Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, we all know Einstein's theory of relativity, and I puzzled it over and I think I know where he's coming from.

We have all seen E=MC^2. E= energy, M= mass, and C = constant, which is the speed of light, squared.

I'm not going to look at it mathematically because math blows. but logically, it sets up an interesting statement.

C is the only constant, the speed of light. Which makes me think- What is light? Is it matter? It can hit things, be reflected off things and interact with things. Does it have a composition? Can it be altered? If it is matter, then it has mass. And if it has mass, then it is not truly a constant, and I will get into why later. But I will guess that if Einstein knew this, then he figured that light is the closest thing to a constant we have.

M is mass, which is basically the size of the object. We all know this one pretty well. Ants have small mass, humans have bigger mass.

E is energy, which I will make a synonym for time.

So what we have here says that the size of an object, compared to a constant, will equal it's relationship to time. Think of it this way- If you've ever seen a movie with a giant in it, the giant always goes on a generic romp through a city. As it walks, the onlookers see it's feet coming down slowly and landing on a car. To the people, the footfall moves slow, but to the giant, it's just a step like you would take walking down the street.

To me, this is a visible representation of this theory. The giant observes time in a different way than the smaller humans. A second to the giant is several seconds to a human, simply because the giant is larger in mass. The larger the mass, the "longer" a second appears according to the constant of light speed.

This brings up a few nitpicks- What mass do we go by? the mass of each individual atom? Or the mass of the object the atoms create? How about something like a collapsed star, with millions of pounds of mass compressed into an object the size of a baseball? Would time of other things rush by for something like this? Is this possibly where the theory of time travel from a black hole comes from? (As black holes are collapsed matter, which, if the mass theory is correct, would exist for hundreds or thousands of years, while feeling only seconds due to it's mass) Could something be so massive it meets or surpasses the constant view of time that light has?

Thoughts? Comments? Tofu recepies?

Einstein stated that it was impossible for any solid object to move at the speed of light without being reduced to a singularity.

As well. I think he had a good idea with the theory of relativity, but the problem is that if we look at "time" as less of a concept and more as a literal, his theory would not hold up as Time will continue to exist indefinitely, while Matter will eventually cease to.

Light is energy. It displays some qualities of a wave, and some qualities of individual particles--quanta called photons. We know it's a wave, in part, because it has different frequencies and amplitudes.

Actually, if you want to explain it that way, light is the same as microwaves and UV rays, TV signals, etc.

Photons are more like, energy particles, I think. It is very interesting that a particle can have not mass. It might have something to do with its integer-spin.

But why not? how can a particle, which is something, effectively be nothing?

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that there can be particles, meaning bits of something, with absolutely no mass. I have heard that photons colided to create matter in the big bang... I assume this to be some form of assimilation, where they just lump together and make matter... but if multiple photons can come together into matter, does that not mean that, if they are part of a whole, they must have some bit of mass to them? Like, even if 5 trillion of them together makes the tiniest bit of matter, doesn't that mean they could be taken apart and each weigh something still?

Didn't Neils-Bohr and Einstein differ in that one argued all things are governed by the laws of physics, while the other argued that individual atoms are not?

That may factor in. I think Einstein argued the former.

Ok, since then I found a physics professor and asked several of these, along with other, questions. Turns out there's a lot of "We know it happens, and we can measure it, but we're not really sure HOW it happens" in physics.

I still have trouble with the idea of energy suddenly transforming into mass (Even Hawking doesn't know how, he just thinks somehow it worked out that 0mass plus 0mass = 1mass) Eh, it could be that energy is mass which is traveling so quickly that it drops it's mass somewhere.. by slowing down or coliding it could turn back, and by accelerating enough it could go back to energy. Maybe. Just a guess.

I had an idea on physics, involving the speed of light and time travel. EDIT- I have read a bit on physics, but I don't know all of the rules perfectly, so my thesis may make actual professional physicists cringe.

NOW- This is not some random Sci-fi crap about "lol shoot ur grandfather befor u were b0rn", and it actually goes against Hawking's theory of the speed of light and time travel.

Ok, so we all know that some things can travel faster than the speed of sound. Bullets, for example. Now, if a bullet is shot faster than the speed of sound, it reaches the target before the sound information does. What would happen if we could only experience sound? From our perspective and math, it would seem to us that the bullet arrived befrore it did. The only information we could witness would arive AFTER the bullet would, according to our math, and thus it would be back in time.

Now, let's relate this to light. Light is the fastest thing we can witness. So what happens if we go faster than light? Some physicists think we would actually go back in time. I disagree. I think that it is just another extention of the bullet. Assume with the bullet- The fastst thing we witness is light. By using some kind of ungodly amount of energy, we shoot a bullet faster than light. The bullet will arrive before the light does. To us, it will APPEAR that the bullet arrives before it does. However, I feel that it would just arive before the light information does. There would be no time travel.

What could it look like? Well, since going past the speed of sound makes a large exlopsion of sound, I suggest that something going past the speed of light would firstly appear to shrink in size as it got closer to the speed of light, until it looked like a beam of light. As it surpassed light speed, it could flash in a large explosion as it breaks through the barrier of vision. The light it left behind would be just that- It would continue as a beam of light, with the actual object passing well in front of it. Assuming for argument's sake that the image would retain it's full form, one passing light speed would be invisible, and could turn around to see their image behind them. If someone touched the passing image, their hand would pass through it as it is simply the left-behind light wich is not yet attached to the object. It would be fun to be in the vessel traveling faster than light, as the front of the craft would move through you and suddenly through you as you left it's image behind. The image would catch up to you later, when you slowed down. You would not arrive before you did, but before your IMAGE did. It would be a matter of perspective, and only from the perspective of one who does not understand the idea of leaving light behind would you appear to time travel.

For example- You can fly faster than the speed of sound. (or light) and you send a message through a device which sends signal at the speed of sound (or light). saying that you will get there as soon as you can. You get in your plane and fly there before the message arrives. To others it looks as though you got there before the message was setn, but if you pan out, you see that you simply traveled faster than the thing you did previously. No time travel whatsoever

Well, these are all theories. Nobody has ever done it. But I think that it could just as easily be a thing of perspecive. A physics version of "Here be dragons", labeling something we can't yet percieve as impossible or extreme. Time slowing down goes along with light being unpassable or going back in time. So that may be untrue. That or they could both be, that or light may be the final frontier. That I know of, there is no rule that states that either must be true or else the universe cannot exist.