Does time go faster for an object moving faster?

[brad89]

I heard that einstein created a theorum about how at higher speeds, time moves at different pace. Does anybody think this is possible?

[ydoaPs]

it moves slower. use the search function and search for "time dilation"

[Cashio]

not only that it is possible, it is also proven to be true. the faster you travel through space - the slower you will travel through time, meaning - as you speed up time goes slower for you.

 

it is also mathematicly very simple, but i won't bore you with that..

[ydoaPs]

i will. [math]t=\frac{t_0}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_2}{c^2}}}[/math]

[brad89]

Oh yeah, it does get slower. Wow, i am an idiot. Anyway, that brings up some interesting ideas about our universe. Say time relates to the speed of an object. Does this mean that by a slight bit, time can change for your hand if you move it up and down? Time really probably accounts for energy. Because matter relates to space, energy relates to time. I have posted a million times a theory I have about how the universe began. Now, I said that matter and energy are connected the way time and space is. If time and space need each other, they are interconnected. Therefore, matter and energy are interconnected as well (just one more reason we can never reach Absolute Zero). If the energy for one atom is greater than the next, I believe it exists on a different plane of time. This is tough to visually explain, but picture a x-y coordinate plane. This is the grid of time and space. Picture millions of them stacked on top of each other. Now say that one atom has kinetic energy. It moves up one plane to the next. Each level of the 'stacked planes' is a different plane of time. This makes it a bit clearer, but it is still rather hard to visualize.

[Rebel.esd]

My favorite thing about this is that if you were to (somehow) become an absolutely perfect frame of reference, you would experience an infinite amount of time. Also, if you don't mind gaining infinite mass, you can see every point in the universe in literally no time at all.

[Saint]

not only that it is possible' date=' it is also proven to be true. the faster you travel through space - the slower you will travel through time, meaning - as you speed up time goes slower for you.

 

it is also mathematicly very simple, but i won't bore you with that..[/quote']

 

 

Actually, relativity does not say that your speed "through space" has anything to do with how fast you will travel through time. There is no "space" in relativity. Remember, everything is relative

[Annemarie]

My favorite thing about this is that if you were to (somehow) become an absolutely perfect frame of reference, you would experience an infinite amount of time. Also, if you don't mind gaining infinite mass, you can see every point in the universe in literally no time at all.

 

~What do you mean by a perfect frame of reference? I thought you would experience all of those effects when you are travelling at c, or is that what you mean? In that case, why is travelling at c called being in a perfect frame of reference?

[Rebel.esd]

An observer giving in to every single force acting upon them is not moving in relation to 'spacetime'. Not that I'm relating spacetime to a physical entity. It's an idea taken from Relativity: GR is required because they're gravity, SR is only proper in a zero gravity field environment, an 'empty' universe as it were. Thus, a "perfect" observer would feel no forces, since they wouldn't be accelerating.

[Cashio]

Actually, relativity does not say that your speed "through space" has anything to do with how fast you will travel through time. There is no "space" in relativity. Remember, everything is relative

 

as space i meen our 3 dimentional space. Albert used the time as the forth dimension giving him equality to the other 3 thus created the space-time view of the world - and in this, space not only exist - it is also curved.

 

what you ment to say was that there is no ether in reletivity - the imaginary substance that was suppose to fill the universe.

 

 

and my note on that - acording to any logic you might want to apply to physics, *distance* between objects is absolutly necessary. and without space there is no meaning to distance. think about it.

 

from http://www.dict.org:

 

Distance \Dis"tance\, n. [F. distance, L. distantia.]

1. The space between two objects; the length of a line,

especially the shortest line joining two points or things

that are separate; measure of separation in place.

[1913 Webster]

[towjyt]

What has been proven is that objects moving at a higher speed than the observer seem to travel through time at a slower rate than the observer because instruments designed to keep time, record the elapsed time differently.

 

However, once the speeding object returns to the site of the observer, they are both in the same time frame.

 

The question is, did they travel through time at a different rate? Or did the instruments designed to measure time simply measure time differently?

[swansont]

What has been proven is that objects moving at a higher speed than the observer seem to travel through time at a slower rate than the observer because instruments designed to keep time' date=' record the elapsed time differently.

 

However, once the speeding object returns to the site of the observer, they are both in the same time frame.

[/quote']

 

 

They may return to the same frequency, but they will still have recorded a different elapsed time.

[Saint]

as space i meen our 3 dimentional space. Albert used the time as the forth dimension giving him equality to the other 3 thus created the space-time view of the world - and in this' date=' space not only exist - it is also curved.

 

what you ment to say was that there is no ether in reletivity - the imaginary substance that was suppose to fill the universe.

 

 

and my note on that - acording to any logic you might want to apply to physics, *distance* between objects is absolutly necessary. and without space there is no meaning to distance. think about it.

 

from http://www.dict.org:

 

Distance \Dis"tance\, n. [F. distance, L. distantia.']

1. The space between two objects; the length of a line,

especially the shortest line joining two points or things

that are separate; measure of separation in place.

[1913 Webster]

 

OK - Does the expansion of space itself provide the same time dilation as moving through space? I mean that if you have spaceships at points A and B, and the "space" between them expands at such a rate as to increase their distance from one another at a rate close to c, do relativistic effects apply?

[towjyt]

They may return to the same frequency, but they will still have recorded a different elapsed time.

 

"Recorded" being the operative word.

[swansont]

"Recorded" being the operative word.

