[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by premier3is

Focusing on the highlighted part above you mentioned (which makes sense as is true) but that is because we are comparing light years to human years correct?

Say you walk 1 mile north, then 1 mile back south to come home. Each way takes you 1 hour, you upon return you are now 2 hours older than you were when you started.

Now if we did that same travel in light speed, we'd be back in 0.1 second (using random numbers here), and you are only 0.1 seconds older than when you started. Cool... But if we went light speed 1 hours north then light speed 1 hour south, then yes we may see Earth as being 100 years older (once again, random numbers used).

Don't know if I make sense, but wouldn't we have to compare apple to apples when looking at distance and speed? Maybe I'm just looking at it too deeply and I'm now confusing myself lol.

The example you gave is accurate!

Suppose I was an observer looking at you do this light speed run. In your world, you do 1 mile forward at light speed in 0.1 seconds.

In my world, even though I am standing on the same ground, it appears to me as though you are moving at a snail's pace! You would appear as though you are almost frozen in time, moving excruciatingly slow. If I were to wait 100 years I would finally see you complete that mile. You would still be your current age plus 0.1 seconds older. I would be 100 years older. Is that not wild?

Here is a cool youtube video that explains this concept:

[Rmtt]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

Has anyone here had a UFO experience which you can't explain, like me?

Murf

Not a UFO.....but I've seen the Brown Mountain Lights in Brown Mountain NC one time. At least that's what they are called.

At night from different vantage points, you can see colored orbs that appear to be about the size of a beachball floating in the treetops among the ridge.

They appear in various areas, and disappear just as quickly. They have also been seen hundreds of feet above the mountain tops.

Don't know what they are, but it was a cool thing to see.

Still no official explanation, but I think they have been seen for decades.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by premier3is

Focusing on the highlighted part above you mentioned (which makes sense as is true) but that is because we are comparing light years to human years correct?

Say you walk 1 mile north, then 1 mile back south to come home. Each way takes you 1 hour, you upon return you are now 2 hours older than you were when you started.

Now if we did that same travel in light speed, we'd be back in 0.1 second (using random numbers here), and you are only 0.1 seconds older than when you started. Cool... But if we went light speed 1 hours north then light speed 1 hour south, then yes we may see Earth as being 100 years older (once again, random numbers used).

Don't know if I make sense, but wouldn't we have to compare apple to apples when looking at distance and speed? Maybe I'm just looking at it too deeply and I'm now confusing myself lol.

Not sure what you are saying is any different than the twins example. It doesn't really matter where you are going. You could just be above the earth going round and round at near the speed of light and time for you would go slower (not noticeable to you) than for people on earth. Gravity can also cause time dilation like in the movie interstellar. If you are near a very massive object like a black hole your time progresses slower.

I believe they have actually done this experiment and put an atomic clock on a satellite or what not orbiting the earth at thousands of mph and put another on earth. After x amount of time the two clocks would be off by a tiny amount.

The thing is you really have to get up there in speed before you start seeing any serious time dilation.

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by Littlebear

In the hypothetical realm, doesn't Worm Hole theory blow Quantum theory, & the light speed limit, out of the water?
(I understand nothing past that twins stuff).

Murf

No. As i understand it, the wormhole theory is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity. Basically since gravity bends space/time, if there is enough of a gravitational impact, space/time can bend all the way to the point that it touches itself and so you can travel from one point in space to another without actually moving. But this doesn't impact the reality that the fastest speed is that of light (or photons) which is mass-less thus is not hampered by any gravitational or other slowdown.

[infinitekidM2C]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Not sure what you are saying is any different than the twins example. It doesn't really matter where you are going. You could just be above the earth going round and round at near the speed of light and time for you would go slower (not noticeable to you) than for people on earth. Gravity can also cause time dilation like in the movie interstellar. If you are near a very massive object like a black hole your time progresses slower.

