Notices
Results 1 to 44 of 44

Thread: light speed does not equate to time travel

  1. #1 light speed does not equate to time travel 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    G'Day folks,
    I was here last year due to my view that light speed does not equate to time travel I.E if you travel at light speed away from a point and return on the same path for a total of 2minutes 75yrs will not have elapsed at the start point. I was pointed to several reference sources and I have read some of the material suggested. (abouve my head I am afraid) either way I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this as I do not have the skills but logically I think I can. Now for give my lack of source info I only have access to general media so if I am wrong please don't hesitate to show me where.
    Now for the point of all this ; the LHC I believe was fired and a particle accelerated to near C, if time distortion occurs at these speeds then in essence the particle should have, to all intent and purpose disappeared and reappeared in 70 odd years, but it didn't it followed the path it was supposed to and was ,as far as I know detectable through out the time of it's travel. Hence no time distortion.
    A second thought occurred to me, If travelling at C distorts time at a rate of 35 years per minute travelled (a figure suggested on a program I saw some time ago) then when you see an object I.E the moon, the light has travelled half a minute or so there fore the image you see is around 18yrs old ! since other means of detection prove the moon is where we see it , time distortion as not occurred!
    just my thoughts I am most interested in what you think about this


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    19
    Just read about the Hafele–Keating experiment. It actually proved what you are trying to disprove.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: light speed does not equate to time travel 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    G'Day folks,
    I was here last year due to my view that light speed does not equate to time travel I.E if you travel at light speed away from a point and return on the same path for a total of 2minutes 75yrs will not have elapsed at the start point. I was pointed to several reference sources and I have read some of the material suggested. (abouve my head I am afraid) either way I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this as I do not have the skills but logically I think I can. Now for give my lack of source info I only have access to general media so if I am wrong please don't hesitate to show me where.
    Now for the point of all this ; the LHC I believe was fired and a particle accelerated to near C, if time distortion occurs at these speeds then in essence the particle should have, to all intent and purpose disappeared and reappeared in 70 odd years, but it didn't it followed the path it was supposed to and was ,as far as I know detectable through out the time of it's travel. Hence no time distortion.
    A second thought occurred to me, If travelling at C distorts time at a rate of 35 years per minute travelled (a figure suggested on a program I saw some time ago) then when you see an object I.E the moon, the light has travelled half a minute or so there fore the image you see is around 18yrs old ! since other means of detection prove the moon is where we see it , time distortion as not occurred!
    just my thoughts I am most interested in what you think about this
    This belongs in Pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: light speed does not equate to time travel 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    G'Day folks,
    I was here last year due to my view that light speed does not equate to time travel I.E if you travel at light speed away from a point and return on the same path for a total of 2minutes 75yrs will not have elapsed at the start point. I was pointed to several reference sources and I have read some of the material suggested. (abouve my head I am afraid) either way I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this as I do not have the skills but logically I think I can. Now for give my lack of source info I only have access to general media so if I am wrong please don't hesitate to show me where.
    Now for the point of all this ; the LHC I believe was fired and a particle accelerated to near C, if time distortion occurs at these speeds then in essence the particle should have, to all intent and purpose disappeared and reappeared in 70 odd years, but it didn't it followed the path it was supposed to and was ,as far as I know detectable through out the time of it's travel. Hence no time distortion.
    A second thought occurred to me, If travelling at C distorts time at a rate of 35 years per minute travelled (a figure suggested on a program I saw some time ago) then when you see an object I.E the moon, the light has travelled half a minute or so there fore the image you see is around 18yrs old ! since other means of detection prove the moon is where we see it , time distortion as not occurred!
    just my thoughts I am most interested in what you think about this
    This belongs in Pseudoscience.

    my apologies, please shift it !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Your conception of how particles travel through time is way off. Just because 2 minutes to the particle is 75 years for use in no way means that the particle simply jumps 75 years into the future from our point of view. It's still there for the entire time, but if we could put a clock on it, it would run extremely slowly. Slow enough that it would take 75 years for the minute hand to move two ticks over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 light speed='stop time', faster than light=backwards in time 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this
    justatradie1,

    You are wrong. Like Einstein predicted, if you travel at light speed, then time stops in that reference point. Einstein believed that "light was a universal 'speed limit'". He was wrong. Tachyons, torsion waves, and information/thought travel faster than light and, therefore, back in time. Stop time and reverse are two aspects of 'hypertime'. Time dilation (first discovered by Einstein) and 'fast forward' complete the four aspects of hypertime. There are seven aspects of 'regular time'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Sometimes I think it's a shame that thermonuclear war didn't wipe out the species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Sometimes I think it's a shame that thermonuclear war didn't wipe out the species.
    Or, at the very least, the stupid parts of the species
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Hey when I was in the navy we had dumb bombs, maybe they would work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by HarryPotter
    Just read about the Hafele–Keating experiment. It actually proved what you are trying to disprove.

