The faster you are trying go the slower you actually move?

[Nacelunk]

I don't get this - when you move very fast (say 0.5c) the time slows down relative to outside of your ship. If you looked at the planets around you, it would seem like they spin faster than before. But if they look at you, it would seem like you move slower than you were supposed to (0.5c). Also, you spent certain amount of energy to accelerate to 0.5c but you actually move slower. Where does the unused energy go?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You don't move more slowly.

[Nacelunk]

If we were to fly 300000000 m at 0.5c, how much time would be gone according to us and outside observers? Would it be the same? If not, then the speed would also be realative, wouldn't it?

[ParanoiA]

I don't get this - when you move very fast (say 0.5c) the time slows down relative to outside of your ship. If you looked at the planets around you, it would seem like they spin faster than before. But if they look at you, it would seem like you move slower than you were supposed to (0.5c). Also, you spent certain amount of energy to accelerate to 0.5c but you actually move slower. Where does the unused energy go?

 

It sounds like you're confusing time with space. If I'm moving spatially at 0.5c then you will observe me going ungodly fast. However, if you were able to zoom in as I'm flying past you, you would notice my clock running slower - my eyes will blink slower, I will appear to be moving in slow motion within the barriers of the vessel - which is moving around 93,000 miles per second.

 

The key is, as more of my motion and acceleration is directed to spatial movement, less motion is directed to time. Time slows down, not space.

 

Also, I believe the planets will appear to be moving slower to you as well. The reason has to do with the fact that sensory perception is contained within the vacuum of your vessel that is carrying you at this speed. Since time has slowed down for you, there is no way to see things "outside" of this effect - everything gets to your senses slower as well.

 

Anyone, feel free to correct me here, I'm not an expert and this time dilation thing has always confounded me.

[swansont]

Other observers will see your clock running slow, but you don't see your own clock slowing down. In your frame, it stays the same. Distances you observe will be length contracted.

 

People observing you don't use your clock to measure speed, so everyone will agree the speed you are travelling. They will think your clock was slow and you will think the distance travelled was shortened, but the effects cancel to give the same result.

[Nacelunk]

OK, one more question - if we could possibly reach the speed of light it would basically be time travel to the future, right?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we reached even a significant fraction of the speed of light it would be. Go out for a year at .5c and it'll be many years later on Earth.

[Y-S]

OK, one more question - if we could possibly reach the speed of light it would basically be time travel to the future, right?

 

I believe it depends.

[Ragib]

Merely existing right now is time travel to the future...traveling at the speed of light, the equations that describe time dilation to us will be undefined, division by zero. And, also forbidden, faster than light, imaginary time..that would be quite interesting..

[Janus]

If we reached even a significant fraction of the speed of light it would be. Go out for a year at .5c and it'll be many years later on Earth.

 

Actually it would be about 1.1547 years later on Earth.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Couldn't be bothered to calculate it

[TriggerGrinn]

As I see the only thing that can change time wise is the rate at which one ages. You do not change point in time line you live longer.

 

The only thing that can alter a permanent aging is accelerations.

 

Frames that are inertial, meaning under no acceleration, have syncronized clocks.

 

Time also alters on view for things coming towards and away. Abberation of viewed time.

 

The main thing that alters a clocks is if it gains mass. A clock with higher mass ticks slower, thus so does even the atmoic material, but it must be under an accleration.

 

Another thing that can change the rate at which you age is gravity (difference in space curvatures).

 

Search wikipedia for General Relativity.

[swansont]

Frames that are inertial, meaning under no acceleration, have syncronized clocks.

 

Clocks in a single inertial frame can be synchronized, but so can clocks in a single accelerating frame. One of the first things one learns in SR is that clocks in different inertial frames run at different rates. i.e. they are not synchronized.

[TriggerGrinn]

Types of 'time' dilation. correct?

 

Gravitational Time dilation

-difference in geometry of space-time (ie, black hole is nearly frozen in time relative to us)

 

Light abberation Time dilation

-change in distance between clock and observer manipulates the rate at which a clock ticks.

 

acceleratoin Time dilation

 

nearing light speed Time dilation

 

 

Even though circumstances like that described at the Cambridge accelerator are conveniently described by assuming an increasing mass, that is not the only way to describe these experiments, and there are problems with the concept of variable relativistic mass. Einstein's point of view is described in the following quote:

 

"It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion."

 

 

 

Upon being introduced to special relativity for the first time, it is easier to contemplate concepts like the speed of light as the speed limit of the universe by envisioning the mass as increasing to infinity at velocity c. However, when one has become familiar with the concepts of relativistic momentum and relativistic energy, there is no real need for the variable mass concept.

[Nacelunk]

Hmm, I yet have no idea about what you are all talking about because I haven't even yet studied Special Relativity in school (I will in January) Not considering General Relativity. By the way, when and at what course do you study it?

[Ragib]

Umm..triggergunn, gravitation and acceleration are the same thing, and "Light abberation Time dilation" & "nearing light speed Time dilation" are the same..

[DaveC426913]

Types of 'time' dilation. correct?

 

Gravitational Time dilation

-difference in geometry of space-time (ie, black hole is nearly frozen in time relative to us)

 

Light abberation Time dilation

-change in distance between clock and observer manipulates the rate at which a clock ticks.

 

acceleratoin Time dilation

 

nearing light speed Time dilation

These are all the exact same thing. Read up on the Principle of Equivalence.

