Why does speed time slow down when you go fast then the speed of light

[Reaper]

Every measurement of time is based on what man decided that measurement to mean. Seconds, minutes, hours and so on are all man made. Time did not come pre-packaged in these units, man agreed on what to call these durations. Clocks measure how much of a pre-determined man made unit passed for a given motion. If something takes a minute of time, then that activity lasted for what man determined to be a minute. Time is the concept of man.

 

The point, which is something that you obviously do not comprehend, is that these units give us a way to quantify distance, time, etc. It's what allows us to make reliable measurements and descriptive statements of time. But the units of time, distance, etc., as Swansont said earlier, are not the same thing as time and distance itself. Time is NOT something that humans just made up.

 

Radioactive isotopes and quartz crystals are not clocks. Man used these materials in his man made clocks to harness the activity of these materials to his advantage. Yes all clocks are man made.

 

Wrong! And contradictory to your earlier statements.

 

Have you ever heard of a biological clock, which is common in most nearly all organisms on Earth?

 

 

My comment....

[snip]

 

Nobody cares about your opinions. Either point out a genuine flaw within the experiments or the process, or just concede the debate and admit that you are wrong. We have told you over and over again that any flaws with the clock themselves are either accounted for and/or have a negligible affect on the results, and our ability to determine what they mean.

 

 

There is no margin of error mentioned in the experiment. What is the math behind taking into account human error? There could be errors that are man made without him noticing.

 

Read the damned paper, it is listed right there. Swansont even pulled it out for you to see for yourself.

 

And, have you ever heard of a standard deviation?

 

 

The textbook that I have read is the one that Einstein wrote when he wanted to introduce his theories on the Special and General relativity. The book is called "RELATIVITY The Special and the General Theory".

ISBN O-7607-5921-9 This book is the source of all subsequent interpretations of the Special and General theories of Relativity.

 

Well, it is clear then that you didn't actually understand the material, because the equation that he derived to describe time dilation states precisely what we have been telling you.

 

That, or your just cherry picking quotes and haven't really read it at all.

 

You would be more accurate in saying that I am an informed skeptic with the true spirit of scientific research, rather than just saying that I am stubbornly clinging on to preconceived notions.

 

Oh please, you wouldn't know skepticism even if it came up to you and slapped you in the face.

 

 

"The important thing is to not stop questioning."

Albert Einstein

 

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth."

Pierre Abelard

 

 

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."

Bertrand Russell

 

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

Albert Einstein

 

 

You know what else Einstein said:

 

"Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe"

 

And another quote by one of my favorite philosophers:

 

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

-- Confucius

[JohnFromAus]

I have just read this whole thread and can see that the "non believers" have the same problem I had. They just cannot accept time dilation as a fact. I had trouble with this too and still have some work to do to get a full understanding but I am sensible enough to know when I am wrong and inquisitive enough to want to find out what Im missing and enhance my understanding of this place we live in.

 

Thank you to the "dilationists" for clearing up some of my misunderstandings and to the "non believers" for pushing them to the point of frustration and eliciting such clear answers!!

 

John

[Eric 5]

Reaper. Please go to a standard dictionary and look up the word time. Look at all the definitions and then decide if time is a physical thing or not.

 

I have just read this whole thread and can see that the "non believers" have the same problem I had. They just cannot accept time dilation as a fact. I had trouble with this too and still have some work to do to get a full understanding but I am sensible enough to know when I am wrong and inquisitive enough to want to find out what Im missing and enhance my understanding of this place we live in.

 

Thank you to the "dilationists" for clearing up some of my misunderstandings and to the "non believers" for pushing them to the point of frustration and eliciting such clear answers!!

 

John

 

 

John, go look at the term time in a standard dictionary. Please define all the definitions. After doing this, please re-read your reference on time dilation. The "dialationists" as you call them, have not given a definition of time according to a standard dictionary, so there is no way to tell what their idea of time is. Until the you personally define the term time by using a standard dictionary, you will not have a full understanding of the term time.

[iNow]

Fred56 used to like dictionaries and cherry picked definitions and equivocations. I wonder...

[swansont]

Reaper. Please go to a standard dictionary and look up the word time. Look at all the definitions and then decide if time is a physical thing or not.

