jajrussel

I was recently reading the definition of the metric unit of force. I have read it before, but this time made the mistake of thinking about it, and realized I don't remember how it was determined.

The Doppler Effect, does that apply equally to my twin? As in, if I see red, he sees red? If I see blue he sees blue? I have forgotten the possible combinations,so I removed the question about direction.

In the thought experiments relativity says that my twin will age differently if he is traveling at eighty seven percent of the speed of light relative to me among other things. If, when he is moving at eighty seven percent of the speed of light, I can measure his vehicle, length,speed, etc. Then I assume he can measure things that pertain to me. My assumption is that he will view me as moving at eighty seven percent of the speed if light. His measurements might mirror my own. Is this asumtion right? Also let's say that before the vast difference in velocity we had agreed to communicate on a specific frequency, so that we can compare our measurements. We set the frequency in our radio. When I measure his speed as eighty seven percent of the speed of light I call him on the radio to confirm my measure. Is that frequency still going to work?

If you have two large gravitational masses some distance apart. Then another smaller mass passes through the middle of that distance is there any canceling out of force acting on the smaller mass? You can possibly toss out the word force, and substitute a relative term though I am not sure what that would be. Maybe something like intersecting space time curves, and the effect on the smaller mass.

I believe I understand relative mass. Should I apply the same understanding to the Rockets density? In a sense relative density? An atom is measured small. There are parts of it that that do not move so fast. There are parts that have relativistic velocities. If we compare the two dimensionally as an observer. What would happen to that observation if we could slow the parts moving at relativistic speeds? If my understanding is correct anyone on the rocket would notice no change in density. This seems to imply that the effects of relativity would only apply to an observer. With the atom it seems that we have interacting forces between objects that seemingly exist within a volume of space that should very rapidly move from one extreme to the other if the space were fluid. I would expect one to rip the other apart, but they don't. I am probably not making any sense here. What makes the system stable?

I have an app that says that a rocket that is ten meters in length that is moving at 200000 k/s when viewed from Earth will be roughly 7.5 meters in length. My understanding is that it's mass would increase because of it's velocity. Is this correct? It is also measured smaller, so it would seem logical to assume that any densities associated to the ship would also increase. Is this correct?

Todays another day and I have had time to think. I am going to accept the fact that people can age at different rates. My ammo wasn't very high quality to begin with, and now I've pretty much used it all. I have also realized that there are some rules of physics that I wasn't aware of, such as the intermingling of different time frames. To the moderators, I am still going to have to ask questions. Please don't assume that a question past this point is my way of trying to bring a dead horse back to life. I actually understand the concept of time dilation, so switching sides shouldn't be that difficult for me. If there is a way to put this thread to bed, please do. Thanks. And Janus, thanks for your patience.

Thank you and everyone else who has replied? I have some more math to learn and two more questions. Does the test increase the Radio isotopes mass, sufficiently, in a manner simular to gravity? Is time the clock, or a mathematical coordinate of position? One more thing, it is my inability to understand that causes me to balk. It is like being told it is okay to take a step yet all I see to step onto is empty space. I'm sorry if it seems like anything more. I have realized that the second question may seem odd. I've asked it because it seems to me that if space can change shape, and I have two or more clocks each effected by the system they exist in each could identify a coordinate position that is the same mathematically, yet not occupy the same space. This is just a thought that occurred to me, and for now this is the best I can explain the thought. This would seem to lead to another question. Would they share a connection that would appear to be an instantaneous effect across distance? This is also expressed the best I can explain.

Does a clock at high altitude feel the same force as a clock at sea legal? Using the inverse square is that what the numbers say? Doesn't the lower clock run slower because being closer to a much more massive system the smaller system that is the clock has to work harder to overcome the forces acting on it? Okay, maybe the last question sounds silly. What I mean is that the lower clock has greater mass, it components should require more energy to move. It shouldn't matter if we are taking about a spring, a gear, or what ever. Is this thought wrong?

Where does the potential come from? I am not trying to be difficult here. I have been trying to understand why one person should age differently than another for a long time. It is become like religion, there is too much magic in it. I tried to answer each section of your statement. I am not sure if I did it in the proper method. If I did it wrong I am sorry. Apparently I did it wrong. (Some of my response ended up within your quote. )

I have come to the realization that I have been thinking in my position on the train, that my observation of the apple, or ball, is not only accurate, but the most real. It is not. The relative position, or the observer on the dock has the more real view. On the train my calculation of time and distance is wrong, well the answer is, because the distance is wrong. If my perception of distance is wrong then my perception is the least accurate of the two positions. I have neglected to account for the fact that time is more than an up and down measure. Relativity is about motion. On the train I haven't accounted for all of the apples motion. The apple is not only going up and down it is going side to side, and it is following a curve. If on the train I account for this then my answer agrees with the observers. At this point if I assume that there is some kind of time warp between me and the observer and make another adjustment for this warp spoken of, our answers will no longer agree. It seems to me that this warping is an illusion of observation. When you transit from special relativity to general relativity there is a slight warping of motion, but that is due to a change in velocity. I have to toss the apple up faster than the downward acceleration of gravity. This changes the shape of the curved path the apple is following. If we move the train station to the moon most of the numbers change. It will take longer for the apple to go up, and come down. I have to toss the apple more softly so that it only rises one meter. The total distance of the cycle increases. Every thing else would seem to be the same. Do we adjust our watches for the different gravitational acceleration, or does this happen automatically?