    I have read the experiment (again) and I have more questions than answers. The first thing is that at no time is there any mention of the effects of magnetic forces acting on the clock.( the effects of magnetic fields on electronic circuits) nor is there any clock at a stationary position at the altitude that the plane flew at, and finally what happens when you fly north/ south? Or in a straight line from the planet (yes there have been corrections made for gravity) but in my opinion it is a big step from clocks showing different times in this experiment to C creating time distortion. In fact after re reading the experiment I am of the mind that the people conducting it saw what they wanted and not the facts. This experiment would be better conducted with something like bamboo(fast growing stuff) it as no concept of time and no interference from magnetic forces, if the growth rate varies after a 24hr period then you may have grounds for an argument. One last point, time distortion is supposed to occur unilaterally I.E the stationary object ages faster than the mobile object so the clock gaining or loosing time dependent on direction surely proves that some other force acted on the clock!
    If, however, this experiment does prove time distortion, then why when the LHC was fired did the molecule not time shift (for want of a better term) forget perception or different frames of reference. Everything occurred in one frame the observers stood still and the molecule moved round the tube (at an incredible speed) with no time distortion. Since the molecule as no perception of its travel we are left with only what happened, not perceptions of humans. It didn’t age (and why would it) and nor did the watchers (or indeed the rest of us) so what happened to time distortion?
    This may belong in pseudo science but surely one of you physicists can explain why there was no time distortion when clearly, according to everyone (except me) there should have been.

    my apologises if I come across 'stupid' I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff and no one to talk to (coal miners generally aren't interested), I do not mean to infer anyone is wrong right or indifferent just wanted to discuss what i observe
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: light speed='stop time', faster than light=backwards in  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Watson
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this
    justatradie1,

    You are wrong. Like Einstein predicted, if you travel at light speed, then time stops in that reference point. Einstein believed that "light was a universal 'speed limit'". He was wrong. Tachyons, torsion waves, and information/thought travel faster than light and, therefore, back in time. Stop time and reverse are two aspects of 'hypertime'. Time dilation (first discovered by Einstein) and 'fast forward' complete the four aspects of hypertime. There are seven aspects of 'regular time'.
    now you got me interested, where can i read up on hypertime ? maybe it will shut me up
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Sometimes I think it's a shame that thermonuclear war didn't wipe out the species.
    Or, at the very least, the stupid parts of the species

    if you wish to say go away stupid ,just say so i am not offended just uneducated, which means I have the capacity to learn , I am glad i can still learn and don't know everything , I now have a reason to live
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Your conception of how particles travel through time is way off. Just because 2 minutes to the particle is 75 years for use in no way means that the particle simply jumps 75 years into the future from our point of view. It's still there for the entire time, but if we could put a clock on it, it would run extremely slowly. Slow enough that it would take 75 years for the minute hand to move two ticks over.

    well that makes a little more sense, just, I think I will go read some more, but i will come back and keep bothering you good people ,sometimes it is the dumb question that leads to the greatest answers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    You know the example of a kitchentowel with perpendicular stripes. An objekt rests in it and you get a ditch. An objekt nearby will roll towards it. Funny thing is if you put two objekts on it same size they will rest in their own ditch, no dynamics whatsoever.

    To have that idea get some meaning you can look at it as a plane of constant gravity.

    Suppose you have a road of soft elastic material (or a matras or trampoline at a gym). If you cycle or walk over that road there is a constant ditch where you are so in front of you you see the road go upward instead of being flat. Soft tire has the same effect. Road and/ or tire are not flat and perfectly round but elastic.