[rocket art]

Gravitational Time dilation

-difference in geometry of space-time (ie, black hole is nearly frozen in time relative to us)

 

Light abberation Time dilation

-change in distance between clock and observer manipulates the rate at which a clock ticks.

 

acceleratoin Time dilation

nearing light speed Time dilation

 

Is this the standard understanding of today's physics?

 

I'm curious because I may not agree that time is 'frozen' in a black hole, as space, and even light accelerates in motion when sucked by it. Relative to time, the term may not be "frozen". Perhaps the appropriate term would be time (past,present, future) gets "blurred", and we exit into the awaiting white hole depending on the time coordinates whether one enters the past, parallel present, or future. Consciousness is 'aware', and the perspective on time is not necessarily 'frozen' during such event, but rather 'blurred'.

 

Has the gravity of both clock and observer been considered?

 

When nearing lightspeed, not only does time 'shrink', so does space and matter. If you have enough technology to create such a spaceship it is preferable to design it disc-shaped, as any object transforms into such shape when approaching lightspeed. When the pilot approaches 'beyond' lightspeed, he will be trasnported to a parallel dimension in space-time, but his spaceship (matter) remains as disc shape.

[Ragib]

What...There is no way to reach the speed of light, or beyond it. Time never slows down for you, only for others in your perspective. In your frame of reference, your always going at a 'normal' steady pace, and everyone else's is different. Say your in a train and its going at a constant speed. Say its night, you can't see anything else other than a train going the opposite direction to you. You wouldn't know if it was going past you or you going past it, the situations are equivalent in your frame of reference, but not say in someones whose outside and watching both trains. Basically, in your frame, you are always stationary and everything else is moving around you. Since your velocity is zero, time would not slow down. I have a feeling this post may have a few interesting philosophical bits that you may find interesting. Think about it.

[rocket art]

As I mentioned before, the spaceship remains disc-shaped, which I actually meant matter 'cannot' exceed lightspeed. Yet, even in the Present dimension, our Consciousness actually exists beyond, at twice the lightspeed at c^2, otherwise if it's just at single c as in mass times c, we will be referring only to rest mass, the physicality, the matter that we see around us.

 

You also mentioned about frame of reference, and in my "Parallel Dimension..." thread, the frame of Reference is in the Singularity itself, where Past, Present, Future is 'blurred', hence space-time (the measurement of speed included) is blurred. If the pilot knows what he's doing, he will exit to a white hole based on the available coordinates he charts, and actually do interdimensional travel whether into the Ideal Past or Ideal Future or not so ideal), or Parallel dimension, as he now has the technology to exceed 'beyond' lightspeed, i.e. towards the realm of Singularity. As for his spaceship, I do have my 'rocket philosophy' about matter and 'beyond' lightspeed, you may ask it in my Parallel Dimension thread so it would be justly enlivened.

 

"There is no way to reach..." It is very possible that this statement was aired by Magellan's or Galileo's contemporaries too .

[rocket art]

The views I have been presenting in this thread and on my thread (Parallel Dimensions that was put to the speculations forums when I am not speculating and I can defend it) is consistent with what I term as my 'rocket philosophies'** because such are yet to be found in conventional science books, and to keep my views from stagnating with mainstream scientific views. Although eventually time will finally come when it will lead them to such positions as they probe deeper:

 

** "Consciousness is the source of gravity" -rocket. The insistence on the fictitious graviton will just render the science community stagnant. It is in this position that enabled my theory in peeking through the Singularity as Conscious Energy.

 

** "Since matter cannot exceed lightspeed, it duplicates instead when subjected beyond it" -rocket. That should be the basis of the Everette-Wheeler-Graham Theory, MWI.

 

** My "Rocket Theory" (plans to change it into "Free People's Theory" when it finally stands unscathed from the fiery test) is more sensible than the solipsism of Omega Point Theory (which sounded more like another new religion that worships the self), for I am not referring to the "I" but to Consciousness. It will be sensible even when the era finally occurs as Earth Humanity advances and discovers sentient life forms beyond our planet.

[yammers]

What...There is no way to reach the speed of light, or beyond it. Time never slows down for you, only for others in your perspective. In your frame of reference, your always going at a 'normal' steady pace, and everyone else's is different. Say your in a train and its going at a constant speed. Say its night, you can't see anything else other than a train going the opposite direction to you. You wouldn't know if it was going past you or you going past it, the situations are equivalent in your frame of reference, but not say in someones whose outside and watching both trains. Basically, in your frame, you are always stationary and everything else is moving around you. Since your velocity is zero, time would not slow down. I have a feeling this post may have a few interesting philosophical bits that you may find interesting. Think about it.

 

Nice Ragib! That's why it's called relativity.

 

I think relativity confuses people...It begins to sound like magic, instead of common sense.

Here are some questions to answer:

Can light exist without the passage of time?

Can time exist without the movement of light?

Which is faster?

You might be able to slow time, but you can never go back!

[rocket art]

You might be able to slow time, but you can never go back!

 

I think that's a highly opinionated comment as time is relative to you and you're not 'slowing' down, although the other seem to think you are; and one cannot conclude "can never go back" when even at quantum level the concept of time as past, present future even gets blurred.

[rocket art]

(double post)

[TriggerGrinn]

and "Light abberation Time dilation" & "nearing light speed Time dilation" are the same..

 

From what I have read there is a slight difference.

 

Light abberation will cause an object moving away from an observer to have a slower clock and an object moving towards an observer to have a faster clock.

 

Where as nearing light speed Time dilation, refers to viewable clock slowing only.