can time actually slow down?

[Reaper79]

I've just watched a documentary about Einstein and his eureka moment on the train speed away from the clock tower, the narrator said time slowed down, and then stopped as the train moved away at the speed of light, because the light from the clock couldn't keep up with the train, and so gave the illusion that time had stopped.

 

But time didn't stop, it kept going in both instances as Einstein moved away for x minutes, x minutes has passed for him, and also the same amount of time had passed at the clock tower and at the same rate. From the observers stand point time appeared to stop, but it was only an optical illusion and not really a blip in time at all.

 

I say this because if I'm on this imagined light speed train, and I can see the hands of the clock are no longer moving, so I think time has stopped. But what if the train came to a sudden and abrupt stop, after I scraped myself off the carriage walls, would I then observe time rushing back toward me? and see the hands of the clock rush forward x minutes to the actual time again?

 

What If I was moving toward the clock tower at light speed, the clock hands would move once per second, as I'm speeding toward the light that is creating time, I would only observe it in real time, no matter how fast I was going, because the clocks hands tick once per second.

 

So the idea of moving away from the earth for 1 year at light speed, and returning without stopping in another year, by the same principal as above, only two years would have passed for the people of Earth, and the rocket man, the observer would get quite a light show, but that's all, and time would right itself as soon as it was observable again.

 

So>?

 

What the hell.... and stuff... are people talking about when it comes to time travel via light speed.

 

Thanks

 

PS: I think my argument is, time is a measurement of distance, to go from a to b takes x time, and that is not something we can manipulate. unless you have a wormhole generator nearby.... but that's a different topic.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Reaper79

[StringJunky]

First off, there is no frame of reference at lightspeed; only some fraction of it. Photons do not have a frame and anything with mass can't travel at lightspeed.

 

Lightspeed is invariant, regardless of what *inertial frame you are in. As a consequence of this, time and distance are not absolute because they must vary in order to conform to an invariant speed of light and for all inertial observers to measure it as such.

 

Have a read in Wiki about the Hafele-Keating experiment.

 

* moving at a fixed velocity (constant rate of motion and direction) but it doesn't matter how fast; short of lightspeed.

Edited February 24, 2015 by StringJunky

[ajb]

I've just watched a documentary about Einstein and his eureka moment on the train speed away from the clock tower, the narrator said time slowed down, and then stopped as the train moved away at the speed of light, because the light from the clock couldn't keep up with the train, and so gave the illusion that time had stopped.

Basically, yes. The clock on the train will run at a slower rate as seen from a clock at the station. This is time dilation and it has been observed by comparing the decay rates of particles in cosmic rays with the decay rates as measured by stationary particles in the lab. Fast moving particles live longer than you might expect knowing there half-life in the lab frame.

 

The only thing you have to take care with are any statements about travelling at the speed of light. This is impossible for any massive body. However, taking the limit of the train speed as it approaches c is okay and in this limit 'time stops'. But this is a formal mathematical expression and not to be considered as true physics. Again, we cannot think of massive bodies as moving at the speed of light.

[Delta1212]

It's important to separate the optical effect from the physical effect. Yes, if you travel away from something, the increasing distance will cause a delay in the light you receive, and yes, the reverse occurs as you travel toward something.

 

You can, however, calculate how much of an effect your relative motion is having on the light you receive, and if you factor that difference out, you'll discover that the other clock is still running slow, in both cases. It's not simply an optical effect caused by light taking longer to reach you, and if the documentary you watched explained it that way then they did a poor job.

[Reaper79]

Thanks for the replies,

 

This Documentary explained it far better than I did it seems, but never mind I'll try to make me case again.

 

I don't know what you mean by "frame", I think your measuring time in two places once at the clock tower and again in the train carriage, I hope I picked that up correctly.