I believe they have actually done this experiment and put an atomic clock on a satellite or what not orbiting the earth at thousands of mph and put another on earth. After x amount of time the two clocks would be off by a tiny amount.

The thing is you really have to get up there in speed before you start seeing any serious time dilation.

And it's not just speed that affects time, but gravity does as well. They are all connected E=MC^2.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by infinitekidM2C

But this doesn't impact the reality that the fastest speed is that of light (or photons) which is mass-less thus is not hampered by any gravitational or other slowdown.

Can you imagine being a photon, you basically are born and die instantly. Those photons from the stars you see at night have traveled for millions and millions of light years to get to your eyeball. However for the photon it was emitted and hit your eyeball instantly.

I dunno, I find real science far more fascinating than ancient aliens.

[ipso_facto]

See this article for an academic analysis of these UAV/UFO videos. It is utterly fascinating. I make no pretence to understanding the equations in the paper, but the text and graphs, I do understand and confess, I find mind blowing:

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles

Kevin H. Knuth, Robert M. Powell and Peter A. Reali

Variously, faculty of:

Dept. of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY), Albany NY, USA
Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), Fort Myers FL, USA

[Littlebear]

Originally Posted by ipso_facto

See this article for an academic analysis of these UAV/UFO videos. It is utterly fascinating....

Cool article! Hard to pick through, but I think they said the "Tic-Tac" did 5,370 G, and 60 times the speed of sound?

The discussion at the end says "This does not rule out the possibility that these UAVs have been developed by governments, organizations, or individuals on Earth..."

Well now!

Murf

[Rmtt]

Link to Patent discussed earlier.

Craft using an inertial mass reduction device


https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by spazzyfry123

My question is why did they release it? Any explanation or just for our viewing pleasure?

FLIR SW patch corrected whatever was causing the processor to "see things". Joke is on the US public.

[KennyFSU]

I'm seeing a lot of sightings happening over water, makes me think these UFOs are actually from the depths of the ocean. After all, we know more about space than the deep sea.

[BimmerDimmer6]

According to Alex Jones, the only way to connect with aliens is to take copious amounts of iowaska...

45 min mark.

[eluded]

Originally Posted by premier3is

...wouldn't we have to compare apple to apples when looking at distance and speed..

What about same speeds but in different gravity ?

[Littlebear]

One of the most intelligent people I've ever met prefers the theory that they are time travelers from our future. He thinks science makes that more probable!

Murf

[c63er]

Originally Posted by NemesisX

Some more interesting musings about traveling at or near the speed of light.

Has everybody heard of the 'Twin Paradox'? It's not actually a paradox, but rather a thought experiment from Einstein that is proven to be accurate to the 8th (or something ridiculous like that) decimal point.

You all can watch videos on it but I'll briefly summarize the key points here:

When people travel at some velocity, their clocks tick slower than if they stand still. The effect becomes magnified the closer one reaches the speed of light.

Suppose you had twins born in the year 2000. They are both 1 day old.

Suppose Twin A goes off into a rocket ship that travels near the speed of light away from the earth and then towards the earth. From Twin A's perspective, he is in this rocket ship for 20 years. 10 years traveling away from the earth and then 10 years traveling back to earth, all at near speed of light velocities.

When Twin A returns to earth, how old is Twin A and how old is Twin B?

a) Twin A is 20 years old. Twin B is -not- 20 years old (despite the fact that they are twins!). Twin B is now 70 years old (I'm using whole numbers and did not actually do a calculation, but this is just to get the idea).

These results are derived from einstein's special theory of relativity. These numbers are taken into account for GPS satellites traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour. If you did not take special relativity into account (the same equations that predict Twin B will be 70 years old), then GPS satellites would be off by miles within seconds to minutes of operating.

There is also a russian astronaut that's been on a Russian space station traveling at tens of thousands of miles per hour for so much of his life that he has effectively time traveled into the future by something like .05 seconds. Nothing crazy and from his perspective it's almost imperceptible, but it's cool nonetheless.