 

There will be a time difference between them, even when they return to operation at the same frequency. They are not in the same time frame.

[towjyt]

There will be a time difference between them, even when they return to operation at the same frequency. They are not in the same time frame.

 

So, if an apple traveled in a ship at sufficient velocity to make 5 days difference in time, and then returned to Earth, then someone picked it up and ate it, he would be eating it 5 days before he ate it?

 

For example the apple arrived on July 12th but the apple was still in a July 7th time frame, one would be eating it 5 days before it got to his time frame?

 

You do see that this is pure nonsense, don't you?

[Tom Mattson]

Actually' date=' relativity does not say that your speed "through space" has anything to do with how fast you will travel through time.

[/quote']

 

That's right. According to you, you travel through time at exactly 1 second per second.

 

There is no "space" in relativity.

 

This debate has come up before. I don't think that the nonexistence of space is a consequence of relativity, although it sure is consistent with it.

 

Remember, everything is relative

 

Why do people keep saying this? Oh yeah, it's because they have no clue as to what relativity actually says.

[Tom Mattson]

So' date=' if an apple traveled in a ship at sufficient velocity to make 5 days difference in time, and then returned to Earth, then someone picked it up and ate it, he would be eating it 5 days before he ate it?

 

For example the apple arrived on July 12th but the apple was still in a July 7th time frame, one would be eating it 5 days before it got to his time frame?

[/quote']

 

Of course not. In order for that to happen the ship would have to travel faster than light. Why don't you try to do the calculation for yourself?

 

You do see that this is pure nonsense, don't you?

 

Yes. Now the question is, "How did you come up with it?"

[Tom Mattson]

The question is, did they travel through time at a different rate? Or did the instruments designed to measure time simply measure time differently?

 

What's the difference? There are no indicators of time other than clocks. And if all clocks--regardless of the mechanism by which they work--all show the exact same lag in elapsed time when subjected to "twin-paradox" type experiments, then in what sense can it be said that time dilation has not occured? Or should we suppose that the clocks are all conspiring to play a trick on us?

[towjyt]

Of course not. In order for that to happen the ship would have to travel faster than light.

 

Oh? I was under the impression that time traveled more slowly for an object that was traveling faster than the observer. Isn't that what this time dialation is all about?

 

Are you saying that it does not?

 

Yes. Now the question is, "How did you come up with it?"

 

I see that it is nonsense because one object can't be in two time frames at the same --"time?"

[towjyt]

What's the difference? There are no indicators of time other than clocks. And if all clocks--regardless of the mechanism by which they work--all show the exact same lag in elapsed time when subjected to "twin-paradox" type experiments, then in what sense can it be said that time dilation has not occured? Or should we suppose that the clocks are all conspiring to play a trick on us?

 

I don't think clocks are "conspireing" to do anything. I just think that the evidence has been misread. I think that what happens is that clocks can be made to measure time differently under differing circumstances, just as a steel tape will give a slight different measurement of, say, 100 feet when the temperature is 100 degrees than it will if the temperature is zero degrees.

[Tom Mattson]

Oh? I was under the impression that time traveled more slowly for an object that was traveling faster than the observer. Isn't that what this time dialation is all about?

 

Are you saying that it does not?

 

No' date=' that's not it. Time dilation in relativity never results in anything moving [i']backwards[/i] in time, which is what you were suggesting.

 

I see that it is nonsense because one object can't be in two time frames at the same --"time?"

 

"Time frame" is not my term, so I'm not going to answer for it. I prefer "inertial frame". And it is perfectly sensible to suggest that an object can be in an infinite number of inertial frames, because there are an infinite number of states of motion that other observers may be in, relative to that object.

[Tom Mattson]

I don't think clocks are "conspireing" to do anything. I just think that the evidence has been misread.

 

You think that it has been misread by the army of highly trained physicists' date=' postdocs, and grad students who are all salivating to become famous by being the one to devise the repeatable experiment that proves the theory wrong?

 

I think that what happens is that clocks can be made to measure time differently under differing circumstances, just as a steel tape will give a slight different measurement of, say, 100 feet when the temperature is 100 degrees than it will if the temperature is zero degrees.

 

But as I am sure you know, a tape made from a different metal will expand a different distance under the same temperature gradient. What I am telling you is that all clocks will show the same time lag, regardless of the mechanism by which they work. And the lag is precisely what is predicted by relativity.

[towjyt]

You think that it has been misread by the army of highly trained physicists' date=' postdocs, and grad students who are all salivating to become famous by being the one to devise the repeatable experiment that proves the theory wrong?

[/quote']

 

Yep.

 

 

 

But as I am sure you know, a tape made from a different metal will expand a different distance under the same temperature gradient. What I am telling you is that all clocks will show the same time lag, regardless of the mechanism by which they work. And the lag is precisely what is predicted by relativity.

 

But it does change the measurment, doesn't it?

[towjyt]

No' date=' that's not it. Time dilation in relativity never results in anything moving [i']backwards[/i] in time, which is what you were suggesting.

 

No, I am not. I am suggesting that if time dialation is a fact, then the observer travels foreward faster in time that the apple and therefore the apple is 2 days in his past.

 

"Time frame" is not my term, so I'm not going to answer for it. I prefer "inertial frame". And it is perfectly sensible to suggest that an object can be in an infinite number of inertial frames, because there are an infinite number of states of motion that other observers may be in, relative to that object.

And an infinite munber of realities?