Centrifugal force does not exist! It is a fictitious force that shows up in a rotating reference frame. It is not a real force, the force you are looking for is called centripetal force. It's where a rotating object is split into two vectors, radial accel and tangential accel....it's kinda long to explain so I suggest looking it up before more people throw about the word "centrifugal".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Centrifugal effect merely a bi-product of inertia?

Yes - the perceived effect is the result of the inertia & momentum of an object (in this case, you) resisting the change in direction being imposed by the (in this case) rotating ship's interior surface. The only true force (or acceleration) being applied is in the direction of the center of rotation - hence the term centripetal (or towards the center) acceleration. In a slightly different setup, it might help to visualize by thinking of an orbiting spaceship - the acceleration is "down" due to gravity, but you go in a circle because you are moving and thus have momentum & inertia.

In any event a means of lessening or eliminating the effects of zero gravity, would naturally improve the range of a starship because you wouldn't have to rotate crew so often. This might not be a system incorporated into the ship, but perhaps a medical treatment which would reverse the degradation of bone and muscle, or adapt those tissues so they don't degrade in the first place.

Or if you go down the path of cybernetic replacement, you could give astronauts implants which don't suffer the limitations of normal muscles, or stimulate those muscles periodically to keep them healthy.

A medical intervention has the advantage that it may not significantly alter the mass of the starship, which in turn determines hwo much fuel you will use to get to where you're going.

OMG. So much bullsh*t here. Who cares ?

In other news, the screenys of Dark Avatar show that some planets will have high gravity, forcing you to research an artifical gravity before you can colonize them. So GC will once again have AG.

Um, guys, Einstein was wrong. And one type of particle proves it: Antimatter. Antimatter was only discovered after Einstein's theory of relativity was modified to include negative numbers. So, basically, all theories that use Einstein's equation are not actually working with real physics, but with a flawed theory that was corrected back around the time it was come up with. Now, keep in mind Einstein's theory also ignores time, which anyone who deals reactions can tell you is very important to the reaction. You alter time, you alter the laws of physics and how everything interacts. Now, what alters time? Gravity does. Now, since anyone can tell you that gravity is not uniform over the universe, that means that it is not affecting time uniformly. A lack of uniformly affecting time means that time itself is not uniform in how it passes for the universe, which in turn means the laws of physics are not uniform, which in turn makes Einstein even more wrong (his theory requires uniform physics to work). Considering we also know the laws of physics have changed as the universe has aged (to the point we have stars that are actually older than the universe), that means that we pretty much can't rely on any form of modern physics for trying to tell what happened in the past or what may happen in the future, which makes Einstein's theory a laughing stock. It also makes all physicists to be fools, of course, since they can't prove their guesses apply to anything out of the local area. And, yes, it pretty much is this easy to utterly destroy hundreds of years of scientific advancements. Science stopped with pure logic long before I was born.

Oh, did I mention NASA recently discovered that gravity is a type of radiation? Since it's a radiation, that means something generates it, and that means it can be duplicated. Given a few hundred years and infinite energy provided by fusion, I'd say that artificial gravity is the least of our problems.

Einsteins theory of relativity is completely separate of anything to do with antimatter. The only differences between antimatter and ordinary matter are the fact that their spins, charge and some other quantum numbers are opposite. Quantum? Yes quantum mechanics. Antimatter has to do with that, not with anything Einstein ever said.

And Einsteins theory ignores time?? Do you even know what you are talking about? Time is one of THE base concepts the theory is based around. Time and space being an interwoven entity. Gravity is part of this too. Einstein ignores none of this.

In the last (nearly) 100 years NOONE has been able to prove Einsteins theory of relativity to be wrong and many experiments have proven it right. Also noone has proved or even made it seem plausible that the "laws of physics" as they govern the universe have ever changed or are different in different parts of the universe. Conditions are different and change, laws (as far as we know) do not.

Also: Yes scientific knowledge is often being adjusted, refined and enriched, but key concepts are rarely proven wrong. Like Newton. His (over 300 year old) theories are still valid, but Einsteins formulas refined them for extreme situations. The same is true with quantum mechanics vs classical mechanics. Over time, we refine theories.

It is unlikely and very simplistic to assume everything we know now is wrong. Sure we will find out much more in the future, but if our formulas work for anything we can experiment/test right now, they can hardly be called totally wrong now can they? At best we will refine them.

Einsteins theory of relativity is completely separate of anything to do with antimatter. The only differences between antimatter and ordinary matter are the fact that their spins, charge and some other quantum numbers are opposite. Quantum? Yes quantum mechanics. Antimatter has to do with that, not with anything Einstein ever said.

Oh, yay, another topic where I'm arguing with someone who has no clue of that which they speak. Here, let me repeat it for you: We have British physicist Paul Dirac to thank for modifying Einstein's theory enough to account for particles with negative mass properties, and in fact Einstein's theory can't allow for the existance of them with accepting the modified theory of E=(+ or -)mc^2. That's Dirac's version of the equation. That's the relation Einstein's theory has to antimatter. Without Einstein, we wouldn't have discovered antimatter to begin with.

And Einsteins theory ignores time?? Do you even know what you are talking about? Time is one of THE base concepts the theory is based around. Time and space being an interwoven entity. Gravity is part of this too. Einstein ignores none of this.

Actually, go back and read it carefully. If you alter time, Einstein's theory becomes null. Why? Because the laws of physics it operates on do not include a variable for time. A properly modified Theory of Relativity would be E=[(= or -)mc^2]T, with T being the time variance from normal (as established with Earth as normal, as it's the conditions under which Einstein's theory was originally tested). Otherwise, we run into an interesting paradox: Einstein's theory, while account for time and gravity working together, does not actually account for what happens when time itself it altered, thus making it impossible to map out energy and mass interactions in areas where time passes faster than normal.