But back to aliens, if aliens were to travel at near speed of light to try and reach us, from -their- perspective they could travel 200,000 years to reach from one end of the Milky Way galaxy (their home) to the other end (our home).

However, from -our- perspective we will have aged far more than 200,000 years. We will have aged billions of years. The same problem holds true if we try and reach them via near speed of light travel.

Edit: Full disclosure I am a physician, but I do have a background in chemical engineering. Nonetheless I'm no expert on relativity so please correct me if any of this is incorrect!

You are a physician so I'll speak to you as an educated person. What you are describing is the theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity. The reason it is called theory is that it hasn't been proven true.

In fact it's been shown to be false

Relativity works for basic concepts and some of our basic observations of the universe as we were learning about physics, as a human race. Now it's good for explaining some parts of physics at a college level. But our understanding of the topic has moved beyond that theory.

I only mention this in case you are curious about the topic. There is much more development on the subject which is very interesting, but that theory should be put aside unless you want to be a high school physics teacher

[Benedict1957]

Originally Posted by c63er

You are a physician so I'll speak to you as an educated person. What you are describing is the theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity. The reason it is called theory is that it hasn't been proven true.

In fact it's been shown to be false

Relativity works for basic concepts and some of our basic observations of the universe as we were learning about physics, as a human race. Now it's good for explaining some parts of physics at a college level. But our understanding of the topic has moved beyond that theory.

I only mention this in case you are curious about the topic. There is much more development on the subject which is very interesting, but that theory should be put aside unless you want to be a high school physics teacher

I was under the impression that the special theory of relativity including time dilation has been proven with numerous experiments, and most of my physicist friends speak as though it's dogma.

In physics there are models that explain and predict behavior. Newton's Law of gravity isn't exactly true, but it makes predictions to some degree of precision.

Einstein's theory of special relativity - despite being called a "theory" - makes predictions with even greater precision than Newton's law of gravity.

I'm curious - what is your background and why do you believe that special relativity is wrong or unproven? Where are you getting that information?

[Benedict1957]

For those that don't want to watch the video, Einstein's special theory of relativity predicts that an atomic clock on an airplane after traveling a pre-determined distance will be off by .000000043 +/- .000000001 seconds.

Not .000000047 seconds. Not .000000067 seconds. Not .000000021 seconds. But .000000043 seconds.

Guess how much the clock was off by compared to an atomic clock on earth?

.000000043 seconds.

I'd call that an amazingly accurate prediction that clearly lends evidence to Einstein's theory of special relativity.

There may be another theory in the future that is even more accurate than Einstein's theory of special relativity. That's fine. But that doesn't dilute the accomplishments of special relativity.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by c63er

You are a physician so I'll speak to you as an educated person. What you are describing is the theory of relativity. Not the law of relativity. The reason it is called theory is that it hasn't been proven true.

In fact it's been shown to be false

Relativity works for basic concepts and some of our basic observations of the universe as we were learning about physics, as a human race. Now it's good for explaining some parts of physics at a college level. But our understanding of the topic has moved beyond that theory.

I only mention this in case you are curious about the topic. There is much more development on the subject which is very interesting, but that theory should be put aside unless you want to be a high school physics teacher

Unfortunately you seem very confused about the definitions of theory and law.

[dreamingat30fps]

Originally Posted by Benedict1957

For those that don't want to watch the video, Einstein's special theory of relativity predicts that an atomic clock on an airplane after traveling a pre-determined distance will be off by .000000043 +/- .000000001 seconds.

Not .000000047 seconds. Not .000000067 seconds. Not .000000021 seconds. But .000000043 seconds.

Guess how much the clock was off by compared to an atomic clock on earth?

.000000043 seconds.

I'd call that an amazingly accurate prediction that clearly lends evidence to Einstein's theory of special relativity.

There may be another theory in the future that is even more accurate than Einstein's theory of special relativity. That's fine. But that doesn't dilute the accomplishments of special relativity.