 

My point would be that time can't be divided or separated by distance or speed. Much like the c variable mentioned above as the constant speed of light,I would say on the same note that t=time enjoys the same constant. We can bend it, stretch it, compress it, but when we are finished it returns to its natural state...... or something like that. It's difficult to explain my thoughts

 

 

 

I say this because if I'm on this imagined light speed train, and I can see the hands of the clock are no longer moving, so I think time has stopped. But what if the train came to a sudden and abrupt stop, after I scraped myself off the carriage walls, would I then observe time rushing back toward me? and see the hands of the clock rush forward x minutes to the actual time again?

 

I know massive objects can't actually travel at 100% the speed of light, but this started out as a thought experiment and I was curious to know if Einstein ever considered the train suddenly and completely stopping while observing this time dilation. Would time rush up to meet him from the clock tower or would the world be a few minutes older than him.

 

I know the clock on the train would be x minutes ahead on the clock tower back at the station, but as soon as time or the light from the clock caught up with the train, both should be in perfect sync again? should they not?

[StringJunky]

...I know the clock on the train would be x minutes ahead on the clock tower back at the station, but as soon as time or the light from the clock caught up with the train, both should be in perfect sync again? should they not?

Were the clocks still synchronised, in the Hafele-Keating experiment, when the clocks were brought back together?

Edited February 24, 2015 by StringJunky

[Reaper79]

I'm having a hard time explaining my meaning, the 3 clocks disagreed with each other, but I'm not speaking about mechanical devices in this instance. I will attempt a variation on the original thought experiment and see if I can make my point a little clearer, but I think it will raise more questions than answers, but here we go anyways.

 

Scenario B:

I set my watch to the clock tower at the train station.It's 1 pm right now and the train is about to leave. Before I board the train I set a camera focused on the clock tower, and attach a device that will transmit the feed in real time to my cabin on the train.( regardless of time dilation or mechanical difficulties, the feed to the monitor in my cabin will be always accurate.)
The train begins to move off, and I look out my window at the clock tower, in just a second, we are traveling at 99% the speed of light, time appears to slow down or stop. The hands on the clock tower have stopped moving, and they are in full view for the duration of the experiment. after 5 minutes, the clock tower still reads 1 pm. The monitor in my cabin which has a live feed to the clock tower reads 1:05 pm, my watch reads 1:05 pm.

The train suddenly comes to a complete stop.

 

Do I A = remain 5 minutes in the future

or

Do I B = Observe the light from the clock tower catch up to me at a very high rate and see with my own eyes the clock tower hands fast forward to 1:05 pm just like my watch and the live feed in my cabin?

 

I guess that's as simple as I can make the question, I will of course accept a "Do I C:" scenario. My imagination is turning tricks, trying to get my head around this concept.

 

PS: Thanks for not treating my like an idiot, I'm not educated in Special Relativity but it does intrigue me.

Vince

[Janus]

I've just watched a documentary about Einstein and his eureka moment on the train speed away from the clock tower, the narrator said time slowed down, and then stopped as the train moved away at the speed of light, because the light from the clock couldn't keep up with the train, and so gave the illusion that time had stopped.

 

But time didn't stop, it kept going in both instances as Einstein moved away for x minutes, x minutes has passed for him, and also the same amount of time had passed at the clock tower and at the same rate. From the observers stand point time appeared to stop, but it was only an optical illusion and not really a blip in time at all.

 

I say this because if I'm on this imagined light speed train, and I can see the hands of the clock are no longer moving, so I think time has stopped. But what if the train came to a sudden and abrupt stop, after I scraped myself off the carriage walls, would I then observe time rushing back toward me? and see the hands of the clock rush forward x minutes to the actual time again?

 

What If I was moving toward the clock tower at light speed, the clock hands would move once per second, as I'm speeding toward the light that is creating time, I would only observe it in real time, no matter how fast I was going, because the clocks hands tick once per second.

