Thread: Time slowing down at high speeds explain your theory

Ok i decided to start this topic i know its been coverd alot an argued.
What id like to hear is people theorys on this, If you have one.
But the theory cant be explaind like, The faster you go the slower time goes, i would like to know why you think that, because thats not a theory its a judgment. it would be like me saying i drive a car it does 100kmh, and thats my theory because i put my foot down my car goes faster. so does this mean you know why it goes faster, just because i have told you it does it must. So if people could explain there theory it would be very intresting. And if you diagree with somone elses say why, dont just say no you aqre wrong explain your theory and how it works. then explain why theres cannot, or is most likly not going to work. Thanks to anyone that can be botherd covering this topic 1 last time.

I don't have my own theory on the matter, but I will be happy to explain Einstein's theory to you.

In brief:

Time dilation and length contraction are consequences of a larger group of transformations called the Lorentz transformations. So the question, "Why does time dilate?" really doesn't get to the bottom of the issue. A more fundamental question would be, "Why do the Lorentz transformations hold true?" If we keep digging back, we find that the Lorentz transformations do not simply pop out of thin air. They are the direct consequences of two postulates: 1.) The postulate that the speed of light (SOL) is the same in all inertial frames and 2.) the postulate that the laws of physics should be the same in all inertial frames. By that I mean that any two inertial frames must be experimentally indistinguishable.

So our best answer to the question, "Why does time dilate?" is "Because our universe is such that 1.) all inertial observers agree on the speed of any light pulse and 2.) all inertial observers agree on the same laws of physics."

Now you may want to ask, "But why are 1.) and 2.) true?"

And our best answer to that is, "Because that's the way it is!"

That answer may appear unsatisfactory, but the truth is that all scientific lines of inquiry end with that answer. No scientific theory can explain its own postulates. That is why we do experiments. And relativity has a considerable amount of experimental muscle behind it.

Here is a summary:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

Imagine moving dimensions; that dimensions are actually dynamic.

If you take a moving aether or a moving space-time and if you
caught up to it this could explain why time slows down and
space shrinks. This could explain relativity as the dynamics
of moving dimensions.

I also believe that the movement of the first three dimensions
is the real 4th.

Didn't we cover a lot of this in the following thread.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/TIME-DILATION-614t.php

The key thing to remember when having any discussions about time is that it's a man made way to measure changes in matter and energy, outside of that it's all Hollywood. Time, such a fun subject. It's right up there is temperature. Yawn

Now a discussion about if light speeds up when entering a black hole would be more interesting.

Time is no illusion. It is a measurable physical quantity.

About space-time, if it was just emptiness how could it curve?
That's why I am an Aether man.
You gotta give it substance!!!


The aether is the substance of time.

Mitch -- Light Falls --

Actually, time isn't a construct of man. It exists. It just so happens that the only way to measure it is with clocks.

Okay, the speed of light works something like this:

It always travels at the same speed, regardless of your relative speed. For example, if you were to measure the speed of a beam of light to be 186,000 miles per second, and then jump into a rocket ship and zoom alongside the light beam at half the speed of light, you would expect to see the beam pulling away from you at 93,000 mps, right? (186,000 /2 =93,000) Wrong! You would still measure the speed of the beam as 186,000 miles per second. If you goosed the rocket ship to move along side the beam at matching speed - 186,000 miles per second, and then measure the speed of the beam again, guess what? 186,000 miles per second. Why does it do this? My friend, if you ever figure it out, I have two words for you: Publish it.

Regarding time, there have been experiments conducted wherein one clock was left at a stationary location (on a table in a building) and another placed on a fast-moving aircraft. When the two clocks' times were later compared, the moving clock was behind the stationary one, (it had moved slower.) The amount of time difference was miniscule, something on the order of nano-seconds, but nevertheless it is an accurate and reproducable experiment. Why does it do this? See above.

It has been said that light travels "slower" when it moves through a medium (as opposed to a vacuum) but this is actually a misconception. It isn't moving slower, it's still moving at the same speed it always was, it just has to take a more circuitous path to "reach the other side," for example, through water.