    In such a case Newtons perfect world doesn,t work anymore.
    Cycling with soft tires at constant speed you have to accelerate each time you push the pedal as if you have to climb upward constantly and in a dynamic sense you really have to as there is a constant tendency to fall backward you have to constantly accelerate. You follow a straight horizontal line and an upward line at the same time.
    Upward in the use of energy but horizontal in the sence you stay at same heigth.

    the famous towel with the rectangular stripes and an objekt deforming timespace is the same idea but usable for time space where the road is missing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    You know the example of a kitchentowel with perpendicular stripes. An objekt rests in it and you get a ditch. An objekt nearby will roll towards it. Funny thing is if you put two objekts on it same size they will rest in their own ditch, no dynamics whatsoever.

    To have that idea get some meaning you can look at it as a plane of constant gravity.

    Suppose you have a road of soft elastic material (or a matras or trampoline at a gym). If you cycle or walk over that road there is a constant ditch where you are so in front of you you see the road go upward instead of being flat. Soft tire has the same effect. Road and/ or tire are not flat and perfectly round but elastic.

    In such a case Newtons perfect world doesn,t work anymore.
    Cycling with soft tires at constant speed you have to accelerate each time you push the pedal as if you have to climb upward constantly and in a dynamic sense you really have to as there is a constant tendency to fall backward you have to constantly accelerate. You follow a straight horizontal line and an upward line at the same time.
    Upward in the use of energy but horizontal in the sence you stay at same heigth.

    the famous towel with the rectangular stripes and an objekt deforming timespace is the same idea but usable for time space where the road is missing.
    thanks for that, it is nice for someone to talk to without being called stupid or smart a**e, where I struggle is ,like with the LHC, if you ignore time as minutes seconds etc, then either the observer or the projectile has to age for the time distortion to be correct, at some point both objects are in the same frame of reference and are relative to each other. so which is it ? it cannot be that time is distorted but it isn't, at some point the time distorted as to elapse, so if the molecule that was flung round the tube was a pod with a person inside after being round the tube for two minutes and then emerging would we be 75 yrs give or take older or would we all have aged two minutes? because the observer would have taken 60breathes and so would the driver so in which frame does the time elapse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    If you assume time is a distance and things that happen more or less determin it then (for the twin experiment) if time would go faster for one then for the other after they hake hands goodbye they can,t shake hands again. One twin would be in the future for his brother and the other in the past for his brother. If I describe the events of parting and meeting again for the twins, both twins are present in both events. For me an event happens at given time and with given duration. So I experience the distance in time between both handshakes as one distance. So to me neither of the twins travels longer or shorter distance as the handshakes mark the timedistance perfectly and it is one distance.

    Time in itself has no meaning it is marked by events, duration and distance. Time is a concept to mark duration and distance between events and how these distances relate. You don,t necessarily need a watch or second for that. For instance in a literature book you have all sorts of events and time can play a role in a book without the notion of seconds or watches. Musicians also work with time and timing, it has meaning while playing music but not much musicians use a metronome to have a unity of time.

    So I think you,re right it occurs with the way time is marked and measurred in fysics.

    The thing is maybe that we do assume the twins to be different persons ; it,s more or less natural for us as we allow both to have and develop their own personality and have a different history. But the clocks they use we assume to be identical. Then if the seconds don,t match it is put on time dilletion.
    If you allow two clocks to be really two different clocks it has nothing to do with time but with the eye of the beholder ; the clock we use to watch time.
    And a clock not only watches time (a simple pendulum does that also) it remembers it. It registrates it,s own history constantly.

    In the difference in registration for two clocks they show not to be identic allthough they are the same make but the twins also have the same genes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    if you wish to say go away stupid ,just say so i am not offended just uneducated, which means I have the capacity to learn , I am glad i can still learn and don't know everything , I now have a reason to live
    I know almost nothing. As a consequence, when I am talking in an area in which my ignorance is vast I do not make statements like "I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this."

    If you truly wish to learn then start by learning that the world does not work on the basis of your opinion, or your preference, or what you would like to be the case, or what you think might be the case. Match your appropriate humble appreciation of your ignorance with humble words - not declarations that the entire physiscs community has been getting it wrong for a century.

    If you had said "I still can't see why time dilation occurs as you approach light speed" then many forum members would have gone out of their way to try to explain this to you. That is not what you did. You adopted a magesterial position that you knew best. Such an attitude will typically be greeted with ridicule.

