Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: time

  1. #1 time 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5
    Last night I was watching a hawking paradox on the science channel and thought to my self. Well you know how the faster you go the more time slows down. Why is that? Wouldn't that have to me time is in a way like light waves. If you could go as fast as it time would be at a stop? And let's just say you went faster that it then what would happen? And I also thought to my self what if earth rotated billions of times faster would time be slowed for us? And if earth was stationary would time go by faster?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    I think as you get to the speed of light and time stops, if you go faster then time goes backwards, which means you must slow down (as you were earlier, cos you have gone back in time), and therefore you can never go faster than light! If earth rotated billions of times faster than it does my goldfish bowl would lose all it's water, The earth cannot be stationary in space whilst there is other matter in the universe. If it stopped rotating then again all the water in the goldfish bowl would get spilt. :wink:

    Look up TIme Dilation, there are two formula, one for two observers in free space, the other where only one observer is subject to gravity.
    (Answers above are Tongue-in-cheek as it would be if the earth revolved billions of times faster than it is).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Delhi
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I think as you get to the speed of light and time stops, if you go faster then time goes backwards, which means you must slow down (as you were earlier, cos you have gone back in time), and therefore you can never go faster than light! If earth rotated billions of times faster than it does my goldfish bowl would lose all it's water, The earth cannot be stationary in space whilst there is other matter in the universe. If it stopped rotating then again all the water in the goldfish bowl would get spilt. :wink:

    Look up TIme Dilation, there are two formula, one for two observers in free space, the other where only one observer is subject to gravity.
    (Answers above are Tongue-in-cheek as it would be if the earth revolved billions of times faster than it is).
    Dear Megabrain
    What you said about the relation between time and light is absolutely true.
    But if you consider that approaching the speed of takes you to past then it is something not easily digestable.
    When any mass approaches the speed of light its length starts approaching 0. As far as Earth goes the rotation speed of earth owes it to the Sun. So for earth to rotate/revolve faster it need to be brought nearer to the Sun. The gravity of the earth holds back the ocean and atmosphere to it so again it gets affected if mass gets higher in quantam.
    Know Nature Know Thyself
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: time 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by broken89
    what if earth rotated billions of times faster would time be slowed for us?
    Billions of times faster....

    Since spacecraft/satellites orbit the earth at around 18,000 miles per hour if you sped up earth's rotation by just about 20 times then throwing something up in the air at the equator it would not fall back. The would then assume a shape something akin to a short dog bicuit.

    The rotation of the earth upon it's own axis is not (sa far as I am aware) due to it's position relative to the sun, an analysis of the rotation rates of the inner planets shows that. Orbital period around the sun is however a function of the sun's mass, the planet's mass and the distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Escalefter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6
    Problem is that it would take all of the energy in the Universe (and all the energy converted from all the mass) to continuously provide enough force to accelerate even a tiny amount of mass to exactly the speed of light. Basically, there is no way, with the conservation of mass/energy, to actually possibly make any mass go the speed of light, though we can get pretty darn close. If you want to travel to the future you can create a gravity well, a hollow shell with extreme mass that supports you inside but actually causes you to age at a fraction of the time as anything outside it... and wormholes are supposed to work for time travel to the past... and I'll go ramble elsewhere...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Escalefter
    Problem is that it would take all of the energy in the Universe (and all the energy converted from all the mass) to continuously provide enough force to accelerate even a tiny amount of mass to exactly the speed of light. Basically, there is no way, with the conservation of mass/energy, to actually possibly make any mass go the speed of light, though we can get pretty darn close. If you want to travel to the future you can create a gravity well, a hollow shell with extreme mass that supports you inside but actually causes you to age at a fraction of the time as anything outside it... and wormholes are supposed to work for time travel to the past... and I'll go ramble elsewhere...
    Most of that is pure sci-fi, like the brane theory (so recently discredited).
    The wormholes in the universe exist in apples.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Would you like me to explain Time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Would you like me to explain Time?
    You can have a go, but as far as I remember it has always been difficult to 'quantify' since it exists in a class of it's own, we all 'instinctively' know what 'it' is.

