A theory on how eternal life could be possible

reply to post by docpoco


Hello docpoco-

Infinite life is what we are.

I don't remember anything beyond this life that I live right now but I know I will live again after my body leaves me. Will I remember everything of this life? I'm not sure, I just know I will be again.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Yes i disagree with the link. And i have given grafs to illustrate it.

A space ship that travels at .9 the speed of light does not travel faster than time.

Time does not slow down or speed up when a speed is constant.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I saw you confusing these terms about slowing down versus constant earlier. I kept stating in examples to keep the math simple we would disregard speeding up and slowing down and look at constants.

The terms physicists typically use for speeding up or slowing down are "acceleration" and "deceleration". When we eliminate those and just look at constant velocities, then we are just left with constant velocities and constant clock advancement.

The problem with debating with you, is that you're either not reading or not comprehending the sources that others in this thread have provided you with.

You can draw all the graphs you want but you still haven't explained the experimental data in this link:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

You're spinning your wheels in the debate until you do that. All you said was

Originally posted by spy66
They are flying a atomic clocks around the world. Of course there will be differences.

but you didn't say why, or what formulas you'd use to calculate that, how your theory predicts what the experimental results should be, and how the actual results do or do not match that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I can't use the same information as is on that site. Because then i would not be proving anything. I would get the same result as the experiment. That is why i use other, but still very similar methods of viewing this.

I made a similar scenario and could not find time dilation. I will present the image and explain why.


Image.


In this image i have two clocks. Earth and the Airplane. Through the center of earth and through the center of the Airplane i have drawn a Blue line.The blue line represents real time and location.

I have also numbered "4" right triangles. They are very important to pay attention to. Can you see that they are all right triangles?

No, if the Airplane moves. There will be equal changes in all the "4" right triangles at the same time. There will be no time dilation. Because, the blue line that goes through Earth and the Airplane will always fallow the velocity/motion of the Airplane in real time and space.

If you pay attention to where time is calculated, there is no way you will get the real time. Because it is not calculated in real time.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I can't use the same information as is on that site. Because then i would not be proving anything. I would get the same result as the experiment. That is why i use other, but still very similar methods of viewing this.

Please explain exactly how your model would give exactly the same results as shown on that site.

You WOULD be proving something if you show how your model predicts those results, because I don't think you understand the model that was used to predict those results and I don't think you understand how your model doesn't predict them.

So my guess is the reason you don't want to show how your model predicts those experimental results is, because it doesn't, but please prove me wrong if I'm wrong. Thanks.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I can't use the same information as is on that site. Because then i would not be proving anything. I would get the same result as the experiment. That is why i use other, but still very similar methods of viewing this.

Please explain exactly how your model would give exactly the same results as shown on that site.

You WOULD be proving something if you show how your model predicts those results, because I don't think you understand the model that was used to predict those results and I don't think you understand how your model doesn't predict them.

So my guess is the reason you don't want to show how your model predicts those experimental results is, because it doesn't, but please prove me wrong if I'm wrong. Thanks.

First of: My Model don't show the same result. It shows something different. That is the point with my model.

If you notices. I am using Geometry to check if what they say is true. It's also a way to check to see what their equations really point to.
Geometry is a proven fact, so it can be used to check other facts.

I am using "right triangles" set into a system with each other to identify changes. Because if one angle or a side changes. All of them must change one way or another simultaneously, since i have put them into a system.

I will explain:

I have been using this model all along. But i have put it into a working system with other right triangles.


This is how a combination of right triangles put into a system look like:


If side "a" changes in one of the right triangles a equal change will happen to side "a" in the other right triangle. Because, they are connected by the blue line.
If side "a" changes so will angle A and B change in all of the triangles.


You can add more Geometry to this system to simulate the experiment. Like this:



You don't really have to do the math in this model. All you have to do is move the Air craft. And you will see equal amount of changes in all the 4 right triangles. "At the same time". Because! the Air craft moves the blue line when it moves in real time.

As you can see earth is also connected to this system.

If you exchange angle A and B in a right triangle with humans, and set side "a" to be the speed of light. So that angle B travels towards angle C at .999999 the speed of light.
You will see that they both age equally in space time even if the speed is .999999 the speed of light.

Because, if one angle or one side changes. Equal changes happen at once to all the angles and sides.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I can't use the same information as is on that site. Because then i would not be proving anything. I would get the same result as the experiment. That is why i use other, but still very similar methods of viewing this.