In the last (nearly) 100 years NOONE has been able to prove Einsteins theory of relativity to be wrong and many experiments have proven it right. Also noone has proved or even made it seem plausible that the "laws of physics" as they govern the universe have ever changed or are different in different parts of the universe. Conditions are different and change, laws (as far as we know) do not.

Look above to where I mentioned Dirac. The day we discovered the first antiparticle is the day we proved Einstein's version of the equation wrong. Pretty damn simple. Actually, if you stop and think about it, no one has ever proved or made it plausible that the laws of physics do not change as you move away from Earth. And, yes, science has proven that the laws did change at one time. Look it up sometime, specifically with it having to do with light. The problem in this case is science assuming the laws are universal, despite having no evidence either way. Science assuming is what leads to its embarassments... Like the giant squid, for instance.

It is unlikely and very simplistic to assume everything we know now is wrong. Sure we will find out much more in the future, but if our formulas work for anything we can experiment/test right now, they can hardly be called totally wrong now can they? At best we will refine them.

Stop and look. Did I say everything we do is wrong? If it is, then we wouldn't have light bombarding Earth from distant galaxies, but raindrops. I'm just saying that science itself works on as many assumptions as most religions do. And, with some of the stuff comming out of Superstring Theory, seems to be relying more and more on faith and less on actual science these days. In fact, if you paid careful attention to my post, you would have noticed me ending with a piece of science that is a recent discovery and does have a lot of effect on the way we understand gravity. I am a big fan of science, but I'm not about to sit back and cloud my eyesight when it comes to what science does.

Allright, I just graduated as an astrophysicist at the university of Amsterdam, at one of the most prestigious astrophysics institutes in the world (the API). I took courses in special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology and MANY more. So yes I do know what I am talking about, thank you.

And yes I do know of Diracs equations and how they allow for negative energies. That doesn't make Einstein wrong in any way. In fact The "negative" energies pertaining to particles running backward in time are imaginary tools to more easily solve quantummechanical problems. It's more of matter if interpretation than anything else. How you easily state that this makes Einsteins theory "a laughing stock" is an insult to one of the greatest minds in the last century. In fact neither quantummechanics and relativity make eachother wrong. They're just separate theories that have not yet been combined into one in every way. This is only a problem in cosmology and things like black holes (high mass, but tiny space) and such.

As for relativity

"Because the laws of physics it operates on do not include a variable for time."

Actually they do include a variable for time. Time is integral to the theory. And yes of course it has only been tested in the Earth reference frame. But the theory is all about converting to different reference frames. The general theory of relativity has in fact been tested on the orbit of Mercury, which it fit exactly. It has also been proved right by gravitation lensing. Special relativity has had thousands of "proofs" in particle accelerators.

"Einstein's theory, while account for time and gravity working together, does not actually account for what happens when time itself it altered, thus making it impossible to map out energy and mass interactions in areas where time passes faster than normal."

Actually Einstein states there is no "normal" as it's all relative. And relative to your own reference frame, time simply does not run faster anywhere. Why not? Because in our reference frame we stand still and time runs fastest when you stand still. In anothers reference frame, they stand still also, meaning *their* time runs fastest. In fact in *any* reference frame, time runs fastest for the object/spacetime it's hooked to. That's simply the way it works. This may sound strange but it is a very important feature of the theory. I can not argue this point with you using common sense as the theory isn't very common-sensical...

However, not many physics theories of the last century aren't. Quantummechanics is the worst of them. However, if a theory works for every experiment ever done, lack of common sense is no detriment to the theory. String theory I ignore, because as you say, it can barely be called science as it can not be confirmed by experiments.

"Actually, if you stop and think about it, no one has ever proved or made it plausible that the laws of physics do not change as you move away from Earth. And, yes, science has proven that the laws did change at one time. Look it up sometime, specifically with it having to do with light. The problem in this case is science assuming the laws are universal, despite having no evidence either way. Science assuming is what leads to its embarassments... Like the giant squid, for instance."

It's an assumption for the laws to stay the same wherever you go. But this assumption has been made extremely likely with hundreds of thousands of astrophysical observations. Not something you can ignore. The laws of physics, by the way, have not at one time been changed. If you are referring to the de-coupling of matter and energy 250,000 years after the "Big Bang", this is not a change of the laws of nature, but an extreme change of conditions. Also, in the first fractions of the first second of the universe, the density is was high that our current laws do not work. That doesn't mean they are wrong. They just do not work as we have not figured out how to combine relativity and quantummechanics. More needs to be added to our knowledge of the laws of nature. More laws, or more general laws. But not entirely new ones that make the old ones wrong.

I will not argue squids with you as I'm not a biologer:)

Religion is an entirely different thing from science. Yea it's based on assumptions as well (though a lot more than two, like Einsteins, usually there's whole books of assumptions), but religion is very different from science in that scientists, GOOD scientists, are open-minded and excited when their theories are proven wrong, IF the proof is sound. A man of religion will not even consider the possibility that he is wrong.

Also your comment about NASA and gravitational radiation I ignored because the concept is nothing new at all. Read some old NASA news here:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/jul/HQ_03224_Pulsar_Spin.html

It starts with: "Gravitational radiation, ripples in the fabric of space predicted by Albert Einstein..."

So... not so new, as Einstein is long-dead. In fact it's been the subject of classes I have had years ago.