    Since you seem willing to adopt a different attitude I think you will find the ridicule will vanish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    if you wish to say go away stupid ,just say so i am not offended just uneducated, which means I have the capacity to learn , I am glad i can still learn and don't know everything , I now have a reason to live
    I know almost nothing. As a consequence, when I am talking in an area in which my ignorance is vast I do not make statements like "I still hold that if you travel at light speed or near to you will not get time distortion. I cannot mathematically prove this."

    If you truly wish to learn then start by learning that the world does not work on the basis of your opinion, or your preference, or what you would like to be the case, or what you think might be the case. Match your appropriate humble appreciation of your ignorance with humble words - not declarations that the entire physiscs community has been getting it wrong for a century.

    If you had said "I still can't see why time dilation occurs as you approach light speed" then many forum members would have gone out of their way to try to explain this to you. That is not what you did. You adopted a magesterial position that you knew best. Such an attitude will typically be greeted with ridicule.

    Since you seem willing to adopt a different attitude I think you will find the ridicule will vanish.
    your quite right , the world does not work to my on my preference I wish it did I would understand it a lot better then, my apologies for sounding arrogant , I work in heavy industry and run a large crew and am used to being "just that^" so when I get the time to actually do something different I tend to be a bit ,well as i am, I know It is me that has it wrong, but for the life of me I cannot grasp the concept that 2minutes in one frame of reference =75yrs in another yet when viewed together only 2 minutes as elapsed, it is doing my box in. the more i think and reason the deeper in I get, the other thing is I can be a stubborn ass some times anyway again my apologies,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Since I cannot explain this phenomenon that is puzzling you, without revisiting textbooks and references, I know that I do not properly understand it myself. With luck one of the more erudite members will be forthcoming with a simple explanation that will convince you. For me, it's always made the most sense when I look at the maths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Since I cannot explain this phenomenon that is puzzling you, without revisiting textbooks and references, I know that I do not properly understand it myself. With luck one of the more erudite members will be forthcoming with a simple explanation that will convince you. For me, it's always made the most sense when I look at the maths.
    that is where i fall flat on my face,the maths, never got the time to study to the level needed, and my greek just sucks, thanks any way, I really did not mean to offend. I suppose the real problem is when I see something that does not fit my logic then I try to make it fit rather than change my logic! damn frames again !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    but for the life of me I cannot grasp the concept that 2minutes in one frame of reference =75yrs in another
    You,re comparing apples and pears here. Objektively a year is a year for everyone as the earth and the sun both are unicque even if there are similar planets and stars. But as a rose is not a rose (is a rose etc) one watch is not the other watch. Two watches can,t be at same time same place (in four dimensions two watches even can,t be at same place ever ; same place a second later is a different place then).

    seconds relate different to a year for different clocks and their frames of reference that,s the whole story.
    This has been shown with the Hafele keating experiment where two atomic clocks showed to run different corresponding to circumstances (as you know I assume).

    Regarding days, relating time to night day cycle ; allthough objektively a year is a year as the sun is the sun and the earth is the earth subjektively it is not.
    If you would travel round the world in a day from east to west, strictly for you as an observer you would experience no time at all, you could part at sunset and whitness that constantly during the travel or at sundawn and constantly whitness a sundawn, you could pick you're choice at a travelling agency.

    If you travel west to east in same time you experience two days. But you're watch will hardly show a difference. This shows that objektively time can be the same for everyone and at same time subjektively different.

    Objektively we use the word time/day as a relation between the earth and the sun independant of our own travelling speed or direction and in the subjektive sence we directly relate ourself individually to the sun : constantly seeing a sunset time subjektively stands still. One could theoretically travel that way a whole life long, grow a beard and never withness a sundawn or a night. Objektive idea is when not moving or not specific east or west. If you now that you are travelling you also can constantly imagine not to travel and use the word time relative for that situation. Having an objektive idea of night - day (hence time, the word time was used long before there where clocks) and a subjektive idea. Someone who has only objektive idea (or only takes objektive ideas serious) apparently never travels. Someone who travels without awareness of travelling speed and direktion would have no awareness of the objektive idea or not take it serious.

