling watch, such as acceleration, gravity, or...who knows. How does a quartz watch 'know' anything about spped of light/relativity to the space/time continuum. Because, the watch, like my rants about an observer having his eyes closed the whole time...has no eyes. :wink:

This whole business with time and space relativity seems to me that some scientists had/have too much time on their hands, and have drummed up non-useable theoretical poppie-cock. They could join those who are testing to see if a tree falls in the woods, and you're not there...if it really makes a noise.

But in reality, I'm not as cocky as I sound here. I probably will take you up on trying to get ahold of one of the easy to follow books on the subject.

Thanks for going through the effort you have in trying to explain this to some of us here.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iamme
Thanks again, Explorer. But in the trains scenario, it sounds like we are taking observations rather than reality, again. Actual time travel, forward or backward would have to be based in reality, not just what is relative to something else, I would think.


But both trains are on the earth, which is moving. And the solar system is moving around the center of the milky way galaxy.

Let's say you jump from one of those trains to another. From your perspective the other train is stationary. Thus you can make the jump across. This is real. Not an illusion. From a stationary obeserver's point of view, you not only jumped the distance from one train to another, but also covered the distance that the train covered while you were jumping. This also is real.

What is the benchmark of all these relative motions? That's the question that Einstein asked himself. His exploration led him to the answer. It's the speed of light in a vaccum.

Here's another example. (Cribbed unshamedly from Cosmos) A bicycle rider is coming down the street, which is parallel to you. He approaches a 4 way interection. A horse and buggy are coming straight towards you, also approaching the intersection. If the speed of light were not absolute, it follows that the image of the horse and buggy (the light reflecting off of it and entering your eyes) would add it's speed to the photons of light. Thus, the image of the horse and cart would arrive at your eyes at the speed of light plus the speed of the horse and cart. Our friend on the bicycle has a near miss as both he and the horse cart almost collide. From your perspective, the horse and cart image should reach you before the collision. You see the horse buggy swerve for no apparent reason. The bicycle then arrives and swerves as well. From your perspective, he's reacting to a horse and buggy that is no longer in his way.

Nothing like this in nature or laboratory experiments has ever happened.

Instead, to all obeservations, the speed of light is absolute. You may never add your speed to the speed of light.

Regarding time dilation with the quartz watches? I read the same test, once. I scoffed and mumbled to myself that the scientists are jumping too hastily to conclusions. That maybe there are other forces at work that slowed the traveling watch, such as acceleration, gravity, or...who knows. How does a quartz watch 'know' anything about spped of light/relativity to the space/time continuum. Because, the watch, like my rants about an observer having his eyes closed the whole time...has no eyes. :wink:

Indeed. The watch doesn't know any better. But it is made to tick at the rate of one second per second. It's just a mechanical process.

Then we accelerate the clock. And it ticks more slowly than a clock left behind. This experiment has also been done with atomic particles that decay more slowly as the approach the speed of light. (In particle accelerators, for example.)

Time is a relative variable, affected by acceleration. This is a concequence of time and space being the same thing.

This whole business with time and space relativity seems to me that some scientists had/have too much time on their hands, and have drummed up non-useable theoretical poppie-cock. They could join those who are testing to see if a tree falls in the woods, and you're not there...if it really makes a noise.

But it's not theory. It's confirmed by experiment and observation. It's impact on modern science was profound and lasting.

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Here's another example. (Cribbed unshamedly from Cosmos) A bicycle rider is coming down the street, which is parallel to you. He approaches a 4 way interection. [/B]

So if a torch was travelling at the speed of light, would it build up a light version of a 'sonic boom’?

[Iamme]

Purple---Hi. Ratman_tf already explained above that it would not. The speed of light cannot be added onto by shooting light off of moving light. (I.e., having a flashlight travel at the speed of light, forward, with it's light on.) The speed of light is the final (known/never disproven) speed. You can't use various tricks to increase the speed of light.

With sound waves, you can create the Doppler effect. Similarly, with light, you can create this Doppler effect. When a star is traveling AWAY from us at some great speed, we can see the affects of this by what is called a 'red shift'.

I did an experiment with light that fasxcinated me. I held my penlight to a wall, from about 4 feet away, and observed it's brightness, and it's scatter pattern. Then, I put the penlight inside a paper toweling tube to create a rifle barrel affect. This concentrated the beam. What do you think it did to the brightness? THEN, I began to narrow the tube, at the exit end. You already know what happens when you do this with water through a hose with a spray nozzle at the end. So, what do you think this did to the light's intensity?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iamme
I did an experiment with light that fasxcinated me. I held my penlight to a wall, from about 4 feet away, and observed it's brightness, and it's scatter pattern. Then, I put the penlight inside a paper toweling tube to create a rifle barrel affect. This concentrated the beam. What do you think it did to the brightness? THEN, I began to narrow the tube, at the exit end. You already know what happens when you do this with water through a hose with a spray nozzle at the end. So, what do you think this did to the light's intensity? [/B]

Excellent experiment. :)

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle


So if a torch was travelling at the speed of light, would it build up a light version of a 'sonic boom’?

Matter cannot be accelerated to the speed of light. That question cannot be answered.

The sonic barrier was a design problem. The speed of light is a fundamental law of physics.

If you could accelerate a torch to near the speed of light, say 99.999999999999999%, the photons leaving the torch would still be traveling at the speed of light. You may slow light down (as in refracting an image) but you can never speed it up past light speed.

