Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This is potentially really dumb, especially the way that I am going to formulate it but please go along with me.

I was reading a different thread (Time and speed and how speed impacts time) and I have a basic understanding of  concepts like the Twin Paradox but was wondering if let's say Taz would spin on the same spot on the ground at a respectable speed close to c for a few minutes, would it have the same effect as if he would travel in a rocket in space and he would have basically traveled in the future when he stops? (I mean if his twin that did not perform the spin motion age more?)

image.jpeg.4351549a4912dac26af702dc9de2f6df.jpeg

 

Posted

The parts that were spinning faster would see less elapsed time that the parts that were spinning slower. This was addressed by the Hafele-Keating experiment (which had the added effect of having clocks in different parts of a gravitational potential) and also by a follow-on of the Pound-Rebka experiment, which had a radioactive sample in a centrifuge, and saw the change in frequency of the emitted vs absorbed radiation of the material that was moving vs at the center of the device.

 

edit:

Here's a write-up on the latter experiment and its relatives. Sources listed at the end.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/1426

Posted

Hmm so technically if I would dig a whole to be closer to earth's center of gravity for example, I would age slower than you who are on the surface? (of course by a very small amount).

Posted
1 minute ago, Silvestru said:

Hmm so technically if I would dig a whole to be closer to earth's center of gravity for example, I would age slower than you who are on the surface? (of course by a very small amount).

Yes. Or if you climb a mountain, you age more quickly. By about a part in 10^16 per meter. But that's solely due to gravitational potential, not spin.

Posted
15 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes. Or if you climb a mountain, you age more quickly. By about a part in 10^16 per meter. But that's solely due to gravitational potential, not spin.

Thank you swansont. Yes I know the second part has nothing to do with spin, I just thought I would air all my questions on the topic haha. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.