Allright, I just graduated as an astrophysicist at the university of Amsterdam, at one of the most prestigious astrophysics institutes in the world (the API). I took courses in special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology and MANY more. So yes I do know what I am talking about, thank you. And yes I do know of Diracs equations and how they allow for negative energies. That doesn't make Einstein wrong in any way. In fact The "negative" energies pertaining to particles running backward in time are imaginary tools to more easily solve quantummechanical problems. It's more of matter if interpretation than anything else. How you easily state that this makes Einsteins theory "a laughing stock" is an insult to one of the greatest minds in the last century. In fact neither quantummechanics and relativity make eachother wrong. They're just separate theories that have not yet been combined into one in every way. This is only a problem in cosmology and things like black holes (high mass, but tiny space) and such.

Okay, you'll have to excuse me if I don't believe you. There's a reason I don't. It'll be explained towards the end of the post. And, yes, I really, really hate it when people make a claim like this and then provide me with a major clue that they are not telling the truth. So, if you actually are telling the truth, please excuse my attitude.

Actually, by taking the quote out of context, you add in insult that wasn't there. Go back and read the context instead of making assumptions. Under the fact that the laws of physics have, by evidence we do have, changed in the past and may change in the future, we face the problem that nothing Einstein wrote may actually work in the future. That's what makes his theory a potential laughing stock, but that's the same for all of science. But, I'll post my evidence in a bit.

Actually they do include a variable for time. Time is integral to the theory. And yes of course it has only been tested in the Earth reference frame. But the theory is all about converting to different reference frames. The general theory of relativity has in fact been tested on the orbit of Mercury, which it fit exactly. It has also been proved right by gravitation lensing. Special relativity has had thousands of "proofs" in particle accelerators.

All of which are in the local frame of time operation and are not tested elsewhere. In fact, we kinda can't test it outside of the local timeframe yet. Thus, one of the major problems with anything to do with physics applied to space: We're watching from a distance and making guesses on old data that has been altered by the time it got here.

Actually Einstein states there is no "normal" as it's all relative. And relative to your own reference frame, time simply does not run faster anywhere. Why not? Because in our reference frame we stand still and time runs fastest when you stand still. In anothers reference frame, they stand still also, meaning *their* time runs fastest. In fact in *any* reference frame, time runs fastest for the object/spacetime it's hooked to. That's simply the way it works. This may sound strange but it is a very important feature of the theory. I can not argue this point with you using common sense as the theory isn't very common-sensical...

Actually, I was working on building up something... We happen to know, from theorizing and observation, that time itself does, in fact, vary. Problem is, we've only observed this in minute amounts, not in truly relativistic amounts, and only tested it in those minute amounts. We can't, say, generate the time variance between Earth and a black hole... But, the problem with time changing is that no one has bothered to really investigate what it does to the universal constants. How it affects those, such as how much light is absorbed by a gas cloud as the light passes through, in turn may affect such major issues as gravity or even energy necessary for reaching the speed of light. We don't know and we can't test it. You can name all of the tests you want, but in the very end, you can't get past the fact that we're trying to make guesses on the universe based on data that is sometimes hundreds or even millions of years old. That's great if you want to know how things were, but not so good if you want to know how things are.

It's an assumption for the laws to stay the same wherever you go. But this assumption has been made extremely likely with hundreds of thousands of astrophysical observations. Not something you can ignore. The laws of physics, by the way, have not at one time been changed. If you are referring to the de-coupling of matter and energy 250,000 years after the "Big Bang", this is not a change of the laws of nature, but an extreme change of conditions. Also, in the first fractions of the first second of the universe, the density is was high that our current laws do not work. That doesn't mean they are wrong. They just do not work as we have not figured out how to combine relativity and quantummechanics. More needs to be added to our knowledge of the laws of nature. More laws, or more general laws. But not entirely new ones that make the old ones wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1991223.stm

Here's the sad thing: Anyone claiming to have studied cosmology would have included this as a guess. You don't study cosmology and manage to miss something that is this important to the understanding of physics. Especially when one claims to have gone to that particular college and put that much effort into studying physics. Oh, guess what? This one right here provides the major evidence that the assumption is one that needs to be removed from science, especially when you have scientists themselves who, in attempts to combine theories together, are stating that variance in the laws of physics is allowed. And, yes, I do mean the universal constants when I say "laws of physics." After all, something that works the same way when tested everywhere and every way would be a law, of course.

Now, that creates a problem: By how much do they vary, and how does this affect such things as Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Don't bother trying to answer. You don't know the answer, and neither does anyone else.

Oh, and I knew that Einstein predicted the radiation. The importance to this thread is that, given time, we can replicate it. Thus, artificial gravity.

Ok first off you said:

"Um, guys, Einstein was wrong"

and

"which makes Einstein's theory a laughing stock. It also makes all physicists to be fools, of course, since they can't prove their guesses apply to anything out of the local area."

I think this kind of talk is at least slightly insulting. Even if physicists are as you say "wrong" about physics in other times and far away regions, they are not fools. The fact that you are typing these messages on a computer relying on a lot of moderns science is the truth. Scientists make no claims other than that current theories work for current experiments. The theories will still work in the future for the experiments and situations we create now. The only thing that can prove theories wrong is NEW experiments in strange/extreme conditions. An experiment like that can only prove a theory wrong for extreme situation and that means, in other words the theory is only really "wrong" for these situations. Thats why I say you use way too strong language.