 

So the idea of moving away from the earth for 1 year at light speed, and returning without stopping in another year, by the same principal as above, only two years would have passed for the people of Earth, and the rocket man, the observer would get quite a light show, but that's all, and time would right itself as soon as it was observable again.

 

So>?

 

What the hell.... and stuff... are people talking about when it comes to time travel via light speed.

 

Thanks

 

PS: I think my argument is, time is a measurement of distance, to go from a to b takes x time, and that is not something we can manipulate. unless you have a wormhole generator nearby.... but that's a different topic.

I have to agree that if the documentary explained it in just the way they describe, they did a poor job in doing so. The explanation seems to concentrate on the Doppler effect, which in of itself is not the cause of time dilation.

 

However, we can use what we see to show that the time on the tower clock will actually run slow as measured by the train observer.

 

If we work out the math, it turns out that, as seen from the train, the tower clock will be running at a rate of

 

[math]\sqrt{\frac{1+ \Beta}{1- \Beta}}[/math]

 

when compared to his own, where Beta is v/c and is positive when the train is moving towards the tower, and negative when it is moving away.

 

Thus if the train were moving away from the tower at 0.6c, it will see the tower clock run at a rate of 1/2 its own clock. (for every 2 sec that tick off the train clock it will see 1 sec tick off the tower clock.) Now this does not mean that the tower clock actually ticks 1/2 as fast as the train clock, because some of this is due to the increasing distance between clock and tower.

 

But now let's consider what happens if the train suddenly reverses direction and heads back towards the the tower. Now it will see the tower clock run at a rate 2 times as fast as its own.

 

So let's say that the train travels for 1 hr away from the tower, then turns around and travels back at the same speed.

 

For the first half of the trip, it will see the tower clock tick 1/2 as fast and thus sees it read 30 min when the train reverses direction. Then for the 1 hr of the return trip, it will see the tower clock run 2 times as fast and sees it accumulate 2 hrs. This means that during the whole trip, the train sees the tower clock accumulate 2 hr 30 min while its own clock accumulates only 2 hrs.

 

This means that when the train returns to the tower, it will find that the Tower clock will have advanced 1/2 more than its own.

 

If we now consider things from the perspective of the tower, we find the following:

 

As the train recedes, the tower sees the train clock run slow by a factor of 1/2. Since we have already established that the train does not reverse direction until its own clock reads 1 hr, this means that the tower doesn't see the train turn around until its own clock reads 2 hrs. (Because of the distance between train and tower when the train reverses direction, the tower does not "see" the train reverse direction until after the train has actually reversed direction and is already on its way back.

 

Now the tower sees the train clock run at a rate 2 times it own. But since the train as already on its way back by the time the tower even saw it turn around, the train arrives only 1/2 hr later by his clock, during which time the tower sees the train clock accumulate 1 hr. So by the tower clock, 2 1/2 hrs pass between train leaving and returning while it sees 2 hrs pass on the train clock.

 

Both tower and train agree that the train aged 1/2 hr less during the trip.

Edited February 24, 2015 by Janus

[Reaper79]

Thanks Janus, that did clarify some of my question, but just like in school, I couldn't figure out the math of "when the train leaves the station" questions for love nor money.

 

Just above your post, I made a simplified version of my original question, If you wouldn't mind taking a look and popping in a quick response, and if possible leave out the math, and try to describe what you think you would observe as the train passenger.

 

Thanks.

[Janus]

I'm having a hard time explaining my meaning, the 3 clocks disagreed with each other, but I'm not speaking about mechanical devices in this instance. I will attempt a variation on the original thought experiment and see if I can make my point a little clearer, but I think it will raise more questions than answers, but here we go anyways.

 

Scenario B:

I set my watch to the clock tower at the train station.It's 1 pm right now and the train is about to leave. Before I board the train I set a camera focused on the clock tower, and attach a device that will transmit the feed in real time to my cabin on the train.( regardless of time dilation or mechanical difficulties, the feed to the monitor in my cabin will be always accurate.)

Such a live feed which involves an actual transmission of information from station to train cannot exist. It would require information to be transferred at greater than c speeds, and that is strictly forbidden. The best you can do is to have a device in your cabin which would calculate what time it is at station in "real time" according to the train.

 

The train begins to move off, and I look out my window at the clock tower, in just a second, we are traveling at 99% the speed of light, time appears to slow down or stop. The hands on the clock tower have stopped moving, and they are in full view for the duration of the experiment. after 5 minutes, the clock tower still reads 1 pm.

At 99% the speed of light you would see the tower clock run at a rate of 1/14 as fast. You will never see the clock hands stop completely. So after 5 min, the tower clock will read ~1:00:21 pm as seen by you.

 

The monitor in my cabin which has a live feed to the clock tower reads 1:05 pm, my watch reads 1:05 pm.

No. Your calculating device will show that the tower clock ran 1/7 as fast as your own and will read ~ 1:00:43 pm

 

The train suddenly comes to a complete stop.

 

Do I A = remain 5 minutes in the future

or

Do I B = Observe the light from the clock tower catch up to me at a very high rate and see with my own eyes the clock tower hands fast forward to 1:05 pm just like my watch and the live feed in my cabin?

 

The time you visually see on the tower clock remains at 1:00:21pm. The time on your "real time" calculator will jump forward to 1:35pm The reason behind this is that in coming to a stop, you undergo an acceleration(change in velocity0, and this adds a new set of complications to what you considering as happening to the tower clock.

 

I guess that's as simple as I can make the question, I will of course accept a "Do I C:" scenario. My imagination is turning tricks, trying to get my head around this concept.

 

PS: Thanks for not treating my like an idiot, I'm not educated in Special Relativity but it does intrigue me.

Vince

 

The thing about Relativity is that it forced us to think about time and space in a different way. Until its advent, we thought that the measurement of time and space were independent of who was measuring it.

 

And this is the first hurdle one must overcome when trying to learn it. It turns out that the measuring time and space does depend on who is measuring it and how fast they are moving relative to each other. The reason that this in not readily apparent to us is that for the differences to be easily noticeable, the relative speeds have to be much higher that those that we deal with in everyday life.

 

 

 

[Reaper79]

Ok I think I get this now, your explanation is perfect for a layman like myself to understand, although admittedly I am still a bit foggy on the math, I will take your good word for its truth.

 

We (you) know all the math now, and the experiments and testing have proven SR to be a very complicated and wonderful thing, the reason I asked the question to begin with was to try and understand what Einstein visualized in his minds eye the day he had his eureka moment on the train, because at that point in time, none of the testing had been done and no experiments had been performed, in fact iirc he had to wait for a total solar eclipse to get proof positive that space can bend and light doesn't travel in straight lines around massive objects.

 

He truly had a remarkable mind to make that conclusion without any previous information, and I'm a little closer to understand it all.

 

Thanks again for your help and patients.

Vince.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Reaper79

[StringJunky]

Ok I think I get this now, your explanation is perfect for a layman like myself to understand, although admittedly I am still a bit foggy on the math, I will take your good word for its truth.

 

We (you) know all the math now, and the experiments and testing have proven SR to be a very complicated and wonderful thing, the reason I asked the question to begin with was to try and understand what Einstein visualized in his minds eye the day he had his eureka moment on the train, because at that point in time, none of the testing had been done and no experiments had been performed, in fact iirc he had to wait for a total solar eclipse to get proof positive that space can bend and light doesn't travel in straight lines around massive objects.

 

He truly had a remarkable mind to make that conclusion without any previous information, and I'm a little closer to understand it all.

 

Thanks again for your help and patients.

Vince.

I'm not saying this is right regarding his original inspiration about time, but I have read Einstein's formative years were during the advent of photography and expecially motion pictures. The height of cinematic novelty then was time-lapse photography, showing things speeded up and slowed down; perhaps he wondered if this is how time actualy behaved? It seems coincidental and serendipitous.

Edited February 25, 2015 by StringJunky

[GeneralDadmission]

I'm not saying this is right regarding his original inspiration about time, but I have read Einstein's formative years were during the advent of photography and expecially motion pictures. The height of cinematic novelty then was time-lapse photography, showing things speeded up and slowed down; perhaps he wondered if this is how time actualy behaved? It seems coincidental and serendipitous.

 

I think this is a supportable supposition. Although a sped up scene is artificial in time lapse photography, it's observation does provide enough context to infer that time is relative to the observers FoR.

[Reaper79]

Perhaps there is something to that, who knows.

 

I just find it hard to accept that time is governed by light, certainly our observations are, but for something to age faster than it's counterpart just because it's traveling through space faster than its counterpart seems like it shouldn't be possible.

 

But there it is, math doesn't lie.

 

You might think I'm being argumentative here and I suppose I am to an extent, but what if....

 

I could shine a great big light toward Mars, and then instantly teleport to the surface of Mars, and watch the light reach my eyes while I stand on the surface.

have I just time traveled?

 

Just because I travel faster than light instantaneously doesn't mean time is measured any differently from Earth or Mars, because if the observer isn't traveling 186,000 Mps then no dilation can occur, the trip was instant and through "hyperspace" or something.

 

Kind of like throwing a football and then catching it yourself, but without physically moving.

 

(gosh I sound like a lunatic!! )

 

Thanks

Vince

[GeneralDadmission]

Perhaps there is something to that, who knows.

 

I just find it hard to accept that time is governed by light,

 

Time is not governed by light(photons). Time is governed by spatial potential and FoR. This subsequently confines the nature of light.

 

 

Just because I travel faster than light instantaneously doesn't mean time is measured any differently from Earth or Mars, because if the observer isn't traveling 186,000 Mps then no dilation can occur, the trip was instant and through "hyperspace" or something.

 

 

Time would be minimally dilated between earth and mars as they share the FoR of being gravitationally bound with the solar sytem. The mass dilation disparity is compensated by the disparity in velocities. To travel faster than light requires removal from the confinement of matter and subsequently cannot be applied to defining the principles of relativity.

[swansont]

I just find it hard to accept that time is governed by light

 

You don't have to. How about: Time and light are governed by the same set of laws.

 

I could shine a great big light toward Mars, and then instantly teleport to the surface of Mars, and watch the light reach my eyes while I stand on the surface.

have I just time traveled?

 

Just because I travel faster than light instantaneously doesn't mean time is measured any differently from Earth or Mars, because if the observer isn't traveling 186,000 Mps then no dilation can occur, the trip was instant and through "hyperspace" or something.

 

You can find scenarios where causality is violated if you can exceed c. e.g. you can get an answer before you asked the question.

[GeneralDadmission]

Technically time dilation disparity only means that a given volume of space contains more energy from a relative FoR.

[Delta1212]

Perhaps there is something to that, who knows.

 

I just find it hard to accept that time is governed by light, certainly our observations are, but for something to age faster than it's counterpart just because it's traveling through space faster than its counterpart seems like it shouldn't be possible.

 

But there it is, math doesn't lie.

 

You might think I'm being argumentative here and I suppose I am to an extent, but what if....

 

I could shine a great big light toward Mars, and then instantly teleport to the surface of Mars, and watch the light reach my eyes while I stand on the surface.

have I just time traveled?

 

Just because I travel faster than light instantaneously doesn't mean time is measured any differently from Earth or Mars, because if the observer isn't traveling 186,000 Mps then no dilation can occur, the trip was instant and through "hyperspace" or something.

 

Kind of like throwing a football and then catching it yourself, but without physically moving.

 

(gosh I sound like a lunatic!! )

 

Thanks

Vince

The problem here is that people in different frames on Earth will disagree on when "the same moment" on Mars is. You could conceivably set up a scenario where you instantly teleport to Mars and then teleport back to Earth, and upon your return, the next person, who is moving at a large fraction of the speed of light compared to you, teleports to Mars and arrives there before you did, despite leaving after you returned.

[imatfaal]

The problem here is that people in different frames on Earth will disagree on when "the same moment" on Mars is. You could conceivably set up a scenario where you instantly teleport to Mars and then teleport back to Earth, and upon your return, the next person, who is moving at a large fraction of the speed of light compared to you, teleports to Mars and arrives there before you did, despite leaving after you returned.

 

I am bit lost there Delta. Firstly, it is a bit odd to talk of instantaneous teleportation in a gedanken as TTBOOK the process is completely impossible and would either screw up causality or SR.

 

And even so - I am not happy about the idea that co-located observers will disagree with the order of events (without the pre-mentioned screw up of causality). Co-located observers will agree (or at least be able to transform one set of information to the alternative frame) on all observations made at the instant of their colocation - the information available at point (x,y,z,t) does not depend on the motion of the observer.

 

If I am standing at Nelson's Column beside one of Landseer's lions and travel very quickly to Mars and back, upon my return You leave the same spot already travelling very quickly and travel even more quickly to Mars - you will indubitably arrive on Mars after I did and all observers will agree on that point

[Delta1212]

 

I am bit lost there Delta. Firstly, it is a bit odd to talk of instantaneous teleportation in a gedanken as TTBOOK the process is completely impossible and would either screw up causality or SR.

 

And even so - I am not happy about the idea that co-located observers will disagree with the order of events (without the pre-mentioned screw up of causality). Co-located observers will agree (or at least be able to transform one set of information to the alternative frame) on all observations made at the instant of their colocation - the information available at point (x,y,z,t) does not depend on the motion of the observer.

 

If I am standing at Nelson's Column beside one of Landseer's lions and travel very quickly to Mars and back, upon my return You leave the same spot already travelling very quickly and travel even more quickly to Mars - you will indubitably arrive on Mars after I did and all observers will agree on that point

Yes. But I was responding to a post about instantaneous teleportation, which you can't do. The problem with this that I was attempting to illustrate, is that the whole concept of leaving one point and arriving at some distant place "at the same moment" has serious problems. When exactly is the same moment? Because of relativity of simultaneity, co-located observers in different frames me see a different moment at a distant location as being simultaneous to their own.

 

In reality, this doesn't matter because the math in relativity works itself out so that everyone agrees on causal events, but if you're throwing out the restriction on travel time, then what I consider traveling from one point to another instantly might be traveling into the past as seen by someone else.

 

You can't do that in real life, of course, because relativity makes this scenario impossible, as you said.

[Reaper79]

Sorry to dig up a VERY old thread, but I have not been able to resolve this principal in my minds eye, and it took some effort to find this thread, so please don't punish me too much for digging it up again.

 

Delta1212 asked the last question, when exactly is the same moment?

 

for arguments sake, lets sync 2 clockwork watches to 12 noon on planet earth, now lets increase the distance between them by 1 mile, I get in my car and drive to the next town. the watches are still synced. lets travel 1000 miles around the globe. aside from global time zones, the watches are still reading 12 noon at the same time.

 

Send one watch to mars by transporter beam or other instant delivery device, the watches are still synced and read 12 noon at the same time,

 

so the clarification I am looking for is, why is it only when we calculate time, that time distortions occur?

 

a) If my twin went out of town for 2 days and returned, we would still be the same age, but if he leaves at the speed of light or faster suddenly I am much older than he is? the speed of travel does not effect the ageing process.(unless from a great height .... straight down) If he left for 2 days at the speed of light and returned we both would of aged 2 days regardless of the speed traveled.by either of us.

 

b) If there are two atomic clocks, one on Earth, and the other on the ISS (International Space Station) I have heard people say there is a minuscule difference between the clocks even at short range, but GPS satellites are designed to account for latency to provide 1m² accuracy. So can't it be argued that the minute difference in readings between two atomic clocks is caused by latency, and if the latency was calculated correctly there would be no difference in timings at all.

 

Is this because our observations are limited to the speed at which we can make observations (Light speed) and their is some mathematical wizardry that allows us to predict outside the realm of reality?

 

I know people will say Einstein this and that, but has anyone ever considered The Great One may have goofed just a little, the math is undoubtedly solid, but the theory is still giving me nightmares, how it is possible we live in a universe where we can change the outcome of events before the events even begin.........

 

Please help me lol

[Janus]

Sorry to dig up a VERY old thread, but I have not been able to resolve this principal in my minds eye, and it took some effort to find this thread, so please don't punish me too much for digging it up again.

 

Delta1212 asked the last question, when exactly is the same moment?

 

for arguments sake, lets sync 2 clockwork watches to 12 noon on planet earth, now lets increase the distance between them by 1 mile, I get in my car and drive to the next town. the watches are still synced.Actually, while you are driving between them, they will not be in sync according to you.(though at the speed of a car, it will by be a very, very, very, small amount.

 

 

 

 

lets travel 1000 miles around the globe. aside from global time zones, the watches are still reading 12 noon at the same time.

 

 

 

 

only according to someone at rest with respect to the clocks, To anyone moving with respect to them parallel to the line joining them, they will not read 12 noon at the same time. The larger the difference in speed, the greater the difference. And which clock is ahead of the other depends on the direction of the motion.

 

 

 

 

Send one watch to mars by transporter beam or other instant delivery device, the watches are still synced and read 12 noon at the same time,

 

 

 

Invoking instantaneous transmission is not allowed, even as a hypothetical. It violates the laws of Relativity.

 

 

 

 

so the clarification I am looking for is, why is it only when we calculate time, that time distortions occur?

 

a) If my twin went out of town for 2 days and returned, we would still be the same age, but if he leaves at the speed of light or faster suddenly I am much older than he is?

 

 

He won't be the same age as you no matter what speed he traveled. It is just the difference in age would be extremely small at normal everyday speeds. There is no point where the differential aging suddenly kicks in.

 

 

 

 

the speed of travel does not effect the ageing process.(unless from a great height .... straight down)

 

If he left for 2 days at the speed of light and returned we both would of aged 2 days regardless of the speed traveled.by either of us.

 

 

 

Material objects can't travel at the speed of light, at best they can get really, really close. But if he were to travel at nearly the speed of light for two days according to your clock, he will return having hardly aged any while you aged 2 days. Just denying that it would happen does not mean it would not happen.

 

 

 

 

b) If there are two atomic clocks, one on Earth, and the other on the ISS (International Space Station) I have heard people say there is a minuscule difference between the clocks even at short range, but GPS satellites are designed to account for latency to provide 1m² accuracy. So can't it be argued that the minute difference in readings between two atomic clocks is caused by latency, and if the latency was calculated correctly there would be no difference in timings at all.

 

 

 

It's not latency that the GPS clocks are corrected for, it is the fact that they tick at a different rate than identical clocks on the surface of the Earth. Latency is easy to correct for by knowing by simply knowing the distance between the clocks. Without the adjustment made to the GPS clocks they would go further and further out of sync with the Earth clock as time went by.

 

 

 

 

Is this because our observations are limited to the speed at which we can make observations (Light speed) and their is some mathematical wizardry that allows us to predict outside the realm of reality?

 

 

 

It is the fact that c (the speed that light happens to travel at) is invariant that leads to the reality that Relativity describes.

 

 

 

 

I know people will say Einstein this and that, but has anyone ever considered The Great One may have goofed just a little, the math is undoubtedly solid, but the theory is still giving me nightmares, how it is possible we live in a universe where we can change the outcome of events before the events even begin.........

 

Please help me lol

 

 

 

 

Don't make the mistake of assuming the Relativity is accepted on the basis of Einstein's reputation. Einstein's reputation came from the success of his theory in making accurate predictions that were verified by actual experiment.

 

Nothing is Relativity allows for any reversal of causality.

 

There are a lot of people here that are more than willing to help you with this. However, it is going to take some effort on your part. Mainly you are going to have to be willing to give up some preconceptions about the nature of time.( for instance, that "at the same time" is the same for everyone.)

[Reaper79]

Thanks Janus,

 

You've given me a lot to think about

Firstly, thanks for the insights.

 

When I say "at the same time" I am describing Party A and Party B, not the universal "at the same time", I assume that the further the distance between two or more objects the less accurate the "same time" is.

 

Secondly I would be considered quite mad to assume I am correct and the world of scientific leaders are incorrect, but I have a bug in my brain that I can't squash, and no matter how many different ways things are described or explained to me, I can't seem to evict this niggling creature from my mind. I guess the only real way to satisfy my mind would be for someone to time travel back to before I wrote this post and tell me to stop writing it.

 

Time Travel, Time dilation and causal relativity seem to me as barmy as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm, I can't believe what the math says nor can I believe anything has been tested or proven either for or against the theory with satisfactory results. So for me to let go of my preconceived ideas, and adopt a new thought framework to base opinions on, I will need to watch someone bend space so much they can travel into the past to pat themselves on the back as they do so.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not Copernicus. all I'm saying is, the science seems to say one thing is possible, but no one, ever has had a reported successful case. Meanwhile anyone (Including me) who attempts to suggest we may be barking up the wrong tree on this one is told to abandon their beliefs and join the herd on the greener side of the fence. I REALLY want to do that, but I am stuck on this Time Travel thing, which relativity doesn't forbid.

 

I am reminded of a limerick I heard once,

There once was a lady named Bright,

who could travel much faster than Light.

She left one day in a Relative way,

and came back the Previous Night.

 

We can throw all the science in the world at that poem, but I would still have to call SullBhit on that. (apologies for the filter evasion) and that's why I can't get my head around this thing. Not because I just don't want to, but because its as ridiculous as a bucket of horses in a tadpole farm.

 

I hope, while making my feelings clear, and my sense of logic apparent, I have not offended anyone. If I have, I apologize wholeheartedly.

 

My problem is not that the math..or science can prove that it's possible and can at least potentially become reality at some point, my issue is that we (the human race) allowed ourselves to go down this particular rabbit hole in the first place.

[iNow]

There is no universal now. There is no universal time. Embedded in your current thinking is a need for both.

 

Time is profoundly resistant to simple definition.

 

My now and your now are not the same.

 

It's counterintuitive, but the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us.

[disarray]

It's important to separate the optical effect from the physical effect. Yes, if you travel away from something, the increasing distance will cause a delay in the light you receive, and yes, the reverse occurs as you travel toward something.

You can, however, calculate how much of an effect your relative motion is having on the light you receive, and if you factor that difference out, you'll discover that the other clock is still running slow, in both cases. It's not simply an optical effect caused by light taking longer to reach you, and if the documentary you watched explained it that way then they did a poor job.

 

Ah, that's what I was hoping someone would clarify....In many explanations there is no attempt to make any distinction between optical and physical, or there is the presumption that they are always the exact same thing.

Technically time dilation disparity only means that a given volume of space contains more energy from a relative FoR.

That's what I had been trying to say in another thread, but it seems some people balk at this notion because it seems to imply some sort of physical explanation for time dilation. It seems that the word "physical" is anathema in some contexts when talking about time dilation, which is fine with me, as I don't think of space as being a physical object per se anyway. Please elaborate on this statement of yours, as I don't think that saying that time slows down is the only possible explanation that one can give when explaining time dilation.

Edited August 16, 2016 by disarray