A measure of the speed of time.

[martianxx]

I think i have cracked this idea. The body that is moving at a given speed has a time change relative to someone's time who is stationary due to the changes in acceleration and speed etc. Is this correct?

 

If it is does this mean that if i set of in space acceleration at 1 earth gravity per second towards a star 2500 light years away not at but close to the speed of light the time taken for my family on earth is 2500 years but for me it would seem like alot less due to my acceleration and deceleration when i got closer to the star. Is this right?

 

So more like a time dilation rather than a time change.

[Severian]

I'm no loony. And shame on you for coming out with such an ad hominem.

 

You were the one who made yourself the subject of discussion by claiming you are censored. So your status as a loony is directly relevant to your claim and not an ad hominem.

[Phi for All]

And you are not censored (are you censored at all) because you criticise String Theory (who would care). You are censored because you are a loony. And that is a relativisticly invariant statement. You are a loony in all frames, and in all models.

Please refrain from calling another member of the forum a "loony".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless it's true, of course.

[swansont]

I think i have cracked this idea. The body that is moving at a given speed has a time change relative to someone's time who is stationary due to the changes in acceleration and speed etc. Is this correct?

 

If it is does this mean that if i set of in space acceleration at 1 earth gravity per second towards a star 2500 light years away not at but close to the speed of light the time taken for my family on earth is 2500 years but for me it would seem like alot less due to my acceleration and deceleration when i got closer to the star. Is this right?

 

So more like a time dilation rather than a time change.

 

Yes, it is dilation. But how is dilation not a change?

[Farsight]

I think i have cracked this idea. The body that is moving at a given speed has a time change relative to someone's time who is stationary due to the changes in acceleration and speed etc. Is this correct?

Nearly. The time change or "time dilation" is due to the relative speed, and you need some acceleration to get up to speed.

 

If it is does this mean that if i set of in space acceleration at 1 earth gravity per second towards a star 2500 light years away not at but close to the speed of light the time taken for my family on earth is 2500 years but for me it would seem like alot less due to my acceleration and deceleration when i got closer to the star. Is this right?

Not quite. Acceleration itself doesn't cause the time dilation directly. You can see this if you think of travelling to a start 5000 light years away with the same acceleration and deceleration but bracketing 2500 light years of coasting. To keep things simple, forget about the acceleration and deceleration for the time being. Think about travelling to a star 2500 light years away at a speed of .99c. The equation 1/√(1-v²/c²) tells you that you'll experience a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). So as far as I'm and the rest of the universe is concerned it takes you 2525 years to get there. As far as you're concerned, it took you 360 years of your time.

[Country Boy]

I also dislike the notion of "speed of time". Not that we don't move through time- we all do- at one second per second! it's just that our usual notion of "speed" is "rate of change compared to time"- which makes the "rate of change of time compared with time" seem redudant!

 

However, that is not what is meant in relativity. If I am moving at 99% the speed of light compared to you, I would observe time changing very slowly for YOU compared to ME- YOUR second would be much longer than MINE.. Of course, since speed is "relative", you would observe my time changing very slowly compared to yours! It is even possible to calculate the precise change and that calculation has been experimentally verified- Cosmic ray, moving at high speed relative to us have a much shorter "lifespan" that suc cosmic rays should have by our calculation.

[martianxx]

Yes, it is dilation. But how is dilation not a change?

 

if i have a elastic ball and i throw it at a wall on cantact the shape will change but the volume is the same.

 

Nearly. The time change or "time dilation" is due to the relative speed, and you need some acceleration to get up to speed.

 

Not quite. Acceleration itself doesn't cause the time dilation directly. You can see this if you think of travelling to a start 5000 light years away with the same acceleration and deceleration but bracketing 2500 light years of coasting. To keep things simple, forget about the acceleration and deceleration for the time being. Think about travelling to a star 2500 light years away at a speed of .99c. The equation 1/√(1-v²/c²) tells you that you'll experience a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). So as far as I'm and the rest of the universe is concerned it takes you 2525 years to get there. As far as you're concerned, it took you 360 years of your time.

 

So if i put a dollar or whatever in the bank when i left went all the way to the star and then came all the way back i could pay for my trip assuming i could live for 720 years.

[insane_alien]

So if i put a dollar or whatever in the bank when i left went all the way to the star and then came all the way back i could pay for my trip assuming i could live for 720 years.

 

with the current financial system, yes. but when we finally get the technology to do that i would imagine there would be laws against it.

[Farsight]

I also dislike the notion of "speed of time". Not that we don't move through time - we all do - at one second per second!

 

Oh no we don't.

 

So if i put a dollar or whatever in the bank when i left went all the way to the star and then came all the way back i could pay for my trip assuming i could live for 720 years.

 

Nope. Inflation would eat your dollar. And anyhow, if you're 2500 light years away and you own a planet, who cares.

[Sayonara]

Nope. Inflation would eat your dollar.

Not if interest stayed above the rate of inflation (and assuming the bank or its descendent organisation/s still existed when he got back, and honoured the account).