    But as you compare apples and pears in fact the idea of time-dilletion as different clocks are different (with a set of four identic chairs you also have four different chairs) does the same. Allthough the clocks are similar they are not identic. assuming they are identic you assume the seconds are identic hence time must go slower or faster. Such a generic use of the word time is based on nothing ; methafysics or popular fysics. It just sounds interesting and does well in hollywood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    ok, I have done that when flying, watch a sunrise take 4hrs. That is a perception thing the day seems to stand still even thought it is progressing. I am lost at the point that, if I where to travel at C for a short time every thing will move forward in years to my minutes, although while i was working today I came up with the following:

    think of time as air, as you move it compresses in front of you and de-compresses in your wake, so you move through the air with no real awareness that it is there. if you treat time as a gaseous substance and not a single line ,then passing through it causes compression and de compression in the same manner , since I am the moving object I do not perceive it presence unless I see it on an object adjacent to me,(faster slower etc.) the faster I move the greater the compression without me being aware of the compression unless I see it on an adjacent object.

    Am I getting closer ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    ok, I have done that when flying, watch a sunrise take 4hrs. That is a perception thing the day seems to stand still even though it is progressing.
    It is perception maybe but not illusion as that it only seems to take longer. You really had a longer day that day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    I'm telling you guys, It's just a team of bullies that tries to convince you that time is 2 min in one frame and 75 min in the other. As compared to the other stup. frame, the other will be moving, which is the whole stup. err. with special relativity. See, it didn't prove none, because it had all the attitude in the world, but it still ain't right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    But what is shown is that clocks after a planeflight do show to be different.

    But as I explained they are different clocks like theacup of a certain model can be identical but different and twins just the same. Because the clocks are different it is this difference that one can try find reasons for. But to make general remarks about time as if that exist in a general way is not necessary.

    It,s my opinion that the difference for the clocks has nothing to do with speed on itself.
    without direction involved. To maintain a speed against gravity needs energy according to the gravityfield that tends to slow down. You would need a counter acceleration then to compensate gravity. Hence energyuse and hence (ecquivalence principle) the referenceframe deforms, different dimensions start to relate different. Even a normal pendulum or metronome slows down in such a case as if there is added weight to it.

    That,s not dependant from which perspective you look but based on comparing.

    Someone travelling with the pendulum sees that difference just as well as someone who would not travel if he could see different pendulums to compare which i practical difficult but principle not as you can see a church clock for instance from a riding train you can constantly watch outside the frame of reference just fine.

    If the train accelerates on comparison you would see the clock at the church go faster then you,re own clock but it,s rather dumb to not understand that that clock is not speeding up but it,s you,re own clock (and energyconsumtion for acceleration) that slows you and you,re clock down. Thinking that the clock of the church would speed up because you - accidentally - drive by in a train is ridiculous. It speeds up relative as how the rhytm relates to the clock at the train.

    As mentioned a constant speed against a gravity field implies the use of energy and the higher the speed maintained the higher the use of energy the more a clock will slow down as the energy sorta deforms spacetime, the relations inside a referenceframe.

    The planes in the hafele keating experiment fly at constant heigth.

    Imagine you,re with a bike on a huge trampoline. When there is nothing on it it is flat as a billardtable and horizontal. But as you step on it it deforms. You,re weight would make a ditch. Now try to move forward cycling. the trampoline in front of runs upward. To move a straight horizontal line is like climbing a mountain. You don't go up but as for the energy needed it,s very similar and to maintain a constant horizontal speed does take energy.

    This is where the deformation comes in. If you cycle the sheet you,re weigth as well as the energy you put in deforms the trampoline. As long as you stand still it is deformed but you,re not deforming it dynamically it,s static, no energy needed.

    But moving at constant speed the heiger the weigth and/or the higher the constant speed you try to maintain the more energy you need per second to deform the trampoline.

    A plane flying horizontal uses a part of it,s energy also to keep hight and thereby deforming it,s spacetime. Without an upward energy it would follow a different path and not reach the airport.

    Put an extra clock in the plane it has extra load for the engine. Hence the clock will use energy just like a passenger or other cargo. Ecquivalence principle means that it will take an amount of energy ecquivalent to it,s mass to keep it at constant heigth from one airport to another.

    Just as when on the trampoline you would put a clock on the bike you need some extra energy.

    A boat in water it is the same idea. it seems a horizontal line but dynamic it has to climb constantly against a wall off water. You can even see this in how the propeller directs it energy and how the boat lies flat static but the faster the speed the more the point goes up. Hence the propeller rotates to an angle with the horizontal watersurface thus the direction of it,s energy is also upward allthough the boat follows a horizontal line. It looses energy for forward horizontal motion that way and the faster it goes the bigger the upward component needed to deform the water.

