Index
 |
Gravitational Time-dilation - Time and Black Holes | ||
Discussion by onstage with 24 Replies.
Last Update: February 11, 2005, 9:14 pm (View Latest) | Page 1 of 2 pages. | ||
 |
|||
I beleave it was einstein's theory when you get close to a black hole time tends to slow down, and in one of einstein's thought experiments he described going into a black hole.
Einstein said if you could get close to a black hole but not go into the black hole only a few minutes would pass for you while outside of the black holes gravitational field a year would have passed . when you returned to earth it would have in a sense traveled forward in time.
is this theory correct?
Einstein said if you could get close to a black hole but not go into the black hole only a few minutes would pass for you while outside of the black holes gravitational field a year would have passed . when you returned to earth it would have in a sense traveled forward in time.
is this theory correct?
Sat Dec 18, 2004 Reply New Discussion
Frankly, I don't think anyone knows.
Sat Dec 18, 2004 Reply New Discussion
Although scientists are still unsure as to whether this theory is correct or not, most eminent physicists have accepted it and base much of their research upon this and other assumptions. I'm not sure if people would permit sending humans into close proximity of a black hole just to find out, but I do believe that sending a probe close to one would be accepted.
Still, it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was true. Would people be willing to take the risk of being compressed to the size of less than an atom in order to travel forwards in time?
Still, it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was true. Would people be willing to take the risk of being compressed to the size of less than an atom in order to travel forwards in time?
Sat Dec 18, 2004 Reply New Discussion
QUOTE (shaldengeki)
Although scientists are still unsure as to whether this theory is correct or not, most eminent physicists have accepted it and base much of their research upon this and other assumptions. I'm not sure if people would permit sending humans into close proximity of a black hole just to find out, but I do believe that sending a probe close to one would be accepted.Still, it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was true. Would people be willing to take the risk of being compressed to the size of less than an atom in order to travel forwards in time?
[post="10424"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
lol, well knowing humanity like I do they probably would, but it would have to be some kind of emergency for me to do something like that
Sun Dec 19, 2004 Reply New Discussion
My physics teacher also told me that if you move very fast, let's say you're moving in a very fast train, the clock on that train would tick slower than the clock on the train station (you would be going forward in time). So, if you move at the speed of light, you would be going a lot forward in time. But he also said that it's impossible to give something the speed of light, because there isn't enough energy available in the whole universe.
Sun Dec 19, 2004 Reply New Discussion
QUOTE (jipman)
My physics teacher also told me that if you move very fast, let's say you're moving in a very fast train, the clock on that train would tick slower than the clock on the train station (you would be going forward in time). So, if you move at the speed of light, you would be going a lot forward in time. But he also said that it's impossible to give something the speed of light, because there isn't enough energy available in the whole universe.
[post="10501"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
I agree with most of what your saying but, we already know that an object can travel at the speed of light the trick to it is creating that much power, right now if they would make a space shuttle that ran off nuclear power it would be able to travel at the half the speed of light, but I do not know why they havent tried it yet but nasa allways studies things forever before they actualy try anything new,lol
we have computers that operate at the speed of light and oh yeah light travels at that speed also
and some microparticals can travel faster than the speed of light even though it hasnt been proven in a lab
Sun Dec 19, 2004 Reply New Discussion
QUOTE (onstage)
I agree with most of what your saying but, we already know that an object can travel at the speed of light the trick to it is creating that much power, right now if they would make a space shuttle that ran off nuclear power it would be able to travel at the half the speed of light, but I do not know why they havent tried it yet but nasa allways studies things forever before they actualy try anything new,lolwe have computers that operate at the speed of light and oh yeah light travels at that speed also
and some microparticals can travel faster than the speed of light even though it hasnt been proven in a lab
[post="10538"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Actually, I don't think anything we've done has traveled at or faster than the speed of light, like our computers. I wish they operated at the speed of light. >_> If we did create something that operated at the speed of light (and wasn't light itself), it'd be all over the news. There would be a huge rush to develop new technologies using this breakthrough, and I'm sure we would all know about it by now.
Unless you believe in government conspiracy theories, in which case you probably aren't very well educated on the topic of faster-than-light travel anyways. >_>
Sun Dec 26, 2004 Reply New Discussion
Still, a object can't be given the speed of light because there wasn't enough energy (oil, gass, stuff) in the entire universe, (proven by some scientist ). AND, how can you say that something operates at the speed of light? the speed of an object is metre/second, that's different from computer speed, cpu-ticks/second that simply can't be compared.
to keep it simple.
the speed of an object is different from the speed of operation. people often get confused in that.
to keep it simple.
the speed of an object is different from the speed of operation. people often get confused in that.
Sun Dec 26, 2004 Reply New Discussion
i just thought of something else, the formula of einstein, E=mc^2
E = the amount of energy you need to give a object with the weight of m (in kilo's) the speed of light ©.
c = 300.000.000
c x c = 90.000.000.000.000.000 metres/second
lets say i want to give an object that weighs 1 gram the speed of light,
according to the formula that would be 90.000.000.000.000 Joules
The nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki during the 2nd world war had the energy of 84.000.000.000.000 Joules.
See how difficult it gets, AND, keep in mind how much damage the bomb did to that place. And how are you going to make sure that all the energy is transferred to the 1 gram object and it's almost impossible to create a barrel that will hold such blast.
E = the amount of energy you need to give a object with the weight of m (in kilo's) the speed of light ©.
c = 300.000.000
c x c = 90.000.000.000.000.000 metres/second
lets say i want to give an object that weighs 1 gram the speed of light,
according to the formula that would be 90.000.000.000.000 Joules
The nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki during the 2nd world war had the energy of 84.000.000.000.000 Joules.