Yup, there have been tons of experiments done and so far they have all supported the theory. Even more recently with the detection of gravitational waves.

The only "issues" with it as far as I know are when it comes to the quantum scale. Which is why we have quantum mechanics to explain things at the quantum scale. This is why the holy grail would be a theory that could combine them all together, the most well known probably being string theory.

[c63er]

Originally Posted by Benedict1957

I was under the impression that the special theory of relativity including time dilation has been proven with numerous experiments, and most of my physicist friends speak as though it's dogma.

In physics there are models that explain and predict behavior. Newton's Law of gravity isn't exactly true, but it makes predictions to some degree of precision.

Einstein's theory of special relativity - despite being called a "theory" - makes predictions with even greater precision than Newton's law of gravity.

I'm curious - what is your background and why do you believe that special relativity is wrong or unproven? Where are you getting that information?

I worked in this field at a very high level for some years and I'll leave it at that.

What I will say is this, the concepts are fascinating with many people devoting their entire career, no life, to this topic. So it's not easily boiled down in a forum post. I encourage you to read on the topic if you find it interesting. But in summary, put relativity to the side.

Relativity only works in an observational sense and certainly doesn't work on many types of matter in our universe that we are only now starting to be able to observe. It should not be regarded for anything beyond basic college physics. I would argue only for basic high school physics in fact.

It simply doesn't hold water with our newer understanding of how the universe actually works.

It's something akin to having a primitive theory: being close to another human being gets you sick and the closer you get to people the more often you get sick. Ok that works in many cases even most cases. But then someone discovers the virus and microbes and cells and well, that theory of yours suddenly becomes pretty quaint. It of course still works but doesn't actually explain anything and cannot be leveraged to cure disease or advance us. It is however still useful for explaining to a child how to avoid getting sick, but again wouldn't be used by any modern virologist or physician to explain the underpinnings of disease. Furthermore, take a child who first understands the concept of staying far away from a sick person to avoid getting sick, then try to explain the concept of an RNA virus or difference with a bacteria or overpopulation and see how far you get.

[Benedict1957]

Originally Posted by c63er

I worked in this field at a very high level for some years and I'll leave it at that.

What I will say is this, the concepts are fascinating with many people devoting their entire career, no life, to this topic. So it's not easily boiled down in a forum post. I encourage you to read on the topic if you find it interesting. But in summary, put relativity to the side.

Relativity only works in an observational sense and certainly doesn't work on many types of matter in our universe that we are only now starting to be able to observe. It should not be regarded for anything beyond basic college physics. I would argue only for basic high school physics in fact.

It simply doesn't hold water with our newer understanding of how the universe actually works.

It's something akin to having a primitive theory: being close to another human being gets you sick and the closer you get to people the more often you get sick. Ok that works in many cases even most cases. But then someone discovers the virus and microbes and cells and well, that theory of yours suddenly becomes pretty quaint. It of course still works but doesn't actually explain anything and cannot be leveraged to cure disease or advance us. It is however still useful for explaining to a child how to avoid getting sick, but again wouldn't be used by any modern virologist or physician to explain the underpinnings of disease. Furthermore, take a child who first understands the concept of staying far away from a sick person to avoid getting sick, then try to explain the concept of an RNA virus or difference with a bacteria or overpopulation and see how far you get.

Can you provide some papers/sources that speak to what you're talking about?

I did some digging and found an article back in 2016 that claimed to disprove the special theory of relativity, but it was met with significant backlash and virtually no one in the physics community is convinced.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...-tst030116.php

https://thewire.in/science/a-non-cha...-of-relativity

[Benedict1957]

To say the special theory of relativity is wrong because it doesn't work in all domains of physics is akin to saying that Newton's Law of gravity is wrong because it doesn't apply to electrons around a nucleus. Or that quantum mechanics is wrong because it doesn't exactly predict the properties of atoms beyond a hydrogen atom.