    To gain speed more it takes more energy that way as the horizontal component (of the energy) decreases relative to the vertical component.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    I'm telling you guys, It's just a team of bullies that tries to convince you that time is 2 min in one frame and 75 min in the other. As compared to the other stup. frame, the other will be moving, which is the whole stup. err. with special relativity. See, it didn't prove none, because it had all the attitude in the world, but it still ain't right.
    so you're opinion is travelling at light speed will not mean you come home to your family all aged and wrinkled ,because you have been away for a week travelling at

    you see my problem is separating what happens from perception like if I look at a white building in a yellow light the building looks yellow, but it is white regardless of what I see, I want to know what happened in fact, not what appeared or seemed to have happened, my original question was why when a particle is flung round a tube at light speed does it not just disappear and reappear after the time that as dilated as elapsed? because at some point the time has to equalise, doesn't it ? even if you consider the to events as occurring in different frames, both frames exist in another frame which is constant for both .isn't there? it seems logical to me that there is some point of reference that all things can be measured by which will demonstrate what happened ,not what happened relative to me looking west or standing on a boat or anything else , just this object hit 300,000,000m/s and I stood still and watched for two minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    It,s my opinion that the difference for the clocks has nothing to do with speed on itself.
    without direction involved. To maintain a speed against gravity needs energy according to the gravityfield that tends to slow down. You would need a counter acceleration then to compensate gravity. Hence energyuse and hence (ecquivalence principle) the referenceframe deforms, different dimensions start to relate different. Even a normal pendulum or metronome slows down in such a case as if there is added weight to it.

    That,s not dependant from which perspective you look but based on comparing.
    so, you agree that the experiment was incomplete and the conclusions drawn where based on to flimsy a result? I would be interested to see what happens with a north /south and south/north flight. I was thinking about this particular experiment and the space station, I assume there is a clock on the space station and as far as I know it is in stationary orbit ,so it is travelling at 10,000klm/h give or take, how much time does it gain or lose compared to a clock synchronised to it on earth ? I ask because if a clock on a plane lost X amount of nanoseconds at 900klm/h and that is speed induced time dilation then the spacestation should in effect, now be a day or two in front of the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Well the result was clear but I don,t describe it on the speed on itself.

    It,s just not a really linear motion that would assume the clock would follow that flightpath naturally. Suppose it would fly inside the plane and suddenly a shuter underneath it opens up. Rgeardless of slowing down by airresistance it still would loose heigth without upward energy. That energy corresponds with an upward acceleration needed to compensate downward acceleration (g).

    So upward energy is needed constantly during the flight. By the mechanics of the engine and plane it sort of "flows" from oil to the clock. The clock sort a shows that use of energy.

    So in my opinion it is not spacetime nicely curved round the earth and the plane following that curve thus moves nicely recta-linear and constant (so it must be the speed). The plane (and the clock as part of it) needs energy to deform spacetime (to stay in that terminology).

    But the speed is relevant in the difference between east west and west east.

    Relative to the earths surface the distance may seem the same but due to drag of atmosphere relative to atmosphere there is a difference.

    Like with a maelstrom in water a boat going round the center seen from the center for a full round the distance is the same in both directions. Bur relative to the water (the medium) it is not. Moving against the rotation the travelled distance is longer.

    So more deformation and energy needed and hence the clocks show the difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    so you're opinion is travelling at light speed will not mean you come home to your family all aged and wrinkled ,because you have been away for a week travelling at
    (next word is a speed)

    Have you read special relativity? It's based on the fact that lightspeed is constant in both the train and the train station, so they imagine a lamp on the train. That's why the scientists believe that time is slower on the train, since the trains light moves a longer distance seen by us then by the train passengers. but if the train passengers look back, they experience the same thing

    That's why those scientists that say that are kinda lying to you.