And come on? A freaky unexplained and unconfirmed result from a BBC news page? It needs a lot more than that. If science would accept results as shaky as that it *would* be as you said, a laughing stock. The fact whether the laws of physics stay the same is still not proven either way and it still is likely they are the same everywhere as we have observational results billions of years into the past and billions of lightyears away. Not saying its not possible they are different some times in the past, it just has not been proven.

And yes I *AM* an astrophysicist. I'm not going to stoop as low as trying to find you proof of that. Go look it up yourself. Name: Michiel Smits. Graduated at the University of Amsterdam under Thomas J. Maccarone. Might be a little hard to find as I have only 2 papers to my name (recently graduated).

Also:

"We happen to know, from theorizing and observation, that time itself does, in fact, vary. Problem is, we've only observed this in minute amounts, not in truly relativistic amounts, and only tested it in those minute amounts."

Yea, Einstein theorized this and it's been proven. Not in minute amounts, in HUGE amounts. Particles that normally live for say, a nanosecond, have been observed to live for micro-milliseconds when sped up to near the speed of light. Meaning they live 100 to 1000 times longer (compared to our frame of reference) thanks to the fact that time runs slower.

In their frame of reference it has, in fact been their regular age, nanoseconds. Their frame runs slower (time). Minute amounts?? These are huge amounts. Time is 100-1000 times slowed, depending on their velocity. These experiments are done every day in particle accelerators. In fact, it's not even interesting anymore. People have been doing these experiments for different reasons, not to observe the effects of relativity.

I'm talking about thousands of experiments that each prove that Einstein was right about time dilation, without even trying to prove it. Seriously, I have even done a project at NIKHEF (Dutch institute of high energy physics) where I had data from such experiments and verified this myself (In my 1st year as a physics student). BTW the project was about the HIGGs boson, which has to do with mass and thus gravity.

Oh and since lots of experiments have been done on these particles, physicists *have* verified that even when time runs slower, physics is the same and the laws are the same. The only things about time/space that are unknown/spotty are those near the beginning of the universe and near black holes (within the event horizon). Any new theory that answers those questions will not prove old theories wrong. It can't, because the old theories work for an enormous amount of experiments. New theories however, can add small terms/multipliers to old theories. Or provide a new way of thinking that leads to the exact same result as the old theories in any situation EXCEPT the aforementioned extreme conditions.

That doesn't make the old theories wrong. Every scientist is aware that his theories are only applicable for the conditions they have been tested in.

I think this kind of talk is at least slightly insulting. Even if physicists are as you say "wrong" about physics in other times and far away regions, they are not fools. The fact that you are typing these messages on a computer relying on a lot of moderns science is the truth.

Um, here's a dictionary definition for fool:

Main Entry: 1fool Pronunciation: 'fül Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French fol, from Late Latin follis, from Latin, bellows, bag; akin to Old High German bolla blister, balg bag -- more at BELLY 1 : a person lacking in judgment or prudence 2 a : a retainer formerly kept in great households to provide casual entertainment and commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells, and bauble b : one who is victimized or made to appear foolish : DUPE 3 a : a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding b : one with a marked propensity or fondness for something 4 : a cold dessert of pureed fruit mixed with whipped cream or custard

Using the context I provided, I would honestly say that definition 2b is what comes across the most. I may be wrong. I'll go ahead and admit that. However, it is the intended meaning of the word when I used it. Isn't English wonderful?

The theories will still work in the future for the experiments and situations we create now. The only thing that can prove theories wrong is NEW experiments in strange/extreme conditions. An experiment like that can only prove a theory wrong for extreme situation and that means, in other words the theory is only really "wrong" for these situations. Thats why I say you use way too strong language.

Actually, I say he was proven wrong because of antimatter, discovered when negative mass properties were incorporated into his original equation. At the point a second version of the equation was designed, we ended up with a challenge of sorts. Normally, in science, the version of the theory proven most correct is the version kept. This case is one of the exceptions. Dirac's version allows for all of the items Einstein's does, plus being the one that led to the discovery of antimatter. However, Einstein's is the one kept in wide circulation while Dirac was pretty much pushed to the side. A lot of Dirac's work was also way off base, I'll admit, so that may have much to do with it.

Yea, Einstein theorized this and it's been proven. Not in minute amounts, in HUGE amounts. Particles that normally live for say, a nanosecond, have been observed to live for micro-milliseconds when sped up to near the speed of light. Meaning they live 100 to 1000 times longer (compared to our frame of reference) thanks to the fact that time runs slower.

I need to be more clear in my statements... Part of trying to simplify this. Okay, by time variance, I mean variance in how time interacts with space. We've observed that it varies in vary minute amounts and have theorized it varies in major amounts (in black holes). Problem is, these minute amounts are pretty much just in creating a local frame of reference, making the synchronization of all clocks in Earth's atmosphere at all times a headache. Problem is, we do not know under what other conditions this may vary and what effects it may have on physics as a whole. It may actually, under the right variance, create a scenario where you can travel faster than light with little energy... if you ignore the energy requirements of creating such a variance in the first place.

There are theories that suggest that time passing is just a side-effect of how the universe operates. This creates major problems when you look at the Big Bang, mainly in that it creates a logic problem that cannot be solved without first abandoning logic.

However, I am interested in seeing if I am wrong. Please post a link to where I can get more information about the projects you speak of. I'll check it out and, if wrong, I'll go ahead and admit it. If I'm wrong, so what?

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't need a link. I stopped and double-checked my relativity and discovered something: Everything posted about the changes in amount of time passing for particles sent through accelerators is from a flawed understanding of relativity.

