Scratch

JH1010 · 2012-08-15 04:49:38

New Theory of Relativity

The scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have discovered a particle that goes faster than the speed of light. Because of this they are saying that everything that Albert Einstein said was wrong. My theory states that only one of his ideas was wrong. The idea in question is explained in the diagram below.

Last edited by JH1010 (2012-08-15 04:50:55)

LiFaytheGoblin · 2012-08-15 06:49:33

I can't imagine how time could go backwards. I mean: what exactly is time? And how would it look like when it would go backwards?

jji7skyline · 2012-08-15 07:05:54

If time is the 4th dimension, time would just look like a video tape (the actual tape that is) or something like that, from the 5th dimension.

I wrote a topic about my theory of relativity around a year ago.

JH1010 · 2012-08-15 07:17:55

A better explanation:

Albert Einstein said that time slows down as you go faster through space and that once you hit the speed of light time stops. Any faster and time goes backwards. Consequently nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but this isn't true because at the Large Hadron Collider they have produced a particle that travels faster than the speed of light. Because of this the slow down / go backwards point must be faster than the speed of light.

BirdByte · 2012-08-15 07:23:54

I don't believe in the theory of relativity. It would only work if there was 1 huge object and you were travelling away from it. Even so, that's only because you are moving away faster than the light, so you see old light, but time doesn't go backwards. hmm

JH1010 · 2012-08-15 11:14:23

BirdByte wrote:
Time doesn't go backwards.

That's why Albert Einstein's theory was wrong. If a particle can travel faster than the speed of light then the time stops point must be faster.

[offtopic]How did you get your location to be a made up place?[/offtopic]

Last edited by JH1010 (2012-08-15 11:16:58)

BirdByte · 2012-08-15 11:32:37

JH1010 wrote:
BirdByte wrote:
Time doesn't go backwards.
That's why Albert Einstein's theory was wrong. If a particle can travel faster than the speed of light then the time stops point must be faster.

[offtopic]How did you get your location to be a made up place?[/offtopic]

Speed doesn't affect time at all. hmm

[offtopic]In Chrome, right click on the dropdown to select a new location and click "Inspect Element", and then replace the option value with you location, select it in the dropdown, an click OK. big_smile [/offtopic]

ImagineIt · 2012-08-15 11:48:18

They disproved the neutrinos theory. And why would time go backwards if you went faster than light? I still think it would slow down.

BirdByte · 2012-08-15 11:54:08

ImagineIt wrote:
Why would time go backwards if you went faster than light?

Because it wants to. XP

Firedrake969 · 2012-08-15 12:27:38

BirdByte wrote:
ImagineIt wrote:
Why would time go backwards if you went faster than light?
Because it wants to. XP

0.o this sounds like some of the stuff on my project.[/offtopic]. Anyways, space and time continuously warp to keep the speed of light constant and nothing going faster than light. However, I'm no astrophysicist.

bobbybee · 2012-08-15 13:35:48

Now if only we could make anti-aging cream outta this stuff.

maxskywalker · 2012-08-15 13:47:21

E = MC^2.

Go at the speed of light and M is infinity.

M = infinity
E = infinity

You need infinite energy to move AT EVERY MOMENT.

M = 0
E = 0

Simple.

Anyway, look up time dilation. Time going backwards works on the same principle.

northmeister · 2012-08-15 14:09:41

ImagineIt wrote:
They disproved the neutrinos theory. And why would time go backwards if you went faster than light? I still think it would slow down.

If you're going faster than light can travel to get to point B from point A, you're technically arriving at point B before you have set off from point A. It's complicated, but you would, theoretically, have gone back in time.

roijac · 2012-08-15 14:25:11

JH1010 wrote:
The scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have discovered a particle that goes faster than the speed of light

It was a clock failure xD
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection

JH1010 · 2012-08-15 14:58:34

roijac wrote:
JH1010 wrote:
The scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have discovered a particle that goes faster than the speed of light
It was a clock failure xD
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection

Oh. Faster-Than-Light Theory of Relativity (yep, i thought of a name) is wrong!