 

 

 

 

John, go look at the term time in a standard dictionary. Please define all the definitions. After doing this, please re-read your reference on time dilation. The "dialationists" as you call them, have not given a definition of time according to a standard dictionary, so there is no way to tell what their idea of time is. Until the you personally define the term time by using a standard dictionary, you will not have a full understanding of the term time.

 

There are a whole bunch of science terms that do not have the same definition as you find in a standard dictionary. There is no scientific rigor in this line of inquiry.

[Eric 5]

Fred56 used to like dictionaries and cherry picked definitions and equivocations. I wonder...

 

You use any reference book that you like. You give me a definition of time that is being used in the idea of time dilation. What definition of time are you using when you read about time dilation. I have stated that I do not agree that this thing called time is in fact a thing, and that it can be slowed down. I have stated that time is just a consideration, and this statement is from reading many definitions of time and from observations of the world around me. I have asked many people to give me their definition of time, and not one person has stated that it is a physical thing. YOU or ANYONE reading this thread that do not agree that time is nothing more then a consideration can put this whole issue to rest by stating what definition of time they are using when they read about time dilation. A definition of TIME, not length, or distance or what ever else. Give a definition of TIME. In case you have not noticed, there has not been a definition of TIME given that supports the idea that this time thing can be physically slowed down. Plain and simple, put this issue to rest and show me that I am mistaken by just giving me YOUR definition of TIME that you are using when you read about time dilation.

 

There are a whole bunch of science terms that do not have the same definition as you find in a standard dictionary. There is no scientific rigor in this line of inquiry.

 

 

Swansont! You state a definition of time, and stop avoiding the issue. What definition of time are you using when you read about time dilation? I say time is a mere consideration based on the many definitions of time that I have read, and from direct observation of the world around me. If you disagree, please state a definition of TIME that supports your viewpoint. ANY standard definition of TIME from any standard dictionary used by physicists, scientists, professors, students. What is the definition of time that you are working off of that supports your viewpoint?

 

Reaper! Please state your definition of time that you are working from that backs up your viewpoint on time dilation. I have asked you before to give a definition of time, and you have avoided the request. Lets see if you can give a definition. Plain and simple, you give a definition of time that you are using when you read about time dilation. The ball is in your court, you can put this to rest once and for all, can you do it? Just a definition of time is all I am asking of you, or anyone who agrees with you.

[coregazer]

okay, all of you here are trying to explain why it is possible/inpossible to travel at the speed of light however none of you, as far as i noticed, have talked about how traveling at light would most likely destroy you and most things that have "mass" because of a perticuler force, i forget which (g-force is it?)

[Klaynos]

okay, all of you here are trying to explain why it is possible/inpossible to travel at the speed of light however none of you, as far as i noticed, have talked about how traveling at light would most likely destroy you and most things that have "mass" because of a perticuler force, i forget which (g-force is it?)

 

Not really part of the discussion... and I dunno what force you're talking about.

 

Eric 5, time dilation has been tested, if you say it's not real you're going to have to show some EVIDENCE for this. Time appears as part of the 4-vector, it is a dimension similar to the 3 spacial ones.

 

Evidence or STFU!

[iNow]

Evidence or STFU!

Or, he could just keep putting random words in bold.

[jackson33]

Eric; I don't know where your going on this, but GR does offer a theoretical differential on time under the *Twin Paradox*. Where one travels at C for years and the other stationary on earth. The traveler/observer part of dilation.

 

If your simply questioning the 'Atomic Clock' experiments, you are probably justified.

When talking *Nano* seconds your talking billionths of one second. I have no idea how the 7 or 10 NS could be attributed to error, but a good drown draft, friction created on a westbound trip over eastbound or differentials in take off or landings could effect an outcome. I also kind of wonder, since the earths rotation is involved, where the speed of earth around the sun, the speed of our solar system around the galaxy core or even our galaxy groups speed in the Universe are considered. Any one of which dwarfs the small 1000 mile per hour rotation.

