Can you please simplify Special and general relativity into basic principles please?

[Strange]

Partly scientists have been withdrawing in the last few decades from the most grandiose claims that still sit in the backbone of the theory of general relativity at least.

 

Have they? Do you have any examples?

 

So explain to me. If I were to be in a space rocket constantly traveling at high speeds, exactly what effect would t hat have on my biological age in relation to others on earth according to your understanding of said theorie(s)

 

If your rocket is travelling at a constant velocity relative to Earth, then the people on Earth will see your clocks run slower than theirs and, therefore, see you age more slowly.

 

You are not going to like this next bit but ... you will see the clocks on Earth slower than yours and, therefore, see them age more slowly.

 

(It gets slightly more complex if you decide to turn around and return to Earth.)

[Questionist]

So what, exactly happens to my body because it moves faster? I understand that something is making the clocks move faster, I don't care about the clocks.
There are several conflicting things here. From what I understand Einstein proclaimed that you do not have a faster velocity when in a train and walking inside it than the train itself.
(Thus you can never attain above the speed of light by stacking stuff that moves on stuff that moves on stuff...otherwise his theory would be more full of holes than cheese in an Acme explosion).

So by the same principle my molecules are not doing that neither, correct? I mean I'm not breathing, exhausting myself slower, am I?
So what is causing the slower ageing

Wait, let me answer this myself. Your answer will be something akin to this: Time has moved differently relative to us two (earth and space rocket). I have aged more because time around me has moved slower than time around you. So I will have spent let's say 1 hour, while you spend 1 and a half hour.


But again, the actual difference of speed within my internal organs, my internal molecules remains static in their speed in space as in earth (not counting effects of limited gravity). How is it that I have aged less, your more, or what ever variation of this various people propose.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Questionist

[swansont]

Holes through already invisible (non-measurable) dimensions, time travel in general, some form of difference in aging without any reference to particle decay or biology. I mean it's ridiculous.

 

Interesting you mention that, because particle decay was the first experimental confirmation of time dilation. So "without any reference to" is really "confirmed by". Regardless of any argument from personal incredulity you want to cite (and being a fallacious argument, carries no weight)

[Endy0816]

So by the same principle my molecules are not doing that neither, correct? I mean I'm not breathing, exhausting myself slower, am I?

 

 

From the view of someone on Earth, you will be. Every reaction, your respiration, thought, etc. goes at the slower rate(from their perspective).

 

From your own perspective though everything will progress normally onboard.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Questionist,

A number of your posts in this thread are simply unacceptable. You don't get to tell people to stop posting in a thread and you certainly don't get to do it in such an uncivil manner.

You also need to stop making plainly ridiculous assertions if you don't plan on actually backing them up with evidence. Mocking established science, etc. because you happen to think it ridiculous falls under the banner of logical fallacy, which our rules strongly discourage.

If you can't do this, then this will be closed. Do not respond to this note in-thread.

Edited April 12, 2015 by imatfaal
typo

[Strange]

So what, exactly happens to my body because it moves faster? I understand that something is making the clocks move faster, I don't care about the clocks.

 

Remember all motion is relative, and relativity only describes relative effects. You are not moving relative to yourself and so nothing will happen to your clocks or your body. From your point of view, you are always stationary. (On the other hand, you are always moving at some speed relative to something else.)

 

There are several conflicting things here. From what I understand Einstein proclaimed that you do not have a faster velocity when in a train and walking inside it than the train itself.

 

A couple of points. Firstly, relativity is not about what Einstein "proclaimed". It is a scientific theory and therefore based on maths and evidence. We can completely ignore what Einstein may or may not have said as it is completely irrelevant. I'm sure there are things he was wrong about.

 

And he certainly never said that "you do not have a faster velocity when in a train and walking inside it than the train itself" because it isn't true.

 

What you might be thinking of is the fact that if you are in a train moving at a constant speed, then that is no different from being stationary (because all speed is relative). So if you are on this train and throw a ball vertically upward, then it will come straight back down to your hands (just like you were not moving).

 

(Thus you can never attain above the speed of light by stacking stuff that moves on stuff that moves on stuff...otherwise his theory would be more full of holes than cheese in an Acme explosion).

 

OK, so what you may be thinking of is the fact that speed does not add linearly. For example, we "know" that if you are on a train going at 40 MPH and you run towards the front at 10 MPH then your total speed (relative to the ground) will be 50 MPH. This is only approximately true. Your speed will actually be very slightly less than 50 MPH (the difference is immeasurably small at everyday speeds, which is why we are not aware of it).

 

Once speeds get to a significant proportion of the speed of light, then the simple addition of velocities no longer works.

[Questionist]

OK, so what you may be thinking of is the fact that speed does not add linearly. For example, we "know" that if you are on a train going

 

 

 

Right, I forgot to say that the train is moving close to the speed of light.

 

Remember all motion is relative, and relativity only describes relative effects. You are not moving relative to yourself and so nothing will happen to your clocks or your body. From your point of view, you are always stationary. (On the other hand, you are always moving at some speed relative to something else.)

 

 

Of course something will happen to the damn clocks, it has been proven that it WILL happen. It is in SUPPORT of the theory.

You even said I would age differently. Age is not only a relative thing ,it is a physical thing. HOW will I age differently?

You must differentiate.

If you are using the theory of relativity as a model of unknown forces to calculate observable measurements at great speeds from different perspectives (such as GPS) then we are on the same book.

 

If you're as someone else said in the other thread, using it to "explain the Universe" we are not. Although you must understand that the later was Einsteins intention, not the prior, despite some peoples objections, even in these discussions.