See how difficult it gets, AND, keep in mind how much damage the bomb did to that place. And how are you going to make sure that all the energy is transferred to the 1 gram object and it's almost impossible to create a barrel that will hold such blast.
Sun Dec 26, 2004 Reply New Discussion
QUOTE (jipman)
Still, a object can't be given the speed of light because there wasn't enough energy (oil, gass, stuff) in the entire universe, (proven by some scientist ). AND, how can you say that something operates at the speed of light? the speed of an object is metre/second, that's different from computer speed, cpu-ticks/second that simply can't be compared.to keep it simple.
the speed of an object is different from the speed of operation. people often get confused in that.
[post="11258"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
You have a point there. But you really should back your claims up with some proof. I'd like to see this scientist and how he proved this.
Mon Dec 27, 2004 Reply New Discussion
To clear it up a little, by the energy i meant foscil energy, excluding nuclear and solar power. To answer your question, i thought that i read it somewhere, but it also could be wrong. But i'll try to dig it up. Btw. proving it isn't difficult, all you need to do is take get your hands on data such as : the total amount of gas oil and coals, the amount of energy that you get when you burn the stuff and that gets you the energy you'll have.
But i think we're going a little off topic here.
But i think we're going a little off topic here.
Mon Dec 27, 2004 Reply New Discussion
The theory is correct. Its basically Einstein's theory of relativity, which has been proven correct many times so far. This theory says that nothing can travel at or faster than the speed of light and an object requires more and more energy to be accelerated closer to the speed of light. His special theory of relativity describes the effect gravity on time and explains how time slows down near black holes.
Tue Dec 28, 2004 Reply New Discussion
Another interesting point in the speed of light debate--even if it was possible to amass such a huge quantity of energy, how would you employ it fast enough (practically instantaneously)?
Think about it. If you had enough gasoline, you could generate the number of Joules necessary to reach the speed of light. The problem is that the energy is extracted from the gasoline rather slowly; it would take quite a long time to convert that much matter into that much energy.
Even nuclear power couldn't do it. For example, take the Hiroshima A-bomb. Even that didn't release all of its energy instantaneously; the energy was unleashed over a period of time.
To reach light speed, that huge amount of energy would have to be employed instantaneously, and at the moment there is no fuel source that can even come close to this.
Think about it. If you had enough gasoline, you could generate the number of Joules necessary to reach the speed of light. The problem is that the energy is extracted from the gasoline rather slowly; it would take quite a long time to convert that much matter into that much energy.
Even nuclear power couldn't do it. For example, take the Hiroshima A-bomb. Even that didn't release all of its energy instantaneously; the energy was unleashed over a period of time.
To reach light speed, that huge amount of energy would have to be employed instantaneously, and at the moment there is no fuel source that can even come close to this.
Fri Jan 28, 2005 Reply New Discussion
Well, no one can say that a Theory is correct. But, I think what you said isn't really the right information.
The person going into the blackhole's point of view: When you go near a blackhole, Time slows down more and more as your speed increases. Once you have gone too near, Time appears to freeze and you'll stop there.
Person watching: The person going inside the blackhole will get sucked in, but will go slower and slower, while turning more and more red untill he is invisible to you (Too dark). This (the slowing down part) is because the gravity of the blackhole would pull lights in, and the closer the light is to the center of the blackhole, the longer it takes for the light to come out.
The person going into the blackhole's point of view: When you go near a blackhole, Time slows down more and more as your speed increases. Once you have gone too near, Time appears to freeze and you'll stop there.
Person watching: The person going inside the blackhole will get sucked in, but will go slower and slower, while turning more and more red untill he is invisible to you (Too dark). This (the slowing down part) is because the gravity of the blackhole would pull lights in, and the closer the light is to the center of the blackhole, the longer it takes for the light to come out.
Sat Jan 29, 2005 Reply New Discussion
One fact that most of you missed out on is: Have you ever thought that even if we could manage to accelerate some particle or a certain mass at the speed of light - the object itself would become PURE UNHARNESSED ENERGY that cannot be bound back together to give it back its original shape later on !!
Besides, even the same happens to you if you manage to somehow drop into a black hole. The gravitational pull inside the black hole is so immense, that the more you travel towards its center, the more your body gets compressed and eventually it implodes into a single point (the supposedly basic structure of a black hole - a singularity) and would let out an immense amount of energy in the process and NOT be your own body any longer...
So, I ask you, why would you ever, in the right frame of mind, would care to venture into a black hole - even if you wanted to play cool and demonstrate some of that time dilation to your friend standing at the viewport of some far away space shuttle ??? Unless, of course you want to get into all that hoo haa about blackholes being the gateways to another dimension, or that two black holes physically situated bizzillions of intergalactic miles apart could serve as a connecting highway to the other end of the universe ....
Besides, even the same happens to you if you manage to somehow drop into a black hole. The gravitational pull inside the black hole is so immense, that the more you travel towards its center, the more your body gets compressed and eventually it implodes into a single point (the supposedly basic structure of a black hole - a singularity) and would let out an immense amount of energy in the process and NOT be your own body any longer...
So, I ask you, why would you ever, in the right frame of mind, would care to venture into a black hole - even if you wanted to play cool and demonstrate some of that time dilation to your friend standing at the viewport of some far away space shuttle ??? Unless, of course you want to get into all that hoo haa about blackholes being the gateways to another dimension, or that two black holes physically situated bizzillions of intergalactic miles apart could serve as a connecting highway to the other end of the universe ....
Tue Feb 8, 2005 Reply New Discussion
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| Reply / Comment | Ask a Question? | Share / Bookmark | E-Mail a Friend |
 Google And The Libraries (13)
|
(17) Evolution 
|