Relativity, when dealing with time, is not talking about an actual change in time. Time doesn't change. What changes is the frame of observation. Thus, those particles that live for only a nanosecond did only live for a nanosecond, even though it appeared to be milliseconds. The reason is the scientists were observing a particle that is in a different frame of observation of the passage of time. Thus, all they can conclude is they have proven that different frames of observation of time do exist. Not that actual variances in the passage of time have no effect on physics.

Might want to go back and recheck your relativity.

Oh, and I will say this: Since education systems appear to be producing people who misunderstand relativity on the basic level, I'm honestly scared for the future of science and the future of humanity. Doesn't matter if it's me or one of you guys. It amounts to the same problem.

"Oh, and I will say this: Since education systems appear to be producing people who misunderstand relativity on the basic level, I'm honestly scared for the future of science and the future of humanity. Doesn't matter if it's me or one of you guys. It amounts to the same problem."

I understand these things perfectly. I also understand the math of it and the consequences of this math. I had some good teachers. Including Jos Engelen who is very famous in high energy physics circles and does a lot of theoretical work at NIKHEF and CERN.

"Relativity, when dealing with time, is not talking about an actual change in time. Time doesn't change. What changes is the frame of observation."

You always perform physics from a certain frame of observation. This is the basics of Einsteins relativity theory. Any particle moving with a velocity close to the speed of light observed from a certain frame of observation has a slower running "clock" in that frame of observation.

"Thus, those particles that live for only a nanosecond did only live for a nanosecond, even though it appeared to be milliseconds."

How do you view "differences" in the passage of time then? You realize that the effects of the slowing of time near a black hole are *exactly* the same? If this particle was moving near the event horizon, we would see it live longer also, whereas in it's own timeframe it would live normally.

Strong gravity does the same thing to an object as accelerating it near the speed of light. In it's own frame of reference it will not even "feel" gravity. Space will just be "bent" towards the black hole and any object falls straight to the center without ever being time-slowed (of course it's ripped apart by tidal forces, but thats different).

We, however, observe the object as falling towards the event horizon slower and slower until it gets stuck on the horizon where time "stops", according to OUR frame of reference.

If you don't call these things "changes" in the passage of time, then there never is a change in the passage of time (as far as we know), because the only thing that changes the passage of time (again as far as anyone knows), is time dilation, the effect I just described.

And if there are no variances in time, then what does it matter whether physics stays the same? Before you respond, remember that there has never been a serious mathematical theory (as far as I know) that proposes changes in the passing of time other than time dilation. Ignoring the tiny sub-subatomic scale variations in time, space and energy caused by quantum-mechanics, of course. These don't affect time on a macroscopic scale.

Other things:

"Actually, I say he was proven wrong because of antimatter, discovered when negative mass properties were incorporated into his original equation."

I have problem with the word "wrong" here. Dirac never proved Einstein was "wrong". He just couldnt make his theories be compatible with relativity at first. Now they are compatible and Einsteins theories are still the same. Quantum mechanics however, was changed to incorporate relativity.

Also... antimatter does not have negative mass, you know that right? Dirac did however find negative energy states that could be "filled" by antimatter, but this is a matter of interpretation. The positons (anti-electron) and any other form of antimatter we find have positive mass and energy and Einsteins equations work perfectly on them. Their charges and some quantum numbers are opposite, but this has nothing to do with relativity.

And nothing Dirac ever did was pushed to the side. His theories are regarded the work of a genius, just like Einstein and both are used in conjunction.

BTW: That project about higgs I mentioned was modelling the ATLAS instrument used to detect particles in the new Large Hadron Collider with which they hope to find the higgs boson which is supposed to prove how objects get mass and how the energy of the universe was generated. Interestingly, every time I discussed it with one of the scientists there, they told me they were hoping *not* to find it, so they could go back to the theorizing table and come up with new theories. So they are definitely not blinding themselves.

Oh btw: Here's a link to a BBC news page about the search for the HIGGs particle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4229545.stm

It doesn't have any relation to the discussion about relativity, but... you asked.
Interesting read and Jos Engelen says something in there too...

I understand these things perfectly. I also understand the math of it and the consequences of this math. I had some good teachers. Including Jos Engelen who is very famous in high energy physics circles and does a lot of theoretical work at NIKHEF and CERN.

Ah, gut. He's one of the people working on a project that I hope won't get very far before humans advance far enough to figure out that blowing each other up isn't exactly the best idea. Especially when it comes to resources that won't even be there by the time they're done blowing each other up anyway.

You always perform physics from a certain frame of observation. This is the basics of Einsteins relativity theory. Any particle moving with a velocity close to the speed of light observed from a certain frame of observation has a slower running "clock" in that frame of observation.

Which is what I said, only restated.

How do you view "differences" in the passage of time then? You realize that the effects of the slowing of time near a black hole are *exactly* the same? If this particle was moving near the event horizon, we would see it live longer also, whereas in it's own timeframe it would live normally.

Oh, boy, here's where we get into an area I didn't even want to go to yet.

Relativity does not deal with actual changes in the passage of time. Instead, it deals with changes in the frame of reference of the observation of the passage of time. The passage of time, whether moving at near-C or near-nada, is the same. The main issue is the question of what happens when we alter the actual passage of time and not just the frame of reference. For example, you have something that normally lasts a nanosecond, scale it up 1000 times, and instead it lasts the equivolent of three nanoseconds. That kind of item. The only areas in the known universe where a similar event is even theorized to exist is inside a black hole. I'm not talking about what you observe at the event horizon. I'm talking about putting on your gravity-proof scuba gear and diving straight to the center. The fact a black hole just doesn't fill up is indication of events happening inside them, events that exist outside the normal understanding of time. That's the kind of stuff I'm curious about, and I'm curious if the inside of a black hole is the only place such a change occurs and the effects it has on actual physics.