    "Time waits for no man, just photons" :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    From a more classical perspective time would in essence stop due to an inability in sub atomic level movement. If electrons jump state at the speed of light any electron attempting this on an axis parallel to the direction of travel would be unable to. And due to other various movement issues would be unable to on the axis perpendicular to the axis of movement. Especially due to the fact that photons are released at a velocity independent of the velocity of its parenting body. Something like that! Oh and not to mention the effect it would have on spin.............
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    B.C., Canada
    Posts
    88
    Why do you say that it would take all the energy in the universe to move even the smallest particle to the speed of light? I'm confuzzed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Megabrain: OK. This goes back to Einstein and Goedel, and takes some getting used to. I started a new thread.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...?p=44666#44666
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Escalefter
    Problem is that it would take all of the energy in the Universe (and all the energy converted from all the mass) to continuously provide enough force to accelerate even a tiny amount of mass to exactly the speed of light. Basically, there is no way, with the conservation of mass/energy, to actually possibly make any mass go the speed of light, though we can get pretty darn close. If you want to travel to the future you can create a gravity well, a hollow shell with extreme mass that supports you inside but actually causes you to age at a fraction of the time as anything outside it... and wormholes are supposed to work for time travel to the past... and I'll go ramble elsewhere...
    Most of that is pure sci-fi, like the brane theory (so recently discredited).
    The wormholes in the universe exist in apples.
    What of that was sci-fi? It's all scientifically possible, just nowhere near practical. Also, can you provide some references for your claim that brane theory has been discredited? (BTW, do you mean string theory or M-theory?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello!

    I think time was independent absolutely with motion and, as well, light. Therefore light was
    speed was expressed as to 300 000 km/s it has been fixed after time was set.

    Time as a physical value was set due to the seasons and day and night mainly. If earth
    would go faster than this physical value time needed to be reset to some other timely
    distances or one had an other perception of it. Everything would have changed if earths
    velocity have had changed. We can go as far as to say earth would not be earth, the whole
    galaxy needed to be a different one.

    The velocity of earth is linked to what we use of it, set as time, almost stable I would say. Is
    not of doubt, can not be altered to some better. It's not even of need theoretically.

    The time as physical value has the changelessness in common with other physical values
    like way, I mean distance or weight. There they making a group up of members with same,
    unchangeable properties defining this group. I will say if time was to alter in some way all
    the other physical values were to alter. but if the had been altered or where to alter they could
    not make this group of physical values cause of the missing application. No one could get to
    a date in time, no one could tell someone else on the phone how many meters timber they
    will need and so on. Just to give some samples. This is not physical values where made for
    they are in a wide range are applicable on earth only and have been winning out of information
    of the nature of the planet earth by a wide extend.

    As we know today about weightlessness we see many of the values are just relevant on earth
    but this was they where set for anyway. Weightlessness as it appears to be naturally in
    space was not anticipated or foreseen as it was by not just one scientist ever. I have put lots
    of efforts in reading up this specific issue.

    This is linked to what we have additionally as information's from space interesting at least.

    The light speed is just a figure that is mind blowing something can be going so far cause
    generations today where not introduced to techniques that have the opportunity to take us
    there not even in an Ansatz, so to say.

    What I think can be done today is to understand the independence of these measure among
    each other. There was no room - time relation at all. First if you have vehicles to span over
    distances woman start to say in in auto - hours or whatever. This but was clearly to distinguish.
    An hour remains being an hour, the vehicle the vehicle, the distance which ever, the distance
    that was to span over.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    This is mildly unrelated, but a question that came to mind when reading this. Now what would happen if you reached the speed of light (yes I know it's currently believed it's impossible)? If you were to reach the speed of light time stops, therefore you would be stuck forever? I would think once you reached it there would be no way to slow down because time does not pass anymore. So far my understanding is that time is essentially the same thing as light, in a way.

    First post on the forums, and I probably sound retarded . Also I'm only in High School, can't wait for Physics, but that's next year.
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hi,

    let me give you an other sample an other comparison.

    Let's say you reach the speed of a leopard. It's was said to be a fast land animal.

    Let's say you or the vehicle you are in would be going about 80 km/h. Would the
    leopard, any leopard on the planet stop just because you are going about 80 km/h?
    No never. So, why for heavens sake should time stop as you would go as fast
    as about 300 000 m/s * 3,6 = 1080000 km/h.

    As little or less or not you are linked to the leopard time was not liked neither to light
    nor to lights speed. Never.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Because time is your measure of your internal atomic motion as compared to other motions. In simple terms, when you're travelling fast they oscillate like this /\/\/\/\. If you travel at the speed of light they're already travelling at their maximum speed like this _________. So in local terms you're frozen, motionless, and no time can pass for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    Because time is your measure of your internal atomic motion as compared to other motions. In simple terms, when you're travelling fast they oscillate like this /\/\/\/\. If you travel at the speed of light they're already travelling at their maximum speed like this _________. So in local terms you're frozen, motionless, and no time can pass for you.
    So, I get from this that if you were to reach the speed of light time would locally be frozen, but go on as normal for everything else. You would be frozen in time, but time would pass on as normal so you could return to a normal state?

    Sorry if these are dumb questions, I am not well versed in upper physics, especially quantum mechanics (I think that's what this is).
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    That's about right, though you wouldn't be able to move or even think to fire the retro rockets, and I don't know how anybody could slow you down short of getting in the way: KABOOOM!