 

There are other grounds for considering time slows at C, including NASA's observations of time, after take offs and while orbiting. The question I have always asked, is why the by stander should continue aging, when the traveler would not. Even now with this new 'space/time' fabric stuff, it would seem the by stander would experience less time than the traveler and certainly the traveler would arrive back in less time passed from where begun, then his experienced time...

[swansont]

Swansont! You state a definition of time, and stop avoiding the issue. What definition of time are you using when you read about time dilation?

 

Time is what is measured by a clock. I believe I gave this version before, as well as other versions (i.e. mathematical ones)

[Eric 5]

 

Eric 5, time dilation has been tested, if you say it's not real you're going to have to show some EVIDENCE for this. Time appears as part of the 4-vector, it is a dimension similar to the 3 spacial ones.

 

Evidence or STFU!

 

 

 

 

 

Look up the word time. Dictionaries and reference books are stating that time is not a real physical thing. I say time is just a consideration, a measurement of motion. Time is not a thing. Check your physics books. I say time is not a real thing and give evidence why. I have even asked you to check for yourself, but you have not done so yet. My evidence is all there in black and white, in any reference book. The evidence is in all of your science reference books. It is now up to you to tell me what definition of time you are working from when you say time is a real thing that is measured and can be slowed down. You give your evidence that time is a real physical thing.

 

 

Also, do yourself a favor and define spatial dimension, decide for yourself if this is an actual physical object or thing. If time is similar to the three spatial dimensions, then find out exactly what you are comparing time to and you will see that as I have been saying all along, TIME IS A CONSIDERATION. But please define time and spatial dimension and decide for yourself. You need to define your terms to get a better understanding of this subject of time.

 

Again, up to now you have avoided giving any definition of time, so until you do, the definition of time in “time dilation” will be the definition that can be found in any standard dictionary.

 

Just give your evidence of what the meaning for the word time is, you will gain a better understanding of time. Show me that you have a correct definition of time and no longer prolong this debate. I stand by my evidence that time is just a consideration. Correct me if I am wrong.

[iNow]

Correct me if I am wrong.

This has already been done repeatedly. What shall we do now?

[Eric 5]

Time is what is measured by a clock. I believe I gave this version before, as well as other versions (i.e. mathematical ones)

 

Is this the standard physics definition of time? This is the best you could dig up to prove your point, to give solid evidence of the existence of time. You are going to have to use a better dictionary, that is why i said to use a standard dictionary.

 

From that definition time is something that is measured. That’s it! So what exactly is being measured? Without the clock, what is this thing called time?

 

What you just gave as a definition of time does not say what this time thing is, it only states what it is measured by.

 

This definition of time is incomplete. Your definition of time is like giving a definition of light in this manner. "light is what is measured by a spectrometer" Would you call that a complete definition of light? It says nothing other than the fact that it is measured.

 

How about this definition: "sound is something that is measured by a decimeter." Very incomplete. There is much more to the definition of light and sound than is stated in those simplistic definitions.

 

Come on, give a good solid scientific definition of time, all the details.

 

But, if you are happy with this definition of time, then from this definition of time, can you explain the physics behind this "something that is measured by a clock" when time dilation occurs? This definition leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to look up the word clock too.

[jasmin1988]

is it right?if an of object move near to the speed of light the will slow..,while if the object moves slower than the speed of time or moves to earths reference the time will run faster?

[swansont]

The Cap'n pointed you to it a week ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=395004&postcount=65

 

"Time is largely defined by its measurement in physics"

 

What you seem to be asking for is a metaphysical explanation about what time is, and science doesn't provide that.

[foursixand2]

At the speed of light, you would be instantly transported to your destination, because time would not exist for you.

I dont think that could be true. Even light takes time to travel a distance, for example the light of our sun reaches our planet within 8 minutes. So are you saying rather you could travel anywhere within that 'beam' of light? that makes more sense . . . maybe. I'd just want to know the reason behind that statement

Apologies if this has been covered anywhere, but im not going to read the entire thread. John makes a very interesting assertion but gives no explanation. Is there one?

[swansont]

Apologies if this has been covered anywhere, but im not going to read the entire thread. John makes a very interesting assertion but gives no explanation. Is there one?