Strong gravity does the same thing to an object as accelerating it near the speed of light. In it's own frame of reference it will not even "feel" gravity. Space will just be "bent" towards the black hole and any object falls straight to the center without ever being time-slowed (of course it's ripped apart by tidal forces, but thats different). We, however, observe the object as falling towards the event horizon slower and slower until it gets stuck on the horizon where time "stops", according to OUR frame of reference.

And yet, the fact that a black hole never appears to get full or clogged suggests that time does not actually stop, but moves in a way outside our current understanding of it. Of course, a black hole only really has the gravity field of a star, so that may have something to do with it. Still, how much debris do we observe cluttering an event horizon?

If you don't call these things "changes" in the passage of time, then there never is a change in the passage of time (as far as we know), because the only thing that changes the passage of time (again as far as anyone knows), is time dilation, the effect I just described. And if there are no variances in time, then what does it matter whether physics stays the same? Before you respond, remember that there has never been a serious mathematical theory (as far as I know) that proposes changes in the passing of time other than time dilation. Ignoring the tiny sub-subatomic scale variations in time, space and energy caused by quantum-mechanics, of course. These don't affect time on a macroscopic scale.

Actually, I think you just provided my next argument for me. Here's my question: What evidence do we have that these do not ripple to have macroscopic effects on time in some areas? We don't have any. What we have is a bunch of mathematics, and the first thing anyone can tell you is that mathematics are based on physics and, in cases where modelling physics, sometimes based on assumptions. Observational data to this point doesn't mean anything for that kind of evidence. No scientist observed a living giant squid yet, as far as I know, and we now know they exist. One of the main problems with time itself varying is that we'd have no way to observe it from where we are. Any light that reaches Earth is already polluted by the local laws of physics, which could easily mask massive amounts of evidence long before it would have reached our telescopes.

I have problem with the word "wrong" here. Dirac never proved Einstein was "wrong". He just couldnt make his theories be compatible with relativity at first. Now they are compatible and Einsteins theories are still the same. Quantum mechanics however, was changed to incorporate relativity. Also... antimatter does not have negative mass, you know that right? Dirac did however find negative energy states that could be "filled" by antimatter, but this is a matter of interpretation. The positons (anti-electron) and any other form of antimatter we find have positive mass and energy and Einsteins equations work perfectly on them. Their charges and some quantum numbers are opposite, but this has nothing to do with relativity. And nothing Dirac ever did was pushed to the side. His theories are regarded the work of a genius, just like Einstein and both are used in conjunction.

Negative mass properties != negative mass. However, I'll look up more on Dirac.

And, actually, he did get pushed aside. Ask people how many of them know of Einstein and learn his equation. Then ask them about Dirac and antimatter. They can probably tell you what they learn about antimatter from Star Trek. Better yet, go through any thread discussing science and see how often he is brought up, even by students of it. Hell, last time I saw a physics text book mention antimatter, it didn't even mention the person who discovered it. I learned of his existance by accident while looking up antimatter for what it really does as part of an internet argument.

What is inside the event horizon of a black hole exists outside our universe (in a way of speaking). You can be curious about it, I am too, but whatever goes on there, we have no science on it, just speculation. It's on the same level with string theory. Just a lot of talk/writing, no proof, because no experiment can verify it.

Many argue that these things (string theory, inside of black holes), are not even physics, but a kind of philosophy. Experiment and observation defines science. You said a lot of things about the "variance of time proving science wrong", but the only example you give is the one that isn't even considered real physics by many. To them it's like saying the Christians are going to prove all scientists wrong on judgement day...

Now I'm not agreeing with the guys that say this, because I do like to talk about these things from a scientists point of view, but to use speculation on the inside of black holes in an argument about the validity of our current level of science is taking it too far.

"And yet, the fact that a black hole never appears to get full or clogged suggests that time does not actually stop, but moves in a way outside our current understanding of it. Of course, a black hole only really has the gravity field of a star, so that may have something to do with it. Still, how much debris do we observe cluttering an event horizon?"

Time does stop from our point of view and I already said, that from the objects point of view it doesn't. We don't observe clogged event horizons because we don't observe black holes. They're black, like space, and no light or other form of radiation is coming from the event horizon or from inside of it. They can basically only be detected in 3 ways.

1) Binaries: Matter from a companion star falling onto the black hole which produces X-rays and other radiation (No not from inside the black hole). I did my masters thesis on low mass x-ray binaries (though these can also be neutron stars).

2) Bent light from distant galaxies or bright stars producing a double image (lensing effect).

3) Gravitational effects from an unseen source (usually also in binaries, but can also be supermassive black holes in a galactic center).

"What evidence do we have that these do not ripple to have macroscopic effects on time in some areas? We don't have any. What we have is a bunch of mathematics, and the first thing anyone can tell you is that mathematics are based on physics and, in cases where modelling physics, sometimes based on assumptions."

We don't, but the reason we know anything is because of observation. If there were macroscopic effects, we would have to have some unexplained phenomena that could be explained by this. I refer to my first statement, all you have is speculation about what happens inside a black hole. The rest of the universe (that we see and we see a lot) behaves very much like we expect it to, with our current knowledge.

Basically what you say is: Something we can't see, directly or indirectly is going to prove science wrong. But how could it? If something like that showed up, it can only *add* to science. More formulas to explain what we see, possibly more technology flowing from it. It doesn't (and I said this a few times) prove previous science wrong, because previous science was designed to map and explain previous conditions/situations.