    If you ask me, it's definitely not a misstake, no one would've shot up a space shuttle to make a misstake like that and find that it is so. It's just a bunch of bullies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    so, you agree that the experiment was incomplete and the conclusions drawn where based on to flimsy a result? I would be interested to see what happens with a north /south and south/north flight. I was thinking about this particular experiment and the space station, I assume there is a clock on the space station and as far as I know it is in stationary orbit ,so it is travelling at 10,000klm/h give or take, how much time does it gain or lose compared to a clock synchronised to it on earth ? I ask because if a clock on a plane lost X amount of nanoseconds at 900klm/h and that is speed induced time dilation then the spacestation should in effect, now be a day or two in front of the world.
    Just a quick search turns up that astronauts loose approximately 0.007 seconds after a stint up on the space station. Also, GPS satelites have to make slight adjustments to their atomic clocks to stay in sync with the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Have you read special relativity? It's based on the fact that lightspeed is constant in both the train and the train station, so they imagine a lamp on the train. That's why the scientists believe that time is slower on the train, since the trains light moves a longer distance seen by us then by the train passengers. but if the train passengers look back, they experience the same thing
    This is incoherent, what are you trying to argue. It's based on the fact that if I were running towards a light source, I would measure the light relative to me as c despite the fact that usually you would intuitively expect to measure the speed of the light relative to you to be faster than c, but you don't. Likewise if you run away from a light source, you will always measure the speed of light as c. Time dilation explains why this happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    That's why those scientists that say that are kinda lying to you.

    If you ask me, it's definitely not a misstake, no one would've shot up a space shuttle to make a misstake like that and find that it is so. It's just a bunch of bullies.
    The Hafele Keating experiment didn't just show time dilation occurs, it also measured the an amount consistent with the theoretic expectation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    In a frame of reference at rest with respect to the center of the earth, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward, in the direction of the Earth's rotation, is moving faster than a clock that remains on the ground, while the clock aboard the plane moving westward, against the Earth's rotation, is moving slower.
    This is a quote from wikipedia and it is interesting to read.

    It uses a referenceframe "at rest with the center of the earth". None of these planes or clocks have a speed relative to the center of the earth. All three clocks are at more or less constant distance to that center and only to a point an angle speed (or rotation) is not defined.

    So the referenceframe must be at rest to a line not a point. Which line that is here becomes clear from the term "earths rotation". Rotation doesn,t exist without an angle speed. There is no such thing as the earths rotation on itself. You need a line of reference.

    Offcourse that line of reference here is the line earth- sun ; a particular line. So the frame of reference is at rest to that -particular - line.

    For instance earths rotation relative to the moon (line earth - moon) is not 24 hours but about 27 days. Rotational speed of something on itself is meaningless.
    Purely related to earth the clock on the ground would stand still, no peripheral speed whatsoever (if earth would be solid which it isn,t of course).

    The math can have that line of reference implied but in the interpretation it is never mentioned. I guess this is general mistake in interpreting as you read it all the time : point of reference as "a point of perspective" which makes it much to subjektive hence the confusement of subjektive and objektive maybe ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    with the speed of light, it takes light a longer time to reach seen on anyone else then yourself.

    Is that a good reason for you to call yourself god, and say "the earth is flat?"

    It's like you are saying "sorry chap, I went away, you are now one second older then me, you are going to die pre-early now, good bye old chap... I KNOW SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS RIGHT!" And he's like "oh, no... I thought I was still as compared to you, I didn't see you move there, but I'm happy for you, after all, matters consciousness is destroyed when I get nit so I guess you're right I KNOW WHEN I DIE ALL IS THE COLOR BLACK!"

    But I'm glad your in lights way, I like you like that, SPREADING IN ALL DIRECTIONS!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    with the speed of light, it takes light a longer time to reach seen on anyone else then yourself.

    Is that a good reason for you to call yourself god, and say "the earth is flat?"

    It's like you are saying "sorry chap, I went away, you are now one second older then me, you are going to die pre-early now, good bye old chap... I KNOW SPECIAL RELATIVITY IS RIGHT!" And he's like "oh, no... I thought I was still as compared to you, I didn't see you move there, but I'm happy for you, after all, matters consciousness is destroyed when I get nit so I guess you're right I KNOW WHEN I DIE ALL IS THE COLOR BLACK!"

    But I'm glad your in lights way, I like you like that, SPREADING IN ALL DIRECTIONS!
    Clearly, I was using myself as a generic example of the relationship any moving person or object would have with the light. Have problems comprehending analogies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    so you're opinion is travelling at light speed will not mean you come home to your family all aged and wrinkled ,because you have been away for a week travelling at
    (next word is a speed)

    Have you read special relativity? It's based on the fact that lightspeed is constant in both the train and the train station, so they imagine a lamp on the train. That's why the scientists believe that time is slower on the train, since the trains light moves a longer distance seen by us then by the train passengers. but if the train passengers look back, they experience the same thing

    That's why those scientists that say that are kinda lying to you.