Please explain exactly how your model would give exactly the same results as shown on that site.

You WOULD be proving something if you show how your model predicts those results, because I don't think you understand the model that was used to predict those results and I don't think you understand how your model doesn't predict them.

So my guess is the reason you don't want to show how your model predicts those experimental results is, because it doesn't, but please prove me wrong if I'm wrong. Thanks.

First of: My Model don't show the same result. It shows something different. That is the point with my model.

If you notices. I am using Geometry to check if what they say is true. It's also a way to check to see what their equations really point to.
Geometry is a proven fact, so it can be used to check other facts.

I am using "right triangles" set into a system with each other to identify changes. Because if one angle or a side changes. All of them must change one way or another simultaneously, since i have put them into a system.

I will explain:

I have been using this model all along. But i have put it into a working system with other right triangles.


This is how a combination of right triangles put into a system look like:


If side "a" changes in one of the right triangles a equal change will happen to side "a" in the other right triangle. Because, they are connected by the blue line.
If side "a" changes so will angle A and B change in all of the triangles.


You can add more Geometry to this system to simulate the experiment. Like this:



You don't really have to do the math in this model. All you have to do is move the Air craft. And you will see equal amount of changes in all the 4 right triangles. "At the same time". Because! the Air craft moves the blue line when it moves in real time.

As you can see earth is also connected to this system.

If you exchange angle A and B in a right triangle with humans, and set side "a" to be the speed of light. So that angle B travels towards angle C at .999999 the speed of light.
You will see that they both age equally in space time even if the speed is .999999 the speed of light.

Because, if one angle or one side changes. Equal changes happen at once to all the angles and sides.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

You can't use simple geometry to explain time dilation because of Lorentz contractions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, I would like to remind you, that you are arguing with EINSTEIN

reply to post by docpoco



Read this:

In physics, length contraction – according to Hendrik Lorentz – is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer in objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction) is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling. This effect is negligible at everyday speeds, and can be ignored for all regular purposes.

It is talking about how an object traveling at for instance the speed of light, would look like to an observer. But still the object is where it is. No matter its mass. It doesn't even matter at what point you measure it at. That point will still be a part of the moving mass.

How can you even understand this if you don't know the difference between what observing a mass is,,, compared to its location in space time?

I even bet that you think that if we could bend space we would cheat time.

Originally posted by spy66
First of: My Model don't show the same result. It shows something different. That is the point with my model.

If we make measurements in the real world, and your model doesn't match those measurements, it proves your model can't be correct.

That's why we do real-world experiments, to see which models match real-world results, and which models don't. You just said your model doesn't, so get back to us when you have a model that matches real-world measurements.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83923bebdea2.png[/atsimg]
These are real world measurements. There's no point in trying to sell us on any theory that can't explain them when we have a proven theory from Einstein that DOES explain them.

So you're not only arguing with Einstein, you're arguing with measurements we've made, so it's not a matter of opinion, you CAN'T claim your model is right when it doesn't match real-world measurements.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
First of: My Model don't show the same result. It shows something different. That is the point with my model.

If we make measurements in the real world, and your model doesn't match those measurements, it proves your model can't be correct.

That's why we do real-world experiments, to see which models match real-world results, and which models don't. You just said your model doesn't, so get back to us when you have a model that matches real-world measurements.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83923bebdea2.png[/atsimg]
These are real world measurements. There's no point in trying to sell us on any theory that can't explain them when we have a proven theory from Einstein that DOES explain them.

So you're not only arguing with Einstein, you're arguing with measurements we've made, so it's not a matter of opinion, you CAN'T claim your model is right when it doesn't match real-world measurements.

Of course i can, doing measurements is the whole clue to this. Because. You can also monitor in what time frame these measurements must take place in the experiment.

Edit to add:

If you create a time frame everything within that time frame exists at the same time, "no matter how fast they move relative to each other".

reply to post by spy66

Ok if your model can explain those results, please show your math on how it predicts the -40ns Eastward and the +275ns Westward.

Looking at your model I'm not seeing how it can possibly predict anything like that. Here's the math on how Einstein's special and general relativity predict the changes:

en.wikipedia.org...

That study has been replicated with increasingly accurate methods.

I don't understand your comment

Originally posted by spy66
You can also monitor in what time frame these measurements must take place in the experiment.