    But of course you could never get to the speed of light anyhow. It's always out there way out of reach looking like 300,000,000,000 m/s because in a way it's not really a speed. It's a conversion factor between distance and time. If you were travelling at 299,999,999,999 m/s the speed of light would still look like 300,000,000,000 m/s because your time dilates so much because your internal atomic motion is going from this /\/\/\/\ to this ______.

    PS: All this is Special Relativity rather than Quantum Mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    I see, and thanks for the correction on the terminology.
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Kabooom
    Because time is your measure of your internal atomic motion as compared to other motions. In simple terms, when you're travelling fast they oscillate like this /\/\/\/\. If you travel at the speed of light they're already travelling at their maximum speed like this _________. So in local terms you're frozen, motionless, and no time can pass for you.
    So, I get from this that if you were to reach the speed of light time would locally be frozen, but go on as normal for everything else. You would be frozen in time, but time would pass on as normal so you could return to a normal state?

    Sorry if these are dumb questions, I am not well versed in upper physics, especially quantum mechanics (I think that's what this is).
    It's not possible to reach the speed of light, the closer you get to lightspeed the more energy is required to accelerate.

    It's all about relativity, no matter how fast you go time doesn't freeze in your frame of reference. If you we're traveling at close to the speed of light in relation to another person it would appear that time was going by incredibly fast for that person but at a normal rate for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    I notice it is currently believed impossible to reach the speed of light, but the laws of physics change over time. Also phasing into a different dimension or bending space around you are theorized ways to reach or surpass light speed.
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    I really don't think it will ever be possible to go at the speed of light, Kabooom. I express things a little differently to Darcgrey, but I think both he and I will agree that this law of physics isn't going to change, ever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    I agree with them fully, I just don't swear that it is impossible for them to ever change. I see that is is very unlikely though, because of all the existing theories and scientists that support relativity.
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Kabooom
    I notice it is currently believed impossible to reach the speed of light, but the laws of physics change over time. Also phasing into a different dimension or bending space around you are theorized ways to reach or surpass light speed.
    As someone here pointed out to me, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to lightspeed. However as you say, our understanding of the laws of nature are not set in stone. It's entirely possible that at some time in the future a way to circumvent the lightspeed barrier will be found.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    Now I remember the bending space example. Essentially you would create a bubble around the ship. Then contract the space behind and expand in front. You could move at any speed. This way the vehicle is not moving, but space moving around the vehicle. Therefor the ship would still be in normal time, but traveling as fast or faster than light. Now how you accomplish any of that, I don't know.
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore DarcgreY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Kabooom
    Now I remember the bending space example. Essentially you would create a bubble around the ship. Then contract the space behind and expand in front. You could move at any speed. This way the vehicle is not moving, but space moving around the vehicle. Therefor the ship would still be in normal time, but traveling as fast or faster than light. Now how you accomplish any of that, I don't know.
    If you could create an artificial blackhole in front of the craft, that would bend space and cause the effect you're taliking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello!

    This is being more destructive to the ship itself than a mean of thrust. Not much, not even debris
    were left of the ship, I think. The ship had become pure space.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore Kabooom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    102
    Well of course it's extremely unlikely that any of this can happen anytime soon or with any technology we could even hypothesize. It's more of an argument that faster-than-light travel is maybe possible theoretically... Now that's a redundant sentence
    WHAT?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Well isn't it still a bit of an argument that we can't move faster than the speed of light ( a well founded & tested argument). Nobody's gone testing if they can travel @ 3.8x10*8 ms-1 yet!!! I don't thik we need to worry about the Laurenz factor & all that while we aren't even close to being able to tavle nearly tht fast (by Newtonian mechanics!).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Mhmm, I think it is being still worrying but by definition only. The clue was provided
    as you do think about acceleration and a velocity which was reached of a positive
    acceleration, normally.

    As soon as the velocity starts lets say we have had reached some velocity and
    wanted to go even faster, the velocity we have had reached is not further mentioned
    as again was accelerated.

    The velocity we were on but was not set back to 0 when additional acceleration was
    applied to a vehicle, as a sample. I have thought about the relation acceleration and
    velocity which was practically different than expressed in theory so intense I found,
    therefore a steady energy, normally gasoline, was burned, is applied, these
    disagreement needs to be addressed and could not be neglected. The velocity is
    still there and was further increased.

    Physics related, I think I remind myself right, to Newton express this insufficient or
    not, at all.

    This, with Newton was as bad as there are in fact mathematical expressions stating
    v=0. The physical value velocity but could not referring to there characteristics not be
    taking on a value 0 (zero ) implying a standstill. So to say, motion that would not
    move but still being motion, physically.

