Reaper79

I watched a "How the Universe works" documentary on gravity, Michio Kaku was one of the main speakers, and while watching a CGI clip on matter being attracted to other matter seemingly by the mass content. I had a wild notion... I dismissed it at first but since no one really knows what gravity is I'll throw this in for some discussion and make of it what you will. Rather than gravity "sucking" things down, what if gravity was "Pushing" things down. ... I imagined the 'shell' of the universe generating gravity inwards somehow, and like a flashlight casting a shadow but in all directions, since I assume the universe like every other stellar object out the universe is round, stars, planets, galaxies etc. The more massive an object, the more of a gravitational shadow it casts and objects are pushed into the space where the shadow is cast. This.... at the time seemed like a breakthrough because it would not only help explain why the universe is expanding (excluding BB Theory ) but also why it seems impossible to master. Basically I am taking the current theory of gravity and flipping it on it's head. If the skin or shell of the universe generates gravity inward as it expands outward. It might also have a note or two to play in the Higgs field song, since theorist say somehow somewhere the higgs field just switched on a few milliseconds after the expansion of the universe began. Granted it's probably not a great theory of gravity, but it's another idea that should be explored before dismissing it completely. After all, if at first you don't succeed, try something else.... or as the Great One might say, "madness is the definition of repeating the same actions and expecting different results" Think on it, meditate on it, throw it in the trash.

Time to Re-evaluate my perception of time (pun intended) Seriously though, thanks to all the posters who helped me on this thread, what seemed like mathematical wizardry at first is now a firm grip on relativity and even though it took me a while to get here, I wouldn't of gotten here without these people who take time out of their day to help others. So Thank you all, I consider this topic closed, but feel free to continue the discussion without me.

I take your point, Strange. But I would like an answer to my EDIT "If all three people remain the same age after the experiment, then no time travel or time dilation could of occurred " is this statement true or false? IF A + B + Train Driver, all = same age after the experiment is concluded. Then has anything really happened? PS: I know your going to beat me over the head with the math again *Smiles shyly* but if it's possible to limit your reply in the form of a thought experiment, I will yield to my betters and drop the argument. Thanks for being direct, I value all the comments left on this thread.

Thanks for the video, but that's not quite what I was asking, I'll attempt to lay down a scenario to illustrate where I am getting stuck ** The train is a massive object, and cannot move at 100% c The light reflected from the train can travel at 100% c The observer can measure light at a maximum of 100% c Observer A can watch the train depart at 100% c Observer B can watch the train arrive at 100% c The trains maximum velocity is 50% c (for arguments sake) ** which triplet has aged more when the train has completed its journey, Observer A, Observer B, or the Train driver? Or, When the train comes to a complete stop, do all the triplets remain identical in age? or has one of them dilated time to become younger or older than the other two? EDIT: I do understand the frame of reference concept, but I can't see it making a difference once all is said and done, once the train is stopped and the train driver shakes hands with observer B, my puny little mind can't conceive any extraordinary aging by any of the people involved. why should the speed your traveling make you age faster or slower than anyone else? If all three people remain the same age after the experiment, then no time travel or time dilation could of occurred

A lot of reading since my last post, ** Observer(A) - Train - Train Image/frame - Distance to cover - Observer(B) ** while the train cannot possibly move at c, the trains image or frame can. So the distance between the train and it's frame gradually increases/decreases over distance covered. depending on whether or not the train is moving toward or away from the point of observation. So to the observers witness a trick of the eye, since our eyes / instruments can only measure at a maximum of .999% /c ? an illusion rather than actually dilation of time. have I got this right? or do I need further instruction?

Thanks Janus, You've given me a lot to think about Firstly, thanks for the insights. When I say "at the same time" I am describing Party A and Party B, not the universal "at the same time", I assume that the further the distance between two or more objects the less accurate the "same time" is. Secondly I would be considered quite mad to assume I am correct and the world of scientific leaders are incorrect, but I have a bug in my brain that I can't squash, and no matter how many different ways things are described or explained to me, I can't seem to evict this niggling creature from my mind. I guess the only real way to satisfy my mind would be for someone to time travel back to before I wrote this post and tell me to stop writing it. Time Travel, Time dilation and causal relativity seem to me as barmy as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm, I can't believe what the math says nor can I believe anything has been tested or proven either for or against the theory with satisfactory results. So for me to let go of my preconceived ideas, and adopt a new thought framework to base opinions on, I will need to watch someone bend space so much they can travel into the past to pat themselves on the back as they do so. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not Copernicus. all I'm saying is, the science seems to say one thing is possible, but no one, ever has had a reported successful case. Meanwhile anyone (Including me) who attempts to suggest we may be barking up the wrong tree on this one is told to abandon their beliefs and join the herd on the greener side of the fence. I REALLY want to do that, but I am stuck on this Time Travel thing, which relativity doesn't forbid. I am reminded of a limerick I heard once, There once was a lady named Bright, who could travel much faster than Light. She left one day in a Relative way, and came back the Previous Night. We can throw all the science in the world at that poem, but I would still have to call SullBhit on that. (apologies for the filter evasion) and that's why I can't get my head around this thing. Not because I just don't want to, but because its as ridiculous as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm. I hope, while making my feelings clear, and my sense of logic apparent, I have not offended anyone. If I have, I apologize wholeheartedly. My problem is not that the math..or science can prove that it's possible and can at least potentially become reality at some point, my issue is that we (the human race) allowed ourselves to go down this particular rabbit hole in the first place.

it seems to me, that if the velocity of the plane without outside influences is 1000 km/h, then it stands to reason, with all things considered the velocity of the plane is equal to 1000 km/h +/- Planet Rotation, +/- windspeed. From a N/S perspective the earth is rotating west, which would lower your total land speed, because the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. however air speed will not effected since the north pole and the equator are an equal distance apart from any two points, even though the turn of the earth will cause you to travel more distance than following a line of longitude. What angle is the wind striking your plane? are you being pushed forward or pulled back? when you reach the equator and turn westward, the earths rotation will increase your land speed distance, but you will still be traveling at 1000 km/h in relation to your starting position since the turn of the earth has no correlation with bodies not attached to it, but obviously gravity will have an impact on the calculations. If your question is how much does the turn of the earth effect the distance traveled from NPa to EQb, and respectively from EQx to EQy while traveling in an aircraft at 1000 km/h, 1000 / ((NPa + EQb) - (Earth Rotation -/+ wind speed)) 1000 * ((EQx + EQy) + (Earth Rotation -/+ Wind Speed)) I'm not 100% on the math, but I think it should look something like that.... others will clarify

Sorry to dig up a VERY old thread, but I have not been able to resolve this principal in my minds eye, and it took some effort to find this thread, so please don't punish me too much for digging it up again. Delta1212 asked the last question, when exactly is the same moment? for arguments sake, lets sync 2 clockwork watches to 12 noon on planet earth, now lets increase the distance between them by 1 mile, I get in my car and drive to the next town. the watches are still synced. lets travel 1000 miles around the globe. aside from global time zones, the watches are still reading 12 noon at the same time. Send one watch to mars by transporter beam or other instant delivery device, the watches are still synced and read 12 noon at the same time, so the clarification I am looking for is, why is it only when we calculate time, that time distortions occur? a) If my twin went out of town for 2 days and returned, we would still be the same age, but if he leaves at the speed of light or faster suddenly I am much older than he is? the speed of travel does not effect the ageing process.(unless from a great height .... straight down) If he left for 2 days at the speed of light and returned we both would of aged 2 days regardless of the speed traveled.by either of us. b) If there are two atomic clocks, one on Earth, and the other on the ISS (International Space Station) I have heard people say there is a minuscule difference between the clocks even at short range, but GPS satellites are designed to account for latency to provide 1m2 accuracy. So can't it be argued that the minute difference in readings between two atomic clocks is caused by latency, and if the latency was calculated correctly there would be no difference in timings at all. Is this because our observations are limited to the speed at which we can make observations (Light speed) and their is some mathematical wizardry that allows us to predict outside the realm of reality? I know people will say Einstein this and that, but has anyone ever considered The Great One may have goofed just a little, the math is undoubtedly solid, but the theory is still giving me nightmares, how it is possible we live in a universe where we can change the outcome of events before the events even begin......... Please help me lol