Of course science is much more general than that, because natural laws don't change overnight IF they ever do. The fact that time may or may not have odd variances inside a black hole doesn't change the fact that cars run on gas and computers on electricity. It doesn't change the fact that an expanding gas cools and water boils at 100 degrees celcius or the absolute zero temperature is 0 Kelvin (erm nearly:P). That's what I mean when I say you can't just state science is wrong.

"One of the main problems with time itself varying is that we'd have no way to observe it from where we are."

Well we observe *something*. We have ways to counter this "pollution" you speak of and one of the main jobs of a scientist is estimating accuracy. If things we observed had strange variances in time that we don't see, then how do you explain the fact that what we see "coincidentally" happens to agree with our current science. Does the "pollution" *exactly* counter the variance in time? I doubt it. Pollution of data is not so selective as that. It varies for every experiment and we need to estimate it for every experiment. Pollution is also usually quite random (noise). It would be some major galactic conspiracy if pollution of data exactly "masked" such an important effect (assuming it's a strong effect).

Of course there are things like the cosmological background radiation, which changed our view of the creation of the universe. Before it was found we had no idea it existed, because it's very weak. Something that's too weak to be seen, can naturally not be taken into account (dark matter etc.) Undoubtedly more of those things will be found in the future, but it can not dismiss the enormous complexity and rich understanding of the galaxy that we already have. It can change things yes, but it's not gonna change the fact that we know stars become white dwarves, or neutron stars or red giants. It may change what we *know* of helium flashes, novas and supernovaes, but it's not gonna prove supernovas don't happen or that it's not a heavy star exploding.

About Dirac:

He never got dismissed by physicists. Yea ordinary people only know of Einstein, but as I said, I'm a physicist (which I hope you realize by now...). There's tons of scientists no ordinary person knows of. Just like I have no idea about the giant squid. You can bring it up as many times as you want, but I have absolutely no clue. I'm sure it is very important though, much like Dirac was:)

About negative mass/states. As I said it's about interpretation. It was an interpretation of Dirac, not some result or proof, which is also why it never did *anything* to prove Einstein wrong. Remember what started our discussion? This page says about exactly what I meant (I just looked it up on google):

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae257.cfm

I also have a question for you: What is your background on science? You do know a lot, but I can also see you're not a physicist. Do you know the math of the things you mentioned or did you read about the results that flow from the math? It's a very important distinction. You sound like an extremely fanatical reader on science who knows about everything, yet did not dive to the math. Nothing wrong with that. Always nice to see someone interested in science without being paid for it. I'm actually a physics teacher (15-18 yr olds) right now so I like to see this stuff... if only one of my students ever gets this fanatical, my job is done:P

Ironically, I took physics in high school. College-level text book and I managed to correct seventeen errors in it. Otherwise, I study it for fun. I'm actually an English major

Oh, and thanks for finding the fatal flaw in my argument. I knew it was in there somewhere... Part of why I argue like this is to see where my own flaws lie, so that I can correct them and improve myself. Got nothing better to do. Considering the fatal flaw in question (inside black holes), I cannot continue this. I must tip my hat and admit I have been proven wrong.

Oh, and for some strange reason, this post ended up attached to a different topic when I originally posted it.

Heh, well actually I like reading about physics a lot more than actually "doing" physics so trust me, you're not missing much. It gives you a different perspective if you do it yourself, but it's not worth it unless it's your job (math can be fun, but not 40hrs a week...). I turned down a PHD because of that (well and because I prefer actually having a family over travelling the world doing physics). Teaching is fun though, up to a point. Thanks for a good discussion and I'm impressed with your knowledge. You could write the scientific section of a paper to combine hobby + studies.

"Oh, and for some strange reason, this post ended up attached to a different topic when I originally posted it."

Maybe some overactive moderator got tired of our big posts and moved it? This was the first time I ever posted here anyway... Einstein was kind of a rolemodel when I first started studying physics (despite his bad hair) so I couldn't resist posting when you said he was wrong:P

Hehe! Einstein I'm still a big fan of. For every time I challenge him in a discussion, I always end up using his equation as a base whenever I write scifi. For example, the warping of space. The current model I have is that graviton generators (strangely, in the story, they refer to the generators by that despite later stating gravity as a type of energy...) are used to warp space to reduce the amount of mass a ship has when approaching light speed. By warping space in such of a way as to reduce mass, they thereby reduce the amount of energy actually needed to approach light speed. When asked about it, they state that even warping space cannot negate the basic principles of relativity but can alter the information used in the equations. Once they hit post-light speeds, they start to need less of a space warp. Thus, they still spend most of their energy in travel through actually breaking the light barrier. This leads to a problem where time dilation is partially negated, meaning that they cannot change course or try to dodge obsticles while at light speed, which in turn creates a need for mapping out an area before you go to it. Most true exploration is thus done at sub-C speeds. The gravity generators are of a similar type as that used for internal artificial gravity, thus lending a secondary use to that type of technology.

And, I think I'll do that sometime. It could help impress professors.

By all means, physics say it is impossible to exceed light speed. however, by bending space (ideally, gravity does a pretty good job of that!) you can propel yourself through normal space at amazing speeds, and never have any velocity.

however, there may be other modes of transportation. very little is really known about the universe. some scientists make it seem like we have it all figured out, but thats a blatant lie.

you cant travel faster than light. but they never say anything about arriving at a location ahead of it.

artificial gravity requires to first figure out what gravity is. accroding to M-theory, gravity eminates from another universe parralel to ours. i figure this must mean that particles in our universe are being pulled into that universe (in three dimensions that would mean a particle collapsing into itself until nothing was left). however, the universe is somehow connected to particles and this means space bends. thats just my idea. i figured it out from simply thinkg about it as a lead ball on a sheet of fabric over the floor. the ball will attempt to reach the floor, but the fabric prevents that. in three dimensions it generally works the same.