 

Although he would still not see sufficient profit to get anywhere near paying for the trip...

[ydoaPs]

Not if interest stayed above the rate of inflation (and assuming the bank or its descendent organisation/s still existed when he got back, and honoured the account).

 

Although he would still not see sufficient profit to get anywhere near paying for the trip...

Roth IRA, fool!

[Farsight]

Not if interest stayed above the rate of inflation (and assuming the bank or its descendent organisation/s still existed when he got back, and honoured the account).

Yeah yeah. Snowball's chance in hell.

[asprung]

Time as measured by insturments may appear to change,but time reflecting the rate of passage of the past to the present to the future could remain constant allowing the universe to age uniformly

[swansont]

Time as measured by insturments may appear to change,but time reflecting the rate of passage of the past to the present to the future could remain constant allowing the universe to age uniformly

 

They are the same thing. So, no.

[Mr Skeptic]

Time as measured by insturments may appear to change,but time reflecting the rate of passage of the past to the present to the future could remain constant allowing the universe to age uniformly

 

But it is true for every instrument, including things like biological creatures used as a measure. So how would you measure this constant time of yours?

[DZane]

Wasnt another person that came up with that one thing considered loony to and now we look back on him and think wow how could those people not see what he was trying to say?

[swansont]

Wasnt another person that came up with that one thing considered loony to and now we look back on him and think wow how could those people not see what he was trying to say?

 

But for every one like that there are 999 who are actually proposing things that are loony.

 

I have evidence that confirms that relativity is right. A fair amount of it.

[Eric 5]

Farsight, after reading through this thread it sounds like you are a believer in String Theory.

 

Tell me. String theory states that there are extra dimensions to the three that we use to define the location of points in conceptual models, and when we are describing the size of something. Do you think that these three spatial dimensions are real physical things? These extra dimensions that we are told that exist, extra to what? Where is the scientific data that states that the first three dimensions are real things.

 

What are these string guys looking for? If these extra dimensions are real, then so must the first three. So these three spatial dimensions are made of what and are in what form? Look up any scientific reference book for the term spatial dimension and see if you can find that dimensions are real physical things.

 

That string theories have no basis in reality, pick up any book written by the “experts” on string theory and go to the back of the book and look in the index to see how they define spatial dimensions. You will find that they have no scientific evidence, or proof that the first three dimensions are real physical things. It is all based on an assumption that these spatial dimensions have extras. And as far as time being a dimension, that is when man is making a conceptual model of a moving object. Time is not a real dimension.

 

Look, do research on dimensions and see if you can find anywhere that these first three dimensions actually exist. This will help you in your blind obedience to authority. Do your own research and see if you can confirm what all of these string guys are saying about extra dimensions. Go ahead be a scientist and have some fun doing some research.

[swansont]

Farsight, after reading through this thread it sounds like you are a believer in String Theory.

 

I think Farsight is on record as not being a proponent of string theory.

[Stan]

Do you think that these three spatial dimensions are real physical things?

 

I cannot speak for him, and I am not a professional scientist, but it is my understanding that our spatial dimensions are real and physical, so states Einstein. Gravity warps space-time, which gravity could not do if space-time were a mere conceptualization.

 

You could posit the same challenge to define energy. We define energy as the capacity to do work, but no one can say what it actually is. Things have energy, things transfer energy, one form of energy can transform into another form of energy, but no one really knows what energy is, and we are forced to work with energy indirectly.

 

What is inertia, really? Can you give an object inertia, or take inertia away from an object, without otherwise changing the object?

 

What is the intrinsic difference between a speeding object and a stationary object? How does an object maintain a memory of the fact that a force acted on it at one time?

 

Farsight, String Theory is definitely NOT mainstream.

 

I don't know how you define mainstream, but I would say that a theory that occupies the time and budget of more than 10% of all scientists probably is mainstream. How could string theory be the cause of stagnation of physics if it were not mainstream?

 

Nearly. The time change or "time dilation" is due to the relative speed, and you need some acceleration to get up to speed. ... Acceleration itself doesn't cause the time dilation directly.

 

Actually, time dilation only occurs during acceleration. This resolves a mystery that otherwise takes place, namely, if velocity is relative, then how can time appear to slow for one object but not for another? In your example, why does time slow for the speeding object when, by his perspective, you are the one who is speeding? The answer is, it is the object that experiences acceleration that also experiences time dilation. They happen at the same time. Remember, the effects of acceleration are indistinguishable from the effects of gravity, so acceleration acts on time the same way that gravity acts on time.

[Eric 5]

I cannot speak for him, and I am not a professional scientist, but it is my understanding that our spatial dimensions are real and physical, so states Einstein. Gravity warps space-time, which gravity could not do if space-time were a mere conceptualization.

 

 

 

Your understanding of spatial dimensions, did you come about this understanding through direct observation or someone else’s account of dimensions? Where did you get the reference that space-time is warped by gravity? The general theory of relativity states that mass distorts space-time. Anyway that is not important. Your understanding is that space-time is warped by gravity, so that would mean that all the objects in the room you are in are warping this space-time fabric. Can you perceive this happening or are you just it is assuming that this is occurring because that is what you have been lead to believe? How do you know that space-time exists and can be warped?