Perhaps there is something to that, who knows. I just find it hard to accept that time is governed by light, certainly our observations are, but for something to age faster than it's counterpart just because it's traveling through space faster than its counterpart seems like it shouldn't be possible. But there it is, math doesn't lie. You might think I'm being argumentative here and I suppose I am to an extent, but what if.... I could shine a great big light toward Mars, and then instantly teleport to the surface of Mars, and watch the light reach my eyes while I stand on the surface. have I just time traveled? Just because I travel faster than light instantaneously doesn't mean time is measured any differently from Earth or Mars, because if the observer isn't traveling 186,000 Mps then no dilation can occur, the trip was instant and through "hyperspace" or something. Kind of like throwing a football and then catching it yourself, but without physically moving. (gosh I sound like a lunatic!! ) Thanks Vince

Ok I think I get this now, your explanation is perfect for a layman like myself to understand, although admittedly I am still a bit foggy on the math, I will take your good word for its truth. We (you) know all the math now, and the experiments and testing have proven SR to be a very complicated and wonderful thing, the reason I asked the question to begin with was to try and understand what Einstein visualized in his minds eye the day he had his eureka moment on the train, because at that point in time, none of the testing had been done and no experiments had been performed, in fact iirc he had to wait for a total solar eclipse to get proof positive that space can bend and light doesn't travel in straight lines around massive objects. He truly had a remarkable mind to make that conclusion without any previous information, and I'm a little closer to understand it all. Thanks again for your help and patients. Vince.

Thanks Janus, that did clarify some of my question, but just like in school, I couldn't figure out the math of "when the train leaves the station" questions for love nor money. Just above your post, I made a simplified version of my original question, If you wouldn't mind taking a look and popping in a quick response, and if possible leave out the math, and try to describe what you think you would observe as the train passenger. Thanks.

I'm having a hard time explaining my meaning, the 3 clocks disagreed with each other, but I'm not speaking about mechanical devices in this instance. I will attempt a variation on the original thought experiment and see if I can make my point a little clearer, but I think it will raise more questions than answers, but here we go anyways. Scenario B: I set my watch to the clock tower at the train station.It's 1 pm right now and the train is about to leave. Before I board the train I set a camera focused on the clock tower, and attach a device that will transmit the feed in real time to my cabin on the train.( regardless of time dilation or mechanical difficulties, the feed to the monitor in my cabin will be always accurate.) The train begins to move off, and I look out my window at the clock tower, in just a second, we are traveling at 99% the speed of light, time appears to slow down or stop. The hands on the clock tower have stopped moving, and they are in full view for the duration of the experiment. after 5 minutes, the clock tower still reads 1 pm. The monitor in my cabin which has a live feed to the clock tower reads 1:05 pm, my watch reads 1:05 pm. The train suddenly comes to a complete stop. Do I A = remain 5 minutes in the future or Do I B = Observe the light from the clock tower catch up to me at a very high rate and see with my own eyes the clock tower hands fast forward to 1:05 pm just like my watch and the live feed in my cabin? I guess that's as simple as I can make the question, I will of course accept a "Do I C:" scenario. My imagination is turning tricks, trying to get my head around this concept. PS: Thanks for not treating my like an idiot, I'm not educated in Special Relativity but it does intrigue me. Vince

Thanks for the replies, This Documentary explained it far better than I did it seems, but never mind I'll try to make me case again. I don't know what you mean by "frame", I think your measuring time in two places once at the clock tower and again in the train carriage, I hope I picked that up correctly. My point would be that time can't be divided or separated by distance or speed. Much like the c variable mentioned above as the constant speed of light,I would say on the same note that t=time enjoys the same constant. We can bend it, stretch it, compress it, but when we are finished it returns to its natural state...... or something like that. It's difficult to explain my thoughts I know massive objects can't actually travel at 100% the speed of light, but this started out as a thought experiment and I was curious to know if Einstein ever considered the train suddenly and completely stopping while observing this time dilation. Would time rush up to meet him from the clock tower or would the world be a few minutes older than him. I know the clock on the train would be x minutes ahead on the clock tower back at the station, but as soon as time or the light from the clock caught up with the train, both should be in perfect sync again? should they not?

Regarding the OP I often had similar musings, physicists says, gravity sucks, a nice turn of phrase. But I would lie awake wondering if gravity was pushing or pulling me, if space itself could somehow determine the effect of gravity depending on how massive the object was, and if *space* was pushing us down or if the Earth was pulling us down. It's an interesting enough concept, but I think all the thinking has been done on this topic already.

Would oil separate itself from water in in a bottle while in zero G?