 

Edited April 12, 2015 by Questionist

[ajb]

Age is not only a relative thing ,it is a physical thing. HOW will I age differently?

As far as you are concerned, you age in just the same way you always have.

 

You only notice something strange when different inertial observers compare durations.

[Strange]

Right, I forgot to say that the train is moving close to the speed of light.

 

OK. So if you are on train moving at 90% of the speed of light (relative to someone on the platform - there is no such thing as absolute speed) and you run through the train at 90% of the speed of light then the person on the platoform will see you moving at 99.4% of the speed of light.

 

Of course something will happen to the damn clocks, it has been proven that it WILL happen. It is in SUPPORT of the theory.

You even said I would age differently. Age is not only a relative thing ,it is a physical thing. HOW will I age differently?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "how". You will be observed to age more slowly. This can be described as a rotation between space and time dimensions.

 

If you are using the theory of relativity as a model of unknown forces to calculate observable measurements at great speeds from different perspectives (such as GPS) then we are on the same book.

 

No. It doesn't require unknown forces.

 

If you're as someone else said in the other thread, using it to "explain the Universe" we are not.

 

I wouldn't say it is explaining the universe, just the measurements we make.

[Questionist]

@ajb So all that changes is the comparatively measured duration?

Would everyone agree with this point here?

Again I wonder if you're sure about what you're talking about but since you are a "physics expert" I'll take your word for it, just take mine on that I have heard different opinions about this.

 

 

@above

 

I wouldn't say it is explaining the universe, just the measurements we make.

 

You keep mixing things up.
Does the theory give us the tools to make the measurements or does it also explain the measurements.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Questionist

[Strange]

If the explanation involved unknown forces affecting the clocks (as you suggest) then it is hard to see how it could be a relative effect.

 

So for example, the time from GPS satellites has to be adjusted for the difference in gravity and speed. But if you were sitting next to the satellite then no such adjustment would be necessary. So there is no "real" change taking place, in that sense.

 

Remember, because it is relative two different observers will see your clocks slow by different amounts.

[ajb]

So all that changes is the comparatively measured duration?

Yes, so in general different inertial observers carrying clocks will measured different durations between events. Here we mean all clocks, including your 'body clock'. The 'twin paradox' and similar arise by hanging on to the idea of a universal time that everyone can agree on. Remove this and all these seeming paradoxes disappear.

 

Would everyone agree with this point here?

I think so, at least up to our sloppy language here. You can make this more precise.

 

Again I wonder if you're sure about what you're talking about but since you are a "physics expert" I'll take your word for it, just take mine on that I have heard different opinions about this.

The opinion as generally accepted by physicists is what I have told you. Different inertial observers will in general measure different durations between events. This is also closely tied to simultaneity, something else that courses problems.

[Questionist]

@Strange But there is a real change, that's why Einstein has very real limits to his theory such as that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. If the speed of light was just the unit used to measure observations because it carries the information (data) to us then he would not have put that in place. That is why the atomic clocks ended up resonating at different speeds!

I would love it to be simply what you suggest, but that was never in my opinion his intention. And now I am up on the other side, defending the theory I do not agree with or fully understand. Damnit.

 

@ajb I do not understand how relative position and speed of people or particles can change actual events in reality and even if it can I can't understand why you would accept that time is a dimension with its own realities.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Questionist

[ajb]

But there is a real change,

Change in what?

 

...that's why Einstein has very real limits to his theory such as that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

That comes out as a consequence of the theory. Well, really what it says is that no massive body can have a relative velocity of c or above and that for massless particles their relative speed is always c.

 

If the speed of light was just the unit used to measure observations because it carries the information (data) to us then he would not have put that in place.

I like to view the speed of light c, as a universal constant that lets us mix space and time. This speed plays a fundamental geometric role in theory.

 

That is why the atomic clocks ended up resonating at different speeds!

I don't follow.

Edited April 12, 2015 by ajb

[Questionist]

So pure energy (photons) have their constant speed, and nothing can ever move faster than that because matter slows them down? If that's what you are saying then that makes perfect sense according to even the general laws of physics that we discussed.
But my understanding is that he basically equates time with light. Well not quite but I can't explain myself any better.

That if you were to in theory be able to travel faster than light you would be traveling back not only through the reflections of the past but actual past.



In the experiment I linked, the atomic clocks ended up showing different measurements. Since (I think) they measure time based on resonance they must have resonated differently.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Questionist

[studiot]

Questionist,

You have cIaimed to want to discuss in words not mathematics but I to came to the conclusion you were not interested in serious discussion of any description when you presented a mealy mouthed response to my offer to discuss relativity in words rather than mathematics in the other current relativity thread.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Alright, I think we've all had enough of your inability to comprehend basic instructions. I'm suspending you until further notice.

[ajb]

So pure energy (photons) ...

There is no such thing as pure energy, so here you just mean photons. Okay...

 

have their constant speed,

As measured by all and any inertial observer...

 

... and nothing can ever move faster than that because matter slows them down?

You mean mass?

 

Being massive does indeed mean that no inertial observer could measure that object as having a relative velocity of c or greater.

 

If that's what you are saying then that makes perfect sense according to even the general laws of physics that we discussed.

What I have said is textbook physics.

 

But my understanding is that he basically equates time with light. Well not quite but I can't explain myself any better.

Einstein you mean? No, he does not equate light and time, but uses light in his reasoning. Really he is using the speed limit c, rather than the speed of light as such. They are of course the same thing.

 

That if you were to in theory be able to travel faster than light you would be traveling back not only through the reflections of the past but actual past.

If you were to travel faster than the speed of light then it would be possible to find inertial frames of reference for which you are travelling backwards in time.

Edited April 12, 2015 by ajb