Einstein was right.

Originally Posted by Nick

Time is no illusion. It is a measurable physical quantity.

Really, how much time does an apple contain? Can you give me a couple of years? How heavy is one second?

How old are you, KazaKhan?
Is your age an illusion?

Originally Posted by Nick

That's why I am an Aether man.
You gotta give it substance!!!

You can call aether the substance of space-time if it makes you happy... just so long as you give it exactly the right properties to make it completely undetectable.

Originally Posted by Pete

Originally Posted by Nick

That's why I am an Aether man.
You gotta give it substance!!!

You can call aether the substance of space-time if it makes you happy... just so long as you give it exactly the right properties to make it completely undetectable.

Here is what Einstein actually has said:


**************** Extracts from Einstein's Speech ******************
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Albert Einsteinan address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden


"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existance of an ether................"

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
************************************************** *******

It is therefore a gross mis-representation by those that claim Einstien said or that Relativity proves otherwise.

Einstein infact has made the statement (paraphrased) "Gentlemen we have not proven no ether exists, only that we do not need one to make predictions".

Exactly!

Originally Posted by Pete

Exactly!

Ah Ha. But there is a problem with the assumption. It leads to the dreaded and impossible reciprocity issue.

It seems more prudent therefore to remember that there MUST be an ether and many of the other assumptions wrongfully made and unsupported in relativity vanish.

And that means only the object that undergoes the forces of acceleration or deceleration actually experience any relavistic changes or affects.

That view is what is supported by the data, not the reciprocity of Special Relativity.

i would make sense to have a substance from the view point that we would have something which can be distorted under gravity fields and accelerating objects.

Let's not get too hasty. Einstein also later in his career admitted that the aether was a bad idea.

Newton's first law states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a force (ie, wind, water, gravity).

If there truly was an aether permeating the Universe, eventually the clockwork of solar systems and galaxies would grind to a halt (as in being acted upon by a force).

Some would say, "Well, you can't measure the aether, or see it, touch it or smell it, and it has absolutely no effect on anything, but it's THERE."

That's like saying there's an orange on that table. You can't see it, or touch it or measure it. But it's there." Occam's razor: There's either an aether all over empty space, but we can't measure or detect it in any way, or there simply isn't one. Nobody in the entire history of history has ever detected an aether or any effect that the aether might cause.

Originally Posted by Pete

How old are you, KazaKhan?
Is your age an illusion?

So would you be implying there are discrete packets of time?

It always travels at the same speed, regardless of your relative speed. For example, if you were to measure the speed of a beam of light to be 186,000 miles per second, and then jump into a rocket ship and zoom alongside the light beam at half the speed of light, you would expect to see the beam pulling away from you at 93,000 mps, right? (186,000 /2 =93,000) Wrong! You would still measure the speed of the beam as 186,000 miles per second. If you goosed the rocket ship to move along side the beam at matching speed - 186,000 miles per second, and then measure the speed of the beam again, guess what? 186,000 miles per second. Why does it do this? My friend, if you ever figure it out, I have two words for you: Publish it.

Where has this ever been tested, and not just with math. I would love to see the results of real tests. Then of course we have to factor in the margin for error.

Regarding time, there have been experiments conducted wherein one clock was left at a stationary location (on a table in a building) and another placed on a fast-moving aircraft. When the two clocks' times were later compared, the moving clock was behind the stationary one, (it had moved slower.) The amount of time difference was miniscule, something on the order of nano-seconds, but nevertheless it is an accurate and reproducable experiment. Why does it do this? See above.

As I've pointed out in the past, who's to say the internal atomic movements of matter are not just slowing down with the increased speed. It's a logical conclusion considering the clocks are all using matter as a means to measure "time".

Time really doesn't exist but in the minds of man, we can't comprehend this simple concept because everything we do revolves around the concept of time.

Originally Posted by KazaKhan™®©

Originally Posted by Pete

How old are you, KazaKhan?
Is your age an illusion?

So would you be implying there are discrete packets of time?

Can you spell "non-sequitur"?