[Purple Tentacle]

so if the torch was traveling at the speed of light, and it is generating light, which cannot go faster than the speed of light, would the light from the torch appear stationary from the torch's perspective?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
so if the torch was traveling at the speed of light, and it is generating light, which cannot go faster than the speed of light, would the light from the torch appear stationary from the torch's perspective?

Yes. In the context of this thought experiment. But remember that the torch still can't be accelerated to the speed of light, since it's made of matter.

[Explorer]

Ratman said

"Yes. In the context of this thought experiment. But remember that the torch still can't be accelerated to the speed of light, since it's made of matter"

The person holding the torch would not notice any difference. The torch to him would behave perfectly normally at the speed of light. Remember that it is "relative" speeds that we are talking here. Only a stationary observer would notice an unusual effect with the torch.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Explorer
Ratman said

"Yes. In the context of this thought experiment. But remember that the torch still can't be accelerated to the speed of light, since it's made of matter"

The person holding the torch would not notice any difference. The torch to him would behave perfectly normally at the speed of light. Remember that it is "relative" speeds that we are talking here. Only a stationary observer would notice an unusual effect with the torch.

Hm. This is starting to confuse me now. How can the light being generated from the torch appear normal to the person holding it (who is travelling at light speed) while still not travelling faster than light? Are you saying the speed of light is relative? And would't that be against general relativity?

[Farfromproven]

Explorer is correct. Perhaps this link will shed light :) on the subject:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm

In particular, check out the section "The Second Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Hm. This is starting to confuse me now. How can the light being generated from the torch appear normal to the person holding it (who is travelling at light speed) while still not travelling faster than light? Are you saying the speed of light is relative? And would't that be against general relativity?

The speed of light is the same for everyone no matter how fast you're travelling relative to someone else. This is the essence of its "weirdness". Moreover no objevt can travel faster than the speed of light relative to anything else.

Imagine 3 objects "A", "B" and "C". "B" is "stationary, "A" is travelling from it at 99% of the speed of light, and "C" is alos travelling from it at 99% of the speed of light, but in the precise opposite direction. The speed of "A" relative to the speed of "C" will still be less than the speed of light.

[Iamme]

Ian---Yet this doesn't seem to hold any logic as to why this should be.

Suppose B is a point on the railroad tracks. Suppose A train is moving away from point B at speed X. Now suppose train C is moving away from point B, in the opposite direction, also at speed X. If you waited a minute, and then calculated the distance between A and C...it would be 2X. In actual numbers, if the trains were moving away from each other at 50 mph...from either ones perspective, the opposite train would be going 100 mph. But from perspective B, each would be at 50 mph...naturally, obviously. Why the heck should light be different (with the illustration YOU gave)?!

However...if the LIGHT from A...and the LIGHT from C were facing each other , as the light SOURCES moved away from each other...this poses a different problem. From each's perspective, the light would slow into a red shift. Also, from the perspective of point B. Would the red shift be more so, for A, in relation to C?..than B, in relation to A or B? I would THINK so...but I'm not sure.

Light is weird. Remember when I told of my experiment with light in a paper tube? When you put it in the tube, thinking you will cut down the scatter pattern and concentrate it on the wall to be a brighter beam? It don't happen. Also, when you restrict the opening...the light restricts also. It doesn't intensify...it doesn't pile on..it doesn't behave like water being shot through a sprayer nozzle. It doesn't compress together, like air. But neither does water compress, but the intensity...the force of water indeed increases, through a restriction. For a better experiment though, I should be using tubing with reflective coating inside, rather than light absorbing paper tubing...to be sure of this.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Farfromproven
Explorer is correct. Perhaps this link will shed light :) on the subject:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm

In particular, check out the section "The Second Postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity".

Well, the link won't load for me :( but I pondered this for a bit and I think I got it. Thanks!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Iamme
Ian---Yet this doesn't seem to hold any logic as to why this should be.

Suppose B is a point on the railroad tracks. Suppose A train is moving away from point B at speed X. Now suppose train C is moving away from point B, in the opposite direction, also at speed X. If you waited a minute, and then calculated the distance between A and C...it would be 2X.



I don't know a great deal about relativity but I believe from the perspective of B it would. From the perspective of either A or C it would be very slightly less than 2X at the speed that trains typically go.




In actual numbers, if the trains were moving away from each other at 50 mph...from either ones perspective, the opposite train would be going 100 mph. But from perspective B, each would be at 50 mph...naturally, obviously. Why the heck should light be different (with the illustration YOU gave)?!



You don't use a simple addition rule in calculating the velocity of one thing relative to another. Trains A and B would not be moving apart from each other at 100mph, but rather at a speed very slightly less than 100mph. Something like 99.9999mph or whatever. Of course both C and A would be moving from B at 50mph.

BTW if trains A and C were moving from B at 99% of the speed of light, the relative speeds of A and C respective to each other would still be less than the speed of light.

Elementary relativity stuff.

[Judge Bean]

Fitting to revive a four-year-old thread to talk about time travel.

You have to start with a premise or two in order to address this issue-- for the sake of argument.

1. If the UFOs are flying craft and are not operated by our government; and

2. If many elements of the story are anthropomorphic, including "humanoid" pilots; and

3. If it is all but impossible to time-travel and only a bit more difficult to travel great distances through space; then

Either the UFOs are from another era or are the product of a nearby, related species.

It is also far more likely that the UFOs are human inventions than vehicles from a far planet. We have motive to visit ourselves in the past, if at all possible; if it is possible to invent time-travel, we will, and we will inevitably use it. While the same is true of space travel, the distances are a puzzle.

Alien beings are not the easiest answer. Drake's Equation won't get you very far, either.