No.

You're thinking of time travel through going near the speed of light relative to something. That definitely may as well be considered impossible.

This is not the only way to perform time travel.

General Relativity tells us that proximity to a gravity well also slows clocks. If one is able to live in a space station just outside of the stretched horizon of a very large black hole for a year, ten thousand years will have passed on Earth.
- Pikey

that is pretty cool (and is also one of the first things you've said that i understood in months)

No.

You're thinking of time travel through going near the speed of light relative to something. That definitely may as well be considered impossible.

This is not the only way to perform time travel.

General Relativity tells us that proximity to a gravity well also slows clocks. If one is able to live in a space station just outside of the stretched horizon of a very large black hole for a year, ten thousand years will have passed on Earth.
- Pikey

Ok.....doesn't the gravitational pull of a black hole exert tremendous force well beyond the event horizon? Wouldn't constructing a space station in that location be almost as difficult or nigh impossible to do as creating enough energy for relative light speed?

Also, anti-matter. Will humanity ever be able to use it as an energy source? how about nuclear fusion?

that is pretty cool (and is also one of the first things you've said that i understood in months)
- kicksave856

I will try to be more cryptic in the future.

I will try to be more cryptic in the future.
- Pikey

thank you. that is all i ask.


... hey, wait! ...

Ok.....doesn't the gravitational pull of a black hole exert tremendous force well beyond the event horizon? Wouldn't constructing a space station in that location be almost as difficult or nigh impossible to do as creating enough energy for relative light speed?

Also, anti-matter. Will humanity ever be able to use it as an energy source? how about nuclear fusion?
- sanfordnson

You gonna answer this or what Bill Nye?

Ok.....doesn't the gravitational pull of a black hole exert tremendous force well beyond the event horizon? Wouldn't constructing a space station in that location be almost as difficult or nigh impossible to do as creating enough energy for relative light speed?

Also, anti-matter. Will humanity ever be able to use it as an energy source? how about nuclear fusion?
- sanfordnson

Putting this into the perspective of technology today, yes obviously both plans are very impractical but one plan is much less impractical than the other on theoretical grounds.

Like you said, it takes a lot of juice to get anywhere near the speed of light since e = mc^2. Ridiculous amounts of energy and it's not even worth thinking about.

That actually is, to me anyway, the most impractical thing about the black hole plan. Getting to a black hole is a problem.

An interesting fact about the gravitational forces of a black hole is that the smaller the black hole, the more violent the tidal forces as you near the horizon. With a larger black hole, the gravity field is so big that little things like us or a small space station wouldn't feel the stress due to tidal forces. This is the same reason we don't feel the Earth's tidal forces.

It would definitely take some energy to escape the gravity well after orbiting but just being in the gravity well wouldn't take any energy. I guess you could figure out how close you could get and still escape with whatever means you have. The time dilation still happens whenever you're in gravity so the closer you can get, the more impressive the effect.

I don't know if anyone will eventually figure out how to corral antimatter in such a way to use it as a power source but I would guess that it will never happen. I think the universe wouldn't allow something like that and there is probably a very deep reason we don't see it happening on a regular basis in nature (I think there's a reason the universe is matter dominated).

As for nuclear fusion, from what little I've read on the subject, it seems a lot more feasible than matter-anti matter annihilation but I really don't have a clue how close anyone is to figuring a practical way of doing it.

Personally, I think humans look at things all wrong. Instead of figuring out how to get more and more power, we need to figure out how to trick the laws of physics.

Putting this into the perspective of technology today, yes obviously both plans are very impractical but one plan is much less impractical than the other on theoretical grounds.

Like you said, it takes a lot of juice to get anywhere near the speed of light since e = mc^2. Ridiculous amounts of energy and it's not even worth thinking about.

That actually is, to me anyway, the most impractical thing about the black hole plan. Getting to a black hole is a problem.

An interesting fact about the gravitational forces of a black hole is that the smaller the black hole, the more violent the tidal forces as you near the horizon. With a larger black hole, the gravity field is so big that little things like us or a small space station wouldn't feel the stress due to tidal forces. This is the same reason we don't feel the Earth's tidal forces.

It would definitely take some energy to escape the gravity well after orbiting but just being in the gravity well wouldn't take any energy. I guess you could figure out how close you could get and still escape with whatever means you have. The time dilation still happens whenever you're in gravity so the closer you can get, the more impressive the effect.

I don't know if anyone will eventually figure out how to corral antimatter in such a way to use it as a power source but I would guess that it will never happen. I think the universe wouldn't allow something like that and there is probably a very deep reason we don't see it happening on a regular basis in nature (I think there's a reason the universe is matter dominated).

As for nuclear fusion, from what little I've read on the subject, it seems a lot more feasible than matter-anti matter annihilation but I really don't have a clue how close anyone is to figuring a practical way of doing it.

Personally, I think humans look at things all wrong. Instead of figuring out how to get more and more power, we need to figure out how to trick the laws of physics.
- Pikey

I read once about a scientist who had a theory that you could travel to distant parts of the universe by actually going through a black hole and emerging from the other side of it somewhere else. The wormhole thing. Seems to me that this is faulty because if I recall black holes are only 1 atom at their nexus and anything going into them would be irrevocably shredded. What say you?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I read once about a scientist who had a theory that you could travel to distant parts of the universe by actually going through a black hole and emerging from the other side of it somewhere else. The wormhole thing. Seems to me that this is faulty because if I recall black holes are only 1 atom at their nexus and anything going into them would be irrevocably shredded. What say you?
- sanfordnson

Black holes are not really one atom but if you mean they are uniform and dense then this is true. People have repeatedly suggested spatial travel through Einstein-Rosen bridges but as I understand it the problem is they close almost immediately after they're formed.

Whether or not something is irrevocably destroyed when it goes into a black hole is a much more interesting and long explanation and is the subject of the bet Hawking lost. It turns out things are destroyed OR they are not, depending on what test you do.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
- jsr1034

Physics is the most interesting thing ever. (frank) you.

Black holes are not really one atom but if you mean they are uniform and dense then this is true. People have repeatedly suggested spatial travel through Einstein-Rosen bridges but as I understand it the problem is they close almost immediately after they're formed.

Whether or not something is irrevocably destroyed when it goes into a black hole is a much more interesting and long explanation and is the subject of the bet Hawking lost. It turns out things are destroyed OR they are not, depending on what test you do.
- Pikey

Honest to God, I love your breadth of knowledge on subjects like this.

Honest to God, I love your breadth of knowledge on subjects like this.
- sanfordnson

It's not that incredible. You're actually asking me questions about a bunch of stuff I've been reading up on for the fun of it just lately.

It's not that incredible. You're actually asking me questions about a bunch of stuff I've been reading up on for the fun of it just lately.
- Pikey

why?

why?
- Human Eraser

Why what?

Why what?
- Pikey

yup

yup
- Human Eraser

I like tao's questions more.

It's not that incredible. You're actually asking me questions about a bunch of stuff I've been reading up on for the fun of it just lately.
- Pikey

he's just being modest. this asshole is a (frank)ing genius. (i hate him for being smart).

I like tao's questions more.
- Pikey

why would you be sitting around in the summer wasting time reading up on black holes?

he's just being modest. this asshole is a (frank)ing genius. (i hate him for being smart).
- kicksave856

I'm not a genius.

Dellio even said today that Ryan is smarter than I am. He probably is too.

why would you be sitting around in the summer wasting time reading up on black holes?
- Human Eraser

what do you read? For fun I mean...

what do you read? For fun I mean...
- sanfordnson

fun is reading?


game, blouses.

why would you be sitting around in the summer wasting time reading up on black holes?
- Human Eraser

How in the hell is learning a waste of time?

fun is reading?


game, blouses.
- Human Eraser

Awesome. Just awesome.

Awesome. Just awesome.
- sanfordnson

Awesome. Just awesome.
- sanfordnson

do you have fun reading? what parts make you climax?