If you goosed the rocket ship to move along side the beam at matching speed - 186,000 miles per second, and then measure the speed of the beam again, guess what? 186,000 miles per second. Why does it do this? My friend, if you ever figure it out, I have two words for you: Publish it.

Some people wonder why the speed of light is always the same. It is because its limit is your mental limit. For man, the speed we can observe is 300,000 km per second, everywhere in his universe, in everything he observes. Time is nothing but a sensation. Imagine that there would be no conscious beings in the universe. Then nothing would exist. There would be no difference between one second and a trillion years. Consciousness makes the universe appear, by separating itself from it. In reality, nothing exists.

Originally Posted by wallaby

i would make sense to have a substance from the view point that we would have something which can be distorted under gravity fields and accelerating objects.

It is a bit difficult to justify "Nothing" having permeability and permeance and to curve and contract "Nothing".

Originally Posted by mustbemagic

Let's not get too hasty. Einstein also later in his career admitted that the aether was a bad idea.

Newton's first law states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a force (ie, wind, water, gravity).

If there truly was an aether permeating the Universe, eventually the clockwork of solar systems and galaxies would grind to a halt (as in being acted upon by a force).

Some would say, "Well, you can't measure the aether, or see it, touch it or smell it, and it has absolutely no effect on anything, but it's THERE."

That's like saying there's an orange on that table. You can't see it, or touch it or measure it. But it's there." Occam's razor: There's either an aether all over empty space, but we can't measure or detect it in any way, or there simply isn't one. Nobody in the entire history of history has ever detected an aether or any effect that the aether might cause.

Yours is a series of bad assumptions. By what right do you imply that an ether must drag the universe to a halt? Does propagaton of light grind to a halt or does it become absorbed and re-emitted and continue at v = c unaffected?

The assumption of a benign ether is far more logical than the SRT assumption of reciprocity "BTW: which has not once been observed nor recorded in 100 years of relativity but is predicted by SRT"

Originally Posted by Pete

Can you spell "non-sequitur"?

We've come full-circle already...

As I've pointed out in the past, who's to say the internal atomic movements of matter are not just slowing down with the increased speed. It's a logical conclusion considering the clocks are all using matter as a means to measure "time".

Time really doesn't exist but in the minds of man, we can't comprehend this simple concept because everything we do revolves around the concept of time.

To my limited understanding Time Dilation Occurs under conditions of high acceleration because according to gerneral reletivity a large gravitational force is indistinguishable from a large accelerational force, thus under conditions of any form of accelerational force you are experiencing a warpage of time much in the same way Gravity.

whether or not time does have a quantity is irrelevant to the case as we are only saying that our concept of time is altered under such conditions.

Originally Posted by wallaby

To my limited understanding Time Dilation Occurs under conditions of high acceleration because according to gerneral reletivity a large gravitational force is indistinguishable from a large accelerational force, thus under conditions of any form of accelerational force you are experiencing a warpage of time much in the same way Gravity.

whether or not time does have a quantity is irrelevant to the case as we are only saying that our concept of time is altered under such conditions.

Close enough. I especially liked your last paragraph.

Originally Posted by mustbemagic

Let's not get too hasty. Einstein also later in his career admitted that the aether was a bad idea.

Newton's first law states that a body at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by a force, a body in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by a force (ie, wind, water, gravity).

If there truly was an aether permeating the Universe, eventually the clockwork of solar systems and galaxies would grind to a halt (as in being acted upon by a force).

Some would say, "Well, you can't measure the aether, or see it, touch it or smell it, and it has absolutely no effect on anything, but it's THERE."

That's like saying there's an orange on that table. You can't see it, or touch it or measure it. But it's there." Occam's razor: There's either an aether all over empty space, but we can't measure or detect it in any way, or there simply isn't one. Nobody in the entire history of history has ever detected an aether or any effect that the aether might cause.

umm.. lighting is a great example of a potential manifested from Ether. a potential within vaccum, being as electrons are potentials themselves, Scalar longitudinal waves are also detectable and can be proven to propagate through ether (vaccum) using a faraday cage, experiment yourself, theres something far more fundemental at work that gives our reality its percievable appearance and solidity.