Actually, according to Einstein, you can travel faster than the speed of light. The energy and mass graph is actually a bell curve, with the speed of light being the top of the bell. Travelling at the speed of light is technically impossible, because mass itself expands to near-infinity. And, as mass expands, so does the energy requirements. By preventing the expansion of mass as speed is increased, one can potentially travel at the speed of light without having infinite mass. However, this requires a massive warping of space, which in turn requires gravity. But, the warping of the type necessary is in opposition to the type caused by a black hole.

"accroding to M-theory, gravity eminates from another universe parralel to ours"

And M-theory (string theory) could be a bunch of nonsense as far as anyone know because it isn't based on a single observation or experiment. I'm not sure the theory actually refers to parallel universes. Just folded up dimensions in our own universe, but I'm no string theorist, so correct me if I'm wrong...

"Actually, according to Einstein, you can travel faster than the speed of light."

Well the problem is not a mathematical one. As you say, getting there is a problem technically as we can't produce infinite energy, but there is another problem:

Travelling faster than light means that in some frames of reference, you are moving backwards in time! According to relativity theory, all observers are "right" and there is no one preferential reference system. This creates all the paradoxes related to time travel. You may say: "well this time travel is not real, only imaginary", but then how do you imagine this observer can see this happen? Cause and effect are being thrown out the window for this observer. And HE is not the one travelling faster than light.

If it's not real, how is this "film" being viewed by the observer-with-the-good-eyes shown? It's not just a "distorted" film. Lots of different things are happening in it. It's like intending to watch the muppet show and instead finding X-files (both old shows, but hey we're talking time travel here).

Wormholes have the same problem. Since time and space are related, what is travelling through space in one reference frame, is travelling through time in another. Of course you are *always* travelling through time, because time simply "passes", but a relocation through space will also be a relocation through time, so wormholes open up timetravel. It is *not* possible to imagine a wormhole that transports through space, but not time, when taking relativity into account.

Here's some interesting reading on this:

http://www.physlink.com/education/AskExperts/ae283.cfm

There's more. Some people will tell you it is possible and even prove it to you, but the results always stem from quantummechanical experiments that always lack the ability to send "information" or "objects" faster than light. It's always "part" of a wave travelling this fast. Once the part of a quantummechanical wave that has arrived contains enough information to "do" anything, it's too late, it's no longer FTL travel. This seems to hold true always. BTW, when I talk about quantummechanical waves, thats everything. From quantummechanics, everything consists of waves, but only small things actually have observable waves larger than themselves.

Also remember that in quantummechanics, something is a wave until it interacts. The moment the wave interacts, the part of the wave that the wave collapses into, has not in fact travelled faster than light.

blackholes a crazy little things... they're not really even holes... jsut points in the universe where gravity had a field day....

of course, much of quantum mechanical phsyics may be a bunch of junk.... really i think we jsut dont know enough to even speculate on what is and is not possible... however, soemthing funny is that Sci-Fi always apears to be right in one way or another... just one step ahead of scientits....

Well the problem is not a mathematical one. As you say, getting there is a problem technically as we can't produce infinite energy, but there is another problem: Travelling faster than light means that in some frames of reference, you are moving backwards in time! According to relativity theory, all observers are "right" and there is no one preferential reference system. This creates all the paradoxes related to time travel. You may say: "well this time travel is not real, only imaginary", but then how do you imagine this observer can see this happen? Cause and effect are being thrown out the window for this observer. And HE is not the one travelling faster than light.

Which actually is not that much of a problem when you consider how far you are typically going. With the type of warping I am talking about, you always will arrive at your destination at a point in time after you left, but you do spend some of it appearing to travel backwards in time. This does set up its own problems: Mainly, that you can potentially alter the timeline. The problem with that is trying to stop a mass travelling at faster than the speed of light while avoiding a causal loop that ends up preventing you from doing so in the first place. While you can use this kind of idea for time travel, the amount of energy necessary is still a major barrier.

If it's not real, how is this "film" being viewed by the observer-with-the-good-eyes shown? It's not just a "distorted" film. Lots of different things are happening in it. It's like intending to watch the muppet show and instead finding X-files (both old shows, but hey we're talking time travel here).

Actually, Sluggy Freelance did a strip that demonstrates it. It's basically a film you can watch forwards or backwards and still manage to get the story. Like those movies that start at the end of the story and slowly progress back to the beginning.

Wormholes have the same problem. Since time and space are related, what is travelling through space in one reference frame, is travelling through time in another. Of course you are *always* travelling through time, because time simply "passes", but a relocation through space will also be a relocation through time, so wormholes open up timetravel. It is *not* possible to imagine a wormhole that transports through space, but not time, when taking relativity into account.

Well, that's potentially very easily solved. Consider the potential natural elements that could lead to a wormhole and the rarity of such elements combining in nature. You could enter a wormhole in the Milky way and end up in a section of the universe that Earth does not know about. Any time travel you've done is negated by sheer distance.

Now, to be honest, I don't think wormholes are that big of a deal for us to worry about right now. If they were in the Milky Way, we probably would have found evidence. So far, all suggested wormhole candidates have turned out to be black holes, quasars, or something else. I honestly think we won't have to worry about the effects of wormholes on the timestream until we're the ones making them, and by then we'll probably have solved that problem anyway.