Yes, thank you. People often talk of space and time, or spacetime as if it is energy, or has energy. They will say something like, (if time didn't exist then this wouldn't happen, or that couldn't happen). Time is not a energy, or a force. It causes no effects. Space is not a energy, or a force. It causes no effects. Put the two together. Where does this force that warps come from? Where, and from what is the interaction? I am not an expert on special relativety, but it seems to explain why different observers record deferent time results for occurring events. If Linda appears to me to be standing still, when she is actually moving at three miles per hour. Special relativity may supply a reason for my observation, but it doesn't change the event in any way, nor does it change the value of our different observations. If I say hi, and toss her an apple, I don't have to allow for anything. I'm going to toss the apple straight to her, and she will see the apple coming straight to her, and catch it. (My thinking here came from a video I watched involving a fence,moving walkways, and relativity). Maybe I missed something and need to watch it again, because from my way of thinking our interaction is not affected by either of our observations. The light clock on a moving train explanation? I think it was 6.67ns for a complete cycle between mirrors set a metre apart. One observer sees the photon as having to move further between cycles. When I picture this, and I have seen a similar video except they used space ships. It all seemed to make sense until I thought about the trains momentum, and its effect on the photon, like me sitting on the train along side the clock tossing an apple in the air and catching it. I don't have to toss the apple forward in order to catch it. Straight up works. It might get a little tricky tossing the apple to the other observer, because from my point of view he's the one moving. What I am getting at is that the actual event isn't changing. A complete cycle is still two metres. Now, if I actually had to toss the apple forward in order to catch it, I would be wondering why is my clock working, because I should run out of mirror if I have to toss the apple forward in order to catch it. There is a lot of pretend that goes on sometimes in these explanations, and what if situations. The observer watches a photon bounce at an angle, or what if we are traveling at c, or near c? Pretending makes for a good story, but it doesn't always make for a truth. Could be I am just being hard headed. I've read that time stands still at c. It gets confusing because I've also read that if I am moving at c, well my clock just keeps on ticking normally, and if I could travel at c, well I am going for the clock just keeps on ticking normally, because the alternative doesn't seem to offer much of a future. I am a strong believer in mechanics, but also believe that relativity has its place. Can the photon in the light clock move two metres in a complete cycle, while at the same time move more than two metres in a complete cycle? Well yeah, I don't have to be with the other observer to believe that observation of more than two metres. The question is which observation is more relavent to me. Does this mean space/time is warped? Well, we have two different pretend observations, which are meant to explain relativity, and yes when you think it through it kind of makes sense, and maybe this is just an example of time dilation, but no it isn't. It actually is an example of time dilation, and I am willing to go with distance dilation, but not space, because the only thing said to have changed is the time between cycles, and how far the photon has moved which is a distance measurement, both differences are determined only by the photon.

I have been trying to visualize this. Maybe I am doing it wrong. I drew a square. Labeled each corner counter clockwise A,B,C,D. Then overlay this square on an x,y axis so that B an D are on the x axis. A,B, and C are observers D is a light that flashes. The light flashes. A and C record a simultaneous event. B does not than. B is more distant from D. This does not seem to be time dilation. Now we do it again, accepting that time is invariant for each position the light flashes in one second intervals. B moves toward D. At some point all record a simultaneous flash/event. I do not expect D to have reached the y axis when this happens, but I do expect the distance from B to D to be the same as the distance A is from D, and C is from D when they record the simultaneous event. This does not seem to be time dilation. This is obviously a poor visualization. The truth is every time I make an adjustment in who is moving and who is not moving, or allow that everyone is moving. The only difference I can visualize between event recordings is the actual distance of the observer to the flashing light. I can do away with the box and nothing seems to change. The only thing that I do notice is that if I assume position A the other distant points don't seem to be moving around nearly as much as I am when I am moving, and when I am standing still the more distant points seem to be moving more slowly, and not nearly as far as the points closer to me, but this can not be time dilation, because they are distant, and everything about them should appear smaller to me. Apparently for the moment I can not think of a physical way to visualize time dilation. So for now I will sit this aside, and read some more.

I have a habit of making assumptions, but haven't we created a correlation between seconds and meters with c?

Okay, scratch the statement. I wish I had thought to try 1 when testing the method I saw, when I saw the pattern the program shows. I could have skipped some embarrassment. Well, for maybe a day. In my head the method would have said. r=1 1+1=2 so, P=2pi 1×1=1 so, A=1pi, or simply pi P>A, so statement is wrong. Time to bang my head on the steering wheel. If the method I am using is easy enough to see with out me having to put my foot in my mouth trying to explain it, can you see any instances where the method will not work? I am no longer testing the accuracy of the statement. I do need to work on my math. A couple more examples. r=6 6+6=12, so P=12pi 6×6=36, so A=36pi Or; r=12 12+12=24, so P=24pi 12×12=144, so A=144pi Thanks, by the way. PS: studiot, I am still trying to figure out your test method. Many, many years ago when I was in school I actually liked algebra. Unfortunately the class ended before I learned anything. The test looks simular to what the teacher was trying to get me to do, while I was trying to think of other magic ways to make it work. All I learned is that my methods always came up short. Schools have a habit of letting you take a whole year over, but simply taking a class over just because you liked it resulted in one of those if you want to succeed you need need to consider other options speeches. I am old enough now to say that other options is probably not the best choice to force on anyone, at any age. I will figure out what you have written, but the younger me, that still lives along with the older me looks at it and says okay, it seems to make sense, but it looks like it could be easier. Anyway thanks again.

Okay, thank you. The reason I asked the original question is that I downloaded a program where you enter r, and it gives answers in expressions of pi. At first I found this to be annoying, because it forced me to get out another calculator to finish. However, even on my favorite calculator it will do the same thing, but it has an S to D key which finishes the translation, so to speak, and assumes that I will apply the correct units. Which I would hope to remember to do. Though the output of the program was annoying to me it allowed me to see a pattern that I could use to replace my inability to remember the formulas for the perimeter and area of a circle. I was trying to figure out how to write it down without being too confusing in the explanation. Maybe, I am being too meticulous.

Thank you. I was trying to leave units out of the argument by not expressing units, well other than pi. Is the expression 12pi,or 144pi unacceptable as an answer when expressing perimeter or area? Actually these numbers might not be the best way to say what I am asking. I'll try this way. r equals 6 P equals 12pi A equals 36pi One more question since my keyboard does not supply the pi symbol do I need to imply multiplication as in 12×pi ?

If I we're to state that the perimeter of a circle is always equal to or less than its area? If the argument (equal to) only appears once would this take away from the accuracy of the statement?

I'm getting better? I do tend to worry about that kind of thing. I also worry about people getting an unchangeable impression due to my other stuff. My impression based on some of what I have read is that it is thought that there is a relationship between time and gravity. In a black hole time stops? So, I mentioned both in the original post. It is also said that gravity is acceleration. I didn't see a problem talking about both. Now I kind of have to in order to reply to Strange, but Strange is showing signs of wanting to get back to gravity, so I will answer Strange then move back to gravity. I am glad my thinking is getting better. I hate to disappoint, but I probably will. Anyway, thanks for the

Time is always local for the observer. This allows us to derive just how far away something is, such as a nearby star. Dilation occurs to a degree within the local frame. Distance in this case doesn't mean global. As the observer time is local. It doesn't matter what our velocity is. Our calculations do not change, the math stays the same. The degree of dilation stays the same. C is invariant because time is always local to the observer. Two or more different observers, observing under different circumstances make time dilation apparent. The appearance varys. All to limited degrees. This limit is set by the condition of the observer, because for the observer time is local. Conditions set that because of time dilation different observers should have different results, but always to within a local degree. This is because what we can observe is limited. This means that anything beyond what we can observe is speculation. Math suggest possibilities, not probabilities when we try to explore beyond what is possible. C invariant sets all observations local. Locally time dilation stays within the limits of observation.

Perhaps an old fashioned way of saying geodesic? I tried to post the following as a separate post, but it would not allow me to, so the following contains thoughts that pertain to other post in the thread. I kind of got lazy, and didn't want to quote a long post then figure it how to compose the thing. Sorry. It seems to me that when people start using geodesics as the reason something is following a certain path it alludes that no force is evolved. Then people start trying to get creative. The allusion is that it isn't gravity, so then what is actually happening if there is no pull. I read one assertion that it wasn't pull it was all push? Then there is the everything is flowing toward another dimension? Saying that space is warped when no one can define what is warped except to say it is space, and it's warped doesn't seem to help. There have been test done it isn't eather,or is it aether,I can never remember the spelling, and my spell checker tends to dumb up on this word, but it doesn't matter because it is disallowed. Gravity waves seems interesting, especially if the intersecting waves are said to be a form of energy field that can change density due to the intersecting waves that would force something to follow a geodesic, but then that wouldn't be space, but something that occupies space, still makes more sense than space that can't be defined warping, but still maybe just a little to creative. Maybe. Time dilation is real enough that different observers can get different results of the same event, but we tend to take it to dramatic possibilities. I do love a good Syfy book, well actually I tend to love the bad Syfy books also, but except for being aware of the possibilities what it actually does is explain why different observers get different results.

Thanks for the Web direct, I will eventually read it when the place where I work allows me some me time. But, doesn't this assume that a photons path is always straight,while disallowing that a photons relative mass might act like any other mass particle gravitationally. I know the assertion that a photons velocity is always c, but does it have to move through warped space in order to maintain the assertion?

I have books and I like to read, and I am always open to suggestion. I was specific about what I don't understand. Perhaps if you are specific about the lots of other things I don't understand that deal with the topic I might be more inlightened. Isn't the idea of warped space simply a way of visually describing what is happening as the moon orbits earth? Kind Of like the bowling ball on the blanket, except that it sounds way cooler. It's not like I am saying gravity pushes, I am saying gravity pulls, and that things like velocity, and direction have all to do with the effect. The pull is straight, but they can't just stop then go straight, so they do what they can. We generally call it an orbit. There is no either, there is nothing to warp. The only physical force acting on the two is gravity, and it is pulling straight between the center masses, except there is also the sun, and other planets, and I am sure a lot of other things, also pulling straight, and if not for the fact of different masses, and different directions, and the weakness of gravity they might actually just move in a straight line until they slammed into each other. Except for the fact that there is no straight line connection with the type of acceleration necessary to bring them together. Every single one of their paths would have to curve. It is still a pull thing, and has nothing to actually to do with warped space, except as a visualization.

What exactly is wrong with gravity pulling two objects together? Isn't it normal for this pulling action to be from center mass to center mass? Isn't a geodesic nothing more than the path both objects have to take because the physics of motion won't allow any other path? Time is always distorted when two, or more compared velocities differ, isn't it? It seems to me that we tend to measure time in a straight line as per our position, yet rarely are we or what we are measuring moving in a straight line. When the earth spins a person at the equator actually does move further through space than a person in New York. Still take 24 hours. It is perfectly normal. It is not time dilation because we don't view it as such. We are using a straight measure, and not caring about the curve, or difference in distance. Make the earth really, really big and we might reach a point where we actually have to care, but wouldn't that be because we would be so far apart that we would risk going back, or forward in time just going from New York, to Kenya, or from Kenya, to New York? The one thing I really don't understand is why my car would be bigger in one place than in another, unless it has something to do with that fact of how far away I am from the car when I measure it, compared to how how far we have moved when I finish measuring it? A moving car does look smaller when I am some distance from it, as does the distance it seems to be moving, but that is also normal. What would be weird would be if the car looked small, but the distance it is moving looked really big. Actually when I am following a moving car with my eyes it looks smaller than it does when I stop following it, and let it continue on. That last second the image is just distorted enough to make it seem bigger. It just seems to me that dilation, and distortion would only make a difference if you didn't allow for the difference of physical realities. Isn't that what we were doing before Einstein? It seems to me that the only real difference between Newton, and Einstein is that Newton didn't allow that distance might cause a delay. Einstein presented that nothing moves faster than light, not even gravity. Gravity didn't suddenly start behaving any differently with general relativity. He didn't actually reinvent gravity. Two objects in space are attracted to each other. When first viewed they may seem to be moving parallel to each other. If no other force interferes they will eventually get close, might even collide. Plot their different paths, eventually you will notice that their paths are curved. You might predict that if they are the only objects in the area their paths have always been curved, even if initially they seemed to be moving parallel to each other. The moon orbiting earth is nothing more than this taken to complexity. All it takes is gravity, and the physics of motion. Where exactly does warped space need to get involved. It seems to me that time distortion comes about, because we think of time like Newton's view of gravity. There is a problem with the way we think about it. It is assumed that if we are moving really, really fast time will show down maybe even stop, but no matter how fast, or slow we are moving we are going to measure time at the same rate, just like no matter how fast, or slow we are moving we are going to measure c to be the same. I don't see how we could expect c to be invariant without our measure of time also being invariant. The distorted way of viewing time is to think that if we could only live on Neptune, and somehow make Neptune keep pace with earth's orbit we would actually live longer than our twin on earth.

I read a question elsewhere, asking what is a photon, a particle or wave. I haven't read any of the answers yet, because a question came to mind. Why isn't a wave considered to be a property of a particle? Then an after thought. Why wouldn't a virtual particle then be considered to be a property of wave interactions?