Last edited by JH1010 (2012-08-15 14:58:47)

ErnieParke · 2012-08-15 15:04:29

roijac wrote:
JH1010 wrote:
The scientists at the Large Hadron Collider have discovered a particle that goes faster than the speed of light
It was a clock failure xD
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/23/faster-light-neutrinos-faulty-connection

That or a loose connection.

mythbusteranimator · 2012-08-15 15:22:37

This is hard to explain, but I understand it.

JH1010 · 2012-08-15 15:23:23

This thread can still be kept open as the Scratch Forums' official physics thread.

soupoftomato · 2012-08-15 18:25:47

I was very skeptical upon reading this because disproof of Einstein would go against everything I believe and ruin one of my heroes. D:

SO YAY CLOCK FAILURES

777w · 2012-08-15 18:36:34

JH1010 wrote:
This thread can still be kept open as the Scratch Forums' official physics thread.

i thought there already was one

coolhogs · 2012-08-15 18:40:49

Why? I made one a while back, and it was closed...

firedrake969_test · 2012-08-15 21:09:39

777w wrote:
JH1010 wrote:
This thread can still be kept open as the Scratch Forums' official physics thread.
i thought there already was one

Then have a mod rename it. My thread was deleted even though it wasn't a duplicate......

slayerrobe7 · 2012-08-15 21:25:12

partials faster than the speed of light

pics or it didn't happen

Last edited by slayerrobe7 (2012-08-15 21:28:47)

adriangl · 2012-08-15 21:30:57

Just remember that going back in time is impossible, simply because it happened. It's not there somewhere still going on. What happened has happened. However, it is possible to "go forward in time", though it's really only because of the affect of time.

northmeister · 2012-08-16 17:36:01

BirdByte wrote:
I don't believe in the theory of relativity. It would only work if there was 1 huge object and you were travelling away from it. Even so, that's only because you are moving away faster than the light, so you see old light, but time doesn't go backwards.

The old light is what has happened before though, so you're seeing the past.

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2012-08-15 04:49:38

New Theory of Relativity

#2 2012-08-15 06:49:33

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#3 2012-08-15 07:05:54

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#4 2012-08-15 07:17:55

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#5 2012-08-15 07:23:54

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#6 2012-08-15 11:14:23

Re: New Theory of Relativity

BirdByte wrote:

#7 2012-08-15 11:32:37

Re: New Theory of Relativity

JH1010 wrote:

BirdByte wrote:

#8 2012-08-15 11:48:18

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#9 2012-08-15 11:54:08

Re: New Theory of Relativity

ImagineIt wrote:

#10 2012-08-15 12:27:38

Re: New Theory of Relativity

BirdByte wrote:

ImagineIt wrote:

#11 2012-08-15 13:35:48

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#12 2012-08-15 13:47:21

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#13 2012-08-15 14:09:41

Re: New Theory of Relativity

ImagineIt wrote:

#14 2012-08-15 14:25:11

Re: New Theory of Relativity

JH1010 wrote:

#15 2012-08-15 14:58:34

Re: New Theory of Relativity

roijac wrote:

JH1010 wrote:

#16 2012-08-15 15:04:29

Re: New Theory of Relativity

roijac wrote:

JH1010 wrote:

#17 2012-08-15 15:22:37

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#18 2012-08-15 15:23:23

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#19 2012-08-15 18:25:47

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#20 2012-08-15 18:36:34

Re: New Theory of Relativity

JH1010 wrote:

#21 2012-08-15 18:40:49

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#22 2012-08-15 21:09:39

Re: New Theory of Relativity

777w wrote:

JH1010 wrote:

#23 2012-08-15 21:25:12

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#24 2012-08-15 21:30:57

Re: New Theory of Relativity

#25 2012-08-16 17:36:01

Re: New Theory of Relativity

BirdByte wrote:

Board footer