The experiment is not complicated. You compare the clocks to see how far off they are from each other, and note that result. Then you fly the clocks around the world twice, some east and some west. After that's over, you then again compare the times on the clocks, and see how far off they are from each other. So you're comparing them before and after the flights in the same reference frame on the Earth's surface at the same time.

My vote is that from this point we just ignore spy66. He has clearly convinced himself that Einstein is wrong, that real world experiments aren't valid, all with the help of a couple of graphs.

Since this thread has been completely derailed... here's a question for your Arbitrageur (sp?)

As you come close to the speed of light, time slows down more and more. The original intent of this thread is to discuss the ideas of existing as light (beings of light etc.) and thus living eternally.

And it appears physically impossible to travel the speed of light, which would require an infinite amount of energy.

But what if you could travel the speed of light... technically, wouldn't infinity pass? It seems you would be stuck in an infinite state of being. Once you reached that speed, time would effectively stop for you.

So in theory, wouldn't this also be another way to eternal life?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by spy66

 

Ok if your model can explain those results, please show your math on how it predicts the -40ns Eastward and the +275ns Westward.

Originally posted by spy66
You can also monitor in what time frame these measurements must take place in the experiment.

No problem, just give me some time to make the models. As i said it doesn't matter which way you travel, and i will prove it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Here is a model that can prove that equal changes take place at exactly the same time. No matter how fast the Air craft is going or what heading it is traveling. You will have the same geometry as i have given in my model.

If you deny that i dont know what to say. I guess the experiment is a failure. Probably do to inaccurate instruments doing the measurements. Time dilation is not what you think it is. That is what i have proven.



I don't think i have to explain how this model works!

If you disagree with my model than something is very wrong with our geometry.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Here is a model that can prove that equal changes take place at exactly the same time. No matter how fast the Air craft is going or what heading it is traveling. You will have the same geometry as i have given in my model.

If you deny that i dont know what to say. I guess the experiment is a failure. Probably do to inaccurate instruments doing the measurements. Time dilation is not what you think it is. That is what i have proven.



I don't think i have to explain how this model works!

If you disagree with my model than something is very wrong with our geometry.

At first I found you frustrating, but now I'm just sad for you... you literally think you have proven Einstein wrong with a couple of graphs.

you are obviously an intelligent person, but you are markedly stupid.

Originally posted by docpoco
But what if you could travel the speed of light... technically, wouldn't infinity pass? It seems you would be stuck in an infinite state of being. Once you reached that speed, time would effectively stop for you.

So in theory, wouldn't this also be another way to eternal life?

Sorry about the thread being derailed. But spy66 finally said something that's true so I had to respond to that, sorry.

You're right that it's impossible for something with mass to go the speed of light.

But let's say it happened somehow and we project the math, that time, instead of slowing down, would stop. Well, if time effectively stops, I guess I would call that eternal existence rather than eternal life.I think it's more realistic, even if far-fetched, to talk about traveling at speeds so close to the speed of light that time is advancing so slowly (from an outside observer's perspective) that for all practical purposes it appears to have stopped.

The example that comes to mind is glass. It's really a liquid, not a solid, but it moves so slowly over time that for all practical purposes it has the appearance of a solid.

But once again, for the person traveling at almost light speed, time would appear to pass normally. My brain has a hard time coping with what would happen AT light speed since I know it's impossible.

@spy66 yes of course something was wrong with Euclidian geometry, you finally get it! (maybe)? That's the answer right there, the Euclidian Geometry you're using only works at non-relativistic speeds or with clocks that aren't accurate to the nanosecond.

This is why Einstein used (and you must also use) Non-Euclidian Spacetime to discuss relativity.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

So yes indeed, something is seriously wrong with Euclidian geometry when relativistic effects are considered, that may be the first thing you've said that's CORRECT!? But it works pretty well when relativistic effects aren't considered and it's much simpler so that's why they still teach it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by docpoco
But what if you could travel the speed of light... technically, wouldn't infinity pass? It seems you would be stuck in an infinite state of being. Once you reached that speed, time would effectively stop for you.

So in theory, wouldn't this also be another way to eternal life?

Sorry about the thread being derailed. But spy66 finally said something that's true so I had to respond to that, sorry.

You're right that it's impossible for something with mass to go the speed of light.

But let's say it happened somehow and we project the math, that time, instead of slowing down, would stop. Well, if time effectively stops, I guess I would call that eternal existence rather than eternal life.I think it's more realistic, even if far-fetched, to talk about traveling at speeds so close to the speed of light that time is advancing so slowly (from an outside observer's perspective) that for all practical purposes it appears to have stopped.