 

It's predicated on the extrapolation of the Lorentz transformations, which diverge at v = c, but tend toward infinite time dilation and length contraction. Unfortunately, v = c is not a valid frame for a massive object.

[thedarkshade]

Unfortunately, v = c is not a valid frame for a massive object.

And as 46&2 likes explanations, this would be because you need infinite energy to have v=c for massive objects!

[Zephir]

You can try to check the DHMTL applet or AVI video for understanding of the subject.

[Eric 5]

The Cap'n pointed you to it a week ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=395004&postcount=65

 

"Time is largely defined by its measurement in physics"

 

What you seem to be asking for is a metaphysical explanation about what time is, and science doesn't provide that.

 

 

I am asking for anyone on this forum to give the definition of time that is used in science. If you think that time is a physical thing, then what scientific definition of time are you using?

 

You say time is largely defined by IT'S measurement in physics. What is this thing that possesses this measurement? What is being measured?

 

 

Is time a thing that exists on it's own? Or is it just a type of measurement?

 

Look, there have been claims that time dilation actually occurs, so what actually occurred to this thing called time. If you say that a clock slowed down, then can you find the description of a clock that shows the physics of how this time thing is measured by the clock? Just look up the scientific definition of time, and then define the word clock. After doing this see if you can explain to yourself how this idea of time dilation can actually occur.

 

See if you can explain the exact mechanics behind time dilation actually occurring.

[swansont]

I am asking for anyone on this forum to give the definition of time that is used in science. If you think that time is a physical thing, then what scientific definition of time are you using?

 

You say time is largely defined by IT'S measurement in physics. What is this thing that possesses this measurement? What is being measured?

 

We keep going over the same ground. These questions have been addressed.

 

Is time a thing that exists on it's own? Or is it just a type of measurement?

 

Look, there have been claims that time dilation actually occurs, so what actually occurred to this thing called time. If you say that a clock slowed down, then can you find the description of a clock that shows the physics of how this time thing is measured by the clock? Just look up the scientific definition of time, and then define the word clock. After doing this see if you can explain to yourself how this idea of time dilation can actually occur.

 

Explain to myself? Already done it.

 

See if you can explain the exact mechanics behind time dilation actually occurring.

 

The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

[Klaynos]

Oh dear we're back here?

[phyti]

eric 5;

I am asking for anyone on this forum to give the definition of time that is used in science. If you think that time is a physical thing, then what scientific definition of time are you using?

 

You say time is largely defined by IT'S measurement in physics. What is this thing that possesses this measurement? What is being measured?

 

Is time a thing that exists on it's own? Or is it just a type of measurement?

 

Look, there have been claims that time dilation actually occurs, so what actually occurred to this thing called time. If you say that a clock slowed down, then can you find the description of a clock that shows the physics of how this time thing is measured by the clock? Just look up the scientific definition of time, and then define the word clock. After doing this see if you can explain to yourself how this idea of time dilation can actually occur.

 

See if you can explain the exact mechanics behind time dilation actually occurring.

 

A definition:

The measurement of 'time' is matching world events to clock events (reference events). This provides a means of ordering and comparison for human purposes, similar to measuring lengths, etc. Therefore to qualify, a clock must be a source of periodic uniform events, sun, moon, pendulum, cesium atom, etc., depending on the precision needed.

 

For an explanation of time dilation, refer to http://wizdum.awardspace.info

For experimental evidence search the internet for 'muon time dilation'.

[Eric 5]

Swansont. Any standard scientific definition of time does not say that it is a physical thing. Time is defined as a measurement of motion. Time is a consideration. You have not shown any evidence to the contrary.

 

A definition:

The measurement of 'time' is matching world events to clock events (reference events). This provides a means of ordering and comparison for human purposes, similar to measuring lengths, etc. Therefore to qualify, a clock must be a source of periodic uniform events, sun, moon, pendulum, cesium atom, etc., depending on the precision needed.

 

 

This is what I have been saying. Time is not a physical thing. It is a measurement of the motion of physical things. Time is not something that exists on its own. Since time is not a real physical thing and a clock is, then the only thing that can experience any kind of physical phenomenon would be the clock. When two clocks that were previously synchronized are later shown to be out of synch, it is the clocks that have changed and not time.