 

These “real” dimensions, what form do they take? What makes them a real physical thing? If they are real like the rest of the things in this universe, then they would have an atomic structure, and mass. Have you ever run across a scientific definition that stated that spatial dimensions are real physical things?

[Anvoice]

 

Actually, time dilation only occurs during acceleration. This resolves a mystery that otherwise takes place, namely, if velocity is relative, then how can time appear to slow for one object but not for another? In your example, why does time slow for the speeding object when, by his perspective, you are the one who is speeding? The answer is, it is the object that experiences acceleration that also experiences time dilation. They happen at the same time. Remember, the effects of acceleration are indistinguishable from the effects of gravity, so acceleration acts on time the same way that gravity acts on time.

 

That is not true, if you have the right idea then you have phrased it incorrectly. Time dilation is a property of relative velocity (speed in a general sense). For example, if what you said is directly interpreted, it would mean that I could accelerate and go in the x-direction at velocity v for a mile, then reverse direction (through acceleration), come back and experience the same shift in time as a person who undergoes the same acceleration but travels for 100 miles. In reality, time dilation occurs when there is relative velocity, so yes it IS a property relative movement. The thing is, the difference inertial frames are not in coexistence exactly. There is ABSOLUTE truth in each frame (as far as we know). For example, when a person travels quickly from Earth and another stays, the traveler will think that the stationary person is aging slowly and will be right. When he turns around, he will "jump" into a frame where that person is MUCH older and then see him/her age at a slow pace again (when I say see, I don't mean light information but the actual event). In the end, when the traveler comes back, he/she will have experienced less of the Earth frame's time than the person who stays. Acceleration is what allows the traveler to get back to Earth's frame, not "the actual thing responsible for time dilation".

[Eric 5]

Actually, time dilation only occurs during acceleration. This resolves a mystery that otherwise takes place, namely, if velocity is relative, then how can time appear to slow for one object but not for another? In your example, why does time slow for the speeding object when, by his perspective, you are the one who is speeding? The answer is, it is the object that experiences acceleration that also experiences time dilation. They happen at the same time. Remember, the effects of acceleration are indistinguishable from the effects of gravity, so acceleration acts on time the same way that gravity acts on time.

 

 

This time dilation is an appearance, not an actual occurrence. Time appears to slow.

 

If things that accelerated experience some time change, than it would have to be in some sort of time bubble, where the time of the object is different then time elsewhere or around it. There would have to be some sort of barrier or place of different times on each side.

 

You also have to believe that time is a real physical thing that can be effected by other objects and influences, like motion. If time is a thing, than what is it made of? Or what makes it a thing that can be changed just by motion.

 

How does gravity act on time? What do you mean?

[Anvoice]

This time dilation is an appearance, not an actual occurrence. Time appears to slow.

 

If things that accelerated experience some time change, than it would have to be in some sort of time bubble, where the time of the object is different then time elsewhere or around it. There would have to be some sort of barrier or place of different times on each side.

 

You also have to believe that time is a real physical thing that can be effected by other objects and influences, like motion. If time is a thing, than what is it made of? Or what makes it a thing that can be changed just by motion.

 

How does gravity act on time? What do you mean?

 

Actually, there IS a barrier between inertial reference frames. What does it consist of? Velocity to put it simply. By existing in a different inertial frame, you experience distinctly different events. The ORDER of things happening can actually be reversed. Accelerating can break down that barrier. Basically imagine parallel lines, and each line represents a different velocity (let's say in respect to light, for simplicity). Basically, you do not actually exist on each line. Someone from a different line cannot grab you the way he "sees" you, otherwise we would have the "garage paradox" illustrated (if space contraction occurs, can a meter stick fit into a 1/2 meter long garage completely with enough velocity?). To get to a neighboring line, you need to accelerate "towards it".

There is a reason it is called space-time. As for the effect of gravity and the "composition" of space-time, sorry I don't yet have enough background to answer that.

[Eric 5]

Actually, there IS a barrier between inertial reference frames. What does it consist of? Velocity to put it simply..

 

 

Where did you get this reference that velocity is a barrier? Here is a definition of velocity in The Essential Dictionary of Science: speed of an object in a given direction, or how fast an object changes its position in a given direction.

 

No mention in this dictionary or others at hand that state that velocity can act as a barrier.

 

What is the barrier between these different times?

 

. The ORDER of things happening can actually be reversed. Accelerating can break down that barrier. Basically imagine parallel lines, and each line represents a different velocity (let's say in respect to light, for simplicity). Basically, you do not actually exist on each line. Someone from a different line cannot grab you the way he "sees" you, otherwise we would have the "garage paradox" illustrated (if space contraction occurs, can a meter stick fit into a 1/2 meter long garage completely with enough velocity?). To get to a neighboring line, you need to accelerate "towards it".

 

 

What is all this? Where did you get this information?