NowThatWeKnow

You say a lot with a few words. It is becoming more clear to me why "gravitational potential" is used often. It seems the curvature of space is the key to clock speed and not just G forces that you feel. A merry-go-round warping space/time. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How about that apparent centrifugal force or maybe inertia force.

It could be 100 years or millions of years. Space is a harsh and life surviving would surprise me. It seems some share your view so you are not alone but I am a little more pessimistic. I am not sure why life would be in the center of a rock anyway. I would like to see NASA prepare a big rock with life in it and see what's left after reentry. They could put in a low Earth orbit so it could endure space for awhile and controlled retro rockets could bring it home in a safe location. A positive test would make many open their eyes.

Thanks moth, That's the kind of equation I can work with.l I did find "an accelerating dragster or space shuttle. Spinning objects such as merry-go-rounds and ferris wheels are subjected to gravitational time dilation as an effect of their angular spin." I feel much better about gravitational time dilation. My last question is how much will each additional artificial G force on earth (if location matters) slow a clock?

---- Quotes from the article: "remained cool enough during its violent ejection from the red planet and its fiery trip through our atmosphere 16 million years later to sustain life â€" were there any aboard." "Now we know that species from three very different organism groups â€" bacteria, lichens and invertebrate animals â€" are able to survive at least short periods under space vacuum and also under some restricted conditions of solar radiation," said K. Ingemar Jonsson "Equally important, the creature needs a hospitable environment upon arrival." ---- A few thought are: This space rock would endure temperatures from hotter then boiling water to very very cold. I do not see how life could remain frozen and dormant or unfrozen and dormant under those conditions. If it wasn't dormant it would have to eat, reproduce, get old and die. 16 million years is a long time. Second and third paragraphs are not convincing me that it is likely either. Interesting, possible but I am far from convinced that it is likely.

So a satellite has a balance of centrifugal force and centripetal force and is actually in a free fall. (1) Does true 0G exist anywhere in the universe (between galaxies)? So if our solar system was located closer to the black hole in the center of the Milky Way the clocks would be slower but our gravity would feel the same. (2) Artificial gravity from spinning would slow a clock, right?

Interesting, Maybe not impossible but not likely. It seems if the outbound trip didn't get you the re-entry would. Even the very unlikely most direct route would leave you in space a long time.

If it happened twice in our solar system with out Panspermiam, it would have happened under two very different and possibly extreme conditions. That tells me it could easily happen often if the conditions were even close to right. The current #'s used in the Drake equation suggest there are at least 1,200,000,000 solar systems in the Milky Way alone with potential for life. I posted my second post in this thread without reading the material first. It will not let me edit it for some reason. Will I ever learn.

But Martin, Is the 0-G from being in orbit even being considered? Or does it need to be considered? It doesn't look like 0-G is being considered when calculating time delays for the GPS system. ------- "Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day." ----- I would have thought that the 0-G from being in orbit would be more significant then a floor and ceiling type calculation. I am a little confused now.

I see what he meant now. Scratch the first part of my post but the rest stands.

From my understanding, it seems that stopping time would be like reaching light speed with matter (like .75c + .75c = .96c). Relative to Earth clocks we can almost stop time as we increase relativistic speeds close to C. We can also almost stop time relative to Earth if we could put a clock on a black hole. So I think that a black hole traveling at relativistic speed would just have a very very slow clock. Is this in the ball park? I have been looking for a gravity time calculator but so far have not found exactly what I want. The "space math" site has everything but what I want. I would like to compare earth clocks to different g forces. Would Gravitational potential vs G-force complicate things?

I believe this is a large rocket powered propeller in space with tips reaching .99+C to study time dilation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Maybe rather then bending the propeller, the energy needed to increase speed would stop the acceleration of the propeller. Like not having infinite energy for matter to reach the speed of light.

Are you suggesting that life may have been transported to another planet or moon from impacts? I can not see any life surviving the impact or trip. As far as material, the planets and moons share common materials from when it was formed. It also seems other solar systems would likely share common elements. I think that finding life elsewhere in the solar system would tell us it is common in the universe.

But inside their own frame everything looks normal. I think we would have to look at the propeller as a variable frame when spinning (I don't think Martin likes "variable frame" ). From outside the propeller frame(s) it may appear to be warped but all it is doing is aging very slowly. I am trying to apply what I learned recently but still make mistakes often. Anyone want to straighten me/us out?

Contraction is only seen by an observer outside the inertial frame. I guess you would have to consider time dilation from speed and gravity. So how slow can time go?