The example that comes to mind is glass. It's really a liquid, not a solid, but it moves so slowly over time that for all practical purposes it has the appearance of a solid.

But once again, for the person traveling at almost light speed, time would appear to pass normally. My brain has a hard time coping with what would happen AT light speed since I know it's impossible.

@spy66 yes of course something was wrong with Euclidian geometry, you finally get it! (maybe)? That's the answer right there, the Euclidian Geometry you're using only works at non-relativistic speeds or with clocks that aren't accurate to the nanosecond.

This is why Einstein used (and you must also use) Non-Euclidian Spacetime to discuss relativity.

In classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being independent of the state of motion of an observer. In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

So yes indeed, something is seriously wrong with Euclidian geometry when relativistic effects are considered, that may be the first thing you've said that's CORRECT!? But it works pretty well when relativistic effects aren't considered and it's much simpler so that's why they still teach it.

edit on 10-10-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

Thats the bit I was struggling with. Supposing you could somehow reach that speed for a nano-second (ignoring the implications of mass and length) Then at that moment relatively speaking, you would exist eternally.

But to say that the person traveling the speed of light would experience time normally seems to contradict itself.

Since infinity never ends, it would seem impossible to experience time "normally".

Would you age? Would you die? Since in that moment time dilation = Infinite, then effectively time has stopped.
\
very confusing

Originally posted by docpoco

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Here is a model that can prove that equal changes take place at exactly the same time. No matter how fast the Air craft is going or what heading it is traveling. You will have the same geometry as i have given in my model.

If you deny that i dont know what to say. I guess the experiment is a failure. Probably do to inaccurate instruments doing the measurements. Time dilation is not what you think it is. That is what i have proven.



I don't think i have to explain how this model works!

If you disagree with my model than something is very wrong with our geometry.

At first I found you frustrating, but now I'm just sad for you... you literally think you have proven Einstein wrong with a couple of graphs.

you are obviously an intelligent person, but you are markedly stupid.

I will takes this as a compliment and let you all get on with this thread. Good luck to all of you

Originally posted by docpoco
Would you age? Would you die? Since in that moment time dilation = Infinite, then effectively time has stopped.
\
very confusing

Well, time would clearly stop to an outside observer. Time would pass normally for the traveler all the way up to just shy of the speed of light, but who knows what happens at the speed of light? I don't have much to support speculation except to say since energy can travel at the speed of light and mass can't, that maybe you would transition from being mass to energy?

And we see light from galaxies that is 10, 11, 12 billion years old so that's about as close to eternal as my puny brain lets me think about. So in that sense, energy can be eternal.

Some science fiction shows suggest that's the ultimate step in evolution, into a non-corporeal form of pure energy, such as Stargate SG-1 when Daniel Jackson ascended like the ancients, who as far as I could tell were supposed to be more or less immortal. It's an interesting theory but obviously very speculative.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by docpoco
Would you age? Would you die? Since in that moment time dilation = Infinite, then effectively time has stopped.
\
very confusing

Well, time would clearly stop to an outside observer. Time would pass normally for the traveler all the way up to just shy of the speed of light, but who knows what happens at the speed of light? I don't have much to support speculation except to say since energy can travel at the speed of light and mass can't, that maybe you would transition from being mass to energy?

And we see light from galaxies that is 10, 11, 12 billion years old so that's about as close to eternal as my puny brain lets me think about. So in that sense, energy can be eternal.

Some science fiction shows suggest that's the ultimate step in evolution, into a non-corporeal form of pure energy, such as Stargate SG-1 when Daniel Jackson ascended like the ancients, who as far as I could tell were supposed to be more or less immortal. It's an interesting theory but obviously very speculative.

Obviously you would get to a point where literally billions of years are passing for your every second.

But what happens at the speed of light? I have no idea. According to the theory you would also have infinite mass (which doesn't really make sense, because mass is obviously finite).

Its all very bizarre.

According to my knowledge. The infinite is stationary. It doesn't move. Light is a energy that is expanding at a set speed. If it is expanding at a set speed it ca not be infinite.

There is one more thing that amuses me. You two think that if you travel at a set speed . You would see millions of years passing by every second?

How could you do that, if years are determined by earths rotations around the sun and not by your speed and direction?