    If you ask me, it's definitely not a misstake, no one would've shot up a space shuttle to make a misstake like that and find that it is so. It's just a bunch of bullies.
    I have read special relativity, and I understand the perception of increasing and decreasing speed relative to me, I also understand that the peripheral speed of the earth means that relative to some other point(or line or view) i am travelling at 10,000+/- 100 dependent to my direction of travel, but that is perspective , i may appear to be travelling slower or faster but I am actually travelling at 100 on an object that is moving at 10,000. that is the fact, regardless of the perception.
    every thing exists and happens within one frame, each event has it's own frame determined by the observer, I would think that we need to measure everything form a constant reference to get consistent results. just a thought ,probably wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    I seem to have started WWIII, but after reading the posts here and various other articles and so on I have decided that my original point is valid, that is a photon flung round a tube at near to C then the photon should have disappeared for 75+ years(dependent on length of time accelerated). the best 'easy to understand' reference to time dilation is a young boy climbs onto a bike and travels around his village at light speed, his brother sits on a bench and waits his turn, two minutes later the boy on the bike turns up and meets his 75 year old brother. now the photon is the boy on the bike ,we the boy on the seat, the boy on the seat didn't see his brother for75years the boy on the bike didn't see his brother for two minutes, that makes sense as far as agreeing with the theory. but it fails when you witness the 'big bang' experiment. the photon should have travelled though 2 minutes in its frame and 75 years in the observers, but it didn't and I don't get it , we cannot change the rules just to justify one event, so until i find an acceptable answer that makes sense and that doesn't involve slow clocks etc I will hold that something is wrong in the state of rome
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    I will hold that something is wrong in the state of rome
    Yes. The thing that is wrong is your comprehension.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by justatradie1
    I will hold that something is wrong in the state of rome
    Yes. The thing that is wrong is your comprehension.
    you are probably right there, but I have to reconcile, what appears to be the same thing giving different results, and that is tricky.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Maybe you are looking at it wrong. Speed doesn't change time; speed IS time.
    The faster an object of mass (including light) travels in relation to another object, the slower time for that mass will pass. Literally if there were no movement in the universe there would be NO time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    It depends what you (and they) meassure time by (literally what is meant with the word time).
    The example of the two brothers ; where the brother on the bike would start cycling around the church of their village on the morning of 18 july 2010 at whatever speed while the other sits on a bench watching. When the brother on the bike stops cycling and walks to his brother at the end of that same day it all happened during that day. Both have seen the sun come up and after the trip they see the sun go down again all on the same day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    Maybe you are looking at it wrong. Speed doesn't change time; speed IS time.
    The faster an object of mass (including light) travels in relation to another object, the slower time for that mass will pass. Literally if there were no movement in the universe there would be NO time.
    ahh now that is where I started, but as explained by the brains of the world, time dilation occurs for the moving object and not the other, now I accept that, that is the case if the great thinkers say it is so,but where I struggle is that it is reasonable to expect that the same rules apply to all things and frames of reference.
    so if the example I quoted above is true (two boys with a bike) then with the same frames of reference the LHC should have the same result, that is that for the photon x amount of time should have elapsed for the short time the observers watched.
    now if it is right that X years elapsed, even if the photon only experienced a couple of minutes elapsed, then the observers should have experienced x years, both parties cannot have experienced a couple of minutes if a dilation occurred.
    so where did the time go ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    21
    Sigh
    You can't tell a child that the sun doesn't REALLY move across the sky
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork
    Sigh
    You can't tell a child that the sun doesn't REALLY move across the sky
    now you're close to what I am talking about ,the difference between what appears to happen and what actually happens, the sun appears to move across the sky but in fact we move around our own axis creating the illusion of the sun moving, but there is movement and it is actual regardless of perception now correlate that to the LHC and show me where the time went, because if the photon had perception it wouldn't have looked up at a load of scientists looking down and said wow you lot aged 70yrs and I only travelled 2 minutes because if that happened then that time must have elapsed and the scientists had only aged the same two minutes the photon had. so where is the time dilation?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    how would you observe that photon/kid on bike, when after 1 second it is 300 000 km ahead of you?
    you would need need a faster than light camera to do so, don't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Megadork View Post
    Sigh
    You can't tell a child that the sun doesn't REALLY move across the sky
    Why not? That's what I was told as a child...
    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
  •