Visible is what you can see with you eyes. Observable (physics) (as defined by Bookshelf) A physical property, such as weight or temperature, that can be observed or measured directly, as distinguished from a quantity, such as work or entropy, that must be derived from observed quantities. Edit - You can observe the automobile with your eyes or your hands but it is visible only with your eyes.

Wikipedia has a detailed explanation of what happens when you fall into a black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole Have we observed a black hole explode? We do observe plasma jets coming out of them.

You make a good point. If Earth logic was on a scale that we could observe it, we would be much better prepared to understand relativistic velocity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have seen similar demonstrations but the power point presentation let me go at my own speed for better understanding. Thank you. I like your signature line and it is so true. Since you are an expert now could you confirm all four examples below are correct? The twin paradox revisited (Dick and Jane) 1. Dick takes a space trip at relativistic speeds and when he comes back to Earth he is younger the Jane. 2. Jane doesn't want to be old so she takes a similar space trip and comes back the same age as Dick. 3. Jane wants to be younger then Dick so she starts off an a space trip. Some time later Dick decides he doesn't want to be older so rather then wait for Jane to turn around and come back, he jumps in his space ship and goes to her. They are the same age? 4. They both want to be younger and take off an similar space trips but in the opposite direction. When they get back they will be the same age even though they were in different inertial frames the entire trip. Is that right? The separation and closure during the trip was equal. My head hurts now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Working and understanding the math (concepts) is hard enough but having the logic and aptitude to come up with the math and concepts is amazing.

Martin, Your post are always welcome and helpful but when good information is flowing you can recharge your batteries for when it is needed. You pointed me to the Wright calculator and I am very comfortable with it. The #'s it gives are very believable. I am not in disagreement with any of the calculators but Earth logic has to be ignored when you use some of them. An accountant saying .75 + .75 = .96 could end up in jail. SR and time dilation are still awkward at times as you can tell from my post. I feel better about it every day and with an effort on my part and a little help from you guys I will get there. My goal is to answer more questions then I ask.

The two calculators from you and one from Martin will let me come up with paradoxical #'s that I will just have to accept. I am glad you said it is not easy to grasp. However, the pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together. Thanks Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What is clear is that you are a lot closer to working in a rubber room with raw meat for lunch then I am. Thanks Dark_anzel, Didn't mean to hijack your thread but it is all about light speed.

Yes, in my first post in this thread I ended with "Do not confuse a proton with photon." I should have said: A photon (light) has no mass and a proton has mass and can not reach light speed. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Could we say the Earth and Joe in the scout ship would have a similar view of the three objects (total separation <C)? But from the center mother ship there would be an illusion of a seperation speed between Joe and Earth >C? I understand part of what you are saying but lets say we send two ships to our neighbor star 4 light years away. Ship one accelerates to .99c and then lets inertia maintain its speed (we only allow power to maintain .99c if gravity or space dust slows it down). Ship two leaves at the same time but maintains full power for the entire trip. However, it never exceeds light speed. Approximately how much time do both trips take as observed from each frame? If there is a link that describes this concept for the layman, I would be happy with that. No one answered my question: Would one of you physics experts please tell me this is not easy to grasp so I do not feel stupid? Maybe I don't want you to, depending on the answer. I do thank you and everyone else that helps the layman in this forum.

Yes, the 500 seconds was an approximation and just a # to work from. The impact of gravity on light speed observed from different frames was important. I still have a little trouble accepting gravity bending a metric without an ether but time will tell the real story. Thanks for your reply.

Not to me Not to Google either. Google did find where you asked the same question in a different forum and google found talk about surface winds. Did you ever get a reply in the other forums?

I can relate to those equations but the calculator is nice. So this applies to two cars on I-40 also? Can you imagine how much time Isaac Newton wasted doing math long hand? Thanks for the link. This thread tells me that what appears to be a separation speed > C (between Earth and Joe) as observed by the mother ship is really an illusion. That makes me wonder about the apparent separation speed of distant galaxies and "The Universe" program scientist saying "the only thing faster then light is the expansion of space". Would one of you physics experts please tell me this is not easy to grasp so I do not feel stupid.

Great! I had actually at least considered most of what you said. Question 4 should have been: Would the light trip from the Sun to the Earth take longer the from the Earth to the Sun? Intuition says yes but it would be going along the same curvature and that says it would be equal.

Are you trying to compare the solar winds of the Sun with the surface winds of Jupiter?