    Gentlemen, better not to have any idea about physics and or mathematics than to
    express something in fact moving as to stand still.

    The speed of light could be a barrier as the instrument to measure the speed of light
    was light itself, I expose. Therefore you couldn't apply the way of measuring today's
    velocities in general one should not so much focus on the lights speed. I think its
    certainly cited so often cause of the 300 000 m/s which is fast and not therefore light
    was that fast. With this speeds only we could not get very far at all.

    But, as I said, having an artificial gravitation and an idea how to map space in
    distances earth was not still visible was a prior task. About to be on these
    considerations further needs to conquer space as seen in science fiction films
    become more serious and makeable indeed. I'm not a fan of kind of propulsion so far
    cause there making lots of noise and do stink one is going to die. So it is being today.
    I know but a man I meet when I was operating a cab in town (he was the head of a
    restaurant there ) who was engaged in rocket propulsion or wanted to do this with the
    NVA (National Peoples Army ) till this was no longer feasible for him to do.

    He is in Berlin meanwhile and running a restaurant there but I have great confidence
    in he can do this as well. I put lots of time in partying and so to get him better to know.
    I still think we do not have a lot of choices left and protrude in regions where we first
    have to seriously, to think about how to survive we're going to do than just starting.
    Here it differs being a scientist or nuts.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    what does the lapse of time have to do with velocity or speed? i am not mentioning anything other than that time on board that ship. if traveling at 1000k miles per hour, your going to move those miles each hour and your going to age one hour.

    on earth we travel at 72k mph around the sun, the sun is traveling very fast around the center core of the galaxy and the galaxy is moving through space. i don't know what the cumulative speed is, but that should have no bearing on our time, even if everything stopped this forward motion.

    on mass and speed of sound. a 20k pound vehicle in vacuum space should weight what? not far from zero, i would think. then as you approach C, the mass increases but is thought to be with in the same size.
    what is the new weight to what its "new mass"? if it has no weight then this new mass 5000 times the original, why is the weight still not _0_.

    earth weight is quite a lot and has much mass, but w/o speed this only determines the speed to gives into solar gravity. if it was beyond this solar or any other gravity wouldn't it just float like a weightless object in earths atmosphere in empty space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Sorry,

    In your last break, what was floating around like weightless?

    Thank's
    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello!

    I wanted to add an additional post and store some information here I wanted to add to the
    one before last.

    This thinking of acceleration and velocity and presumably to think about the speed of light
    resulting herefrom was due to the unknown and different assumptions (first one first invents
    the term of gravity ) of Newton and Einstein.

    The feel and maybe other sciences say some different. Therefore, I was born on earth and
    grew up here I never felt there was something like gravity and before Newton the term of
    gravity, gravitation respectively was not known.

    This was but an other issue belonging to an other thread I think. Is but related. For my
    understanding we face so much wrong these days resulting from past pseudo scientists
    we need to have to get back to understand science is first proven as it works. So its up to
    wipe out what fails as it fails as to not be applicable.

    Often one simply reads over the term 'theory' concerning the equation or oversees in times
    of Newton and Einstein the planet earth was not seen as a whole as we know it today as
    blue planet out of space. Thus either Newton nor Einstein could have had a conclusive
    perception of what gravity way made of if the term is correct al all.

    Sorry if it's too far off but I feel it needs to be mentioned concerning speeds and velocity and
    not be restricted so strictly by the Art an internet forum provides.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    my comments were in general not directed to anyone. i must be missing something in my own thought. mass at the speed of light is THOUGHT to increase. if that mass had no weight, i am confused as to why more fuel would be required to accelerate little or no weight, compared to little or no weight to start with. this is the reason so many think C cannot be surpassed.

    gravity is not 100% understood and what Newton-Einstein formulated has always been understood as to their worlds conception. the galaxy rotation and black holes for instance do not conform to either with out additions of totally controversial dark matter and/or oort fields.

    my last paragraph asked; what would the total weight of earth or really any object be if not in any gravitational field. the mass would be the same and its gravity based on the same factors, but could or would it have weight. put another way we weight X pounds on earth, and if on the moon we weight 1/4 X, on Pluto 1/200th X and so on...then if in space we should weigh nothing. why should other mass be different. speed or velocity to the attraction of gravity is one thing, but if no gravity is involved why is speed, even C of importance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hello!

    As I understand mass in space does not have any weight at all. So earth itself has
    got no weight since it was being in space completely and steadily moving. Thus it
    was being necessary to differ mass and weight. Different gravitation therefore might
    result of the mass not of the weight of the celestial body. This mass of the planet is
    strictly linked to its motion and related to its origin as I do get it.

    The motion specially seems to be of more complexity than described by ancestors
    scientifically transmissions from space do ilustrate.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •