Scientists wrong? Traveling faster makes you older, not younger

[Christ slave]

BenSon: Speak like you have respect for other people, then maybe I'll read and reply to your post.

 

 

 

 

At any rate, here is my suggestion: time itself is composed of light...but with varying vibrations. So, if you speed up an object to the speed of light, the object begins to transcend light itself (the light they give off will be behind in time, because their light in relation to the speed of light is evening out...like a runner speeding up to the speed of another runner so that they can run together and speak to each other). If the object begins to transcend light, because of its speed (and, keep in mind the object in order to have this speed it must be moving, and if its moving, it must be affecting/utilizing laws of physics and space which affect the whole of things including the experiment, as I said, things are relative), then light itself to that object begins to slow down in relation to its perception (its time).

 

Time is essentially perception.

 

So, then, this is why looking at a distant star is viewing it from the past...and, likewise, if a person moves at the speed of light, we begin to see them IN THE PAST. If they're being seen in the past, then of course their clock will appear to be a nanosecond or so behind (meaning, the possibility is there). Likewise, what if the scientist on the jet and the jet itself, the clock, etc. are actually VISIBLY SMALLER than we are? What if as the future approaches (time increases), we are actually expanding or getting bigger? So, the measurement of time is relative.

 

Time is relative because it's constantly changing--it's expanding. So, if a scientist travels into the future (gets younger), it's because we are measuring him in relation to light (our visual perception). If he travels fast enough and long enough, what if he actually shrinks into the past? He becomes like a distant star, and to him, we have become like a giant near-by object. Why is this? Perhaps because as time is relative, its only relative to gravity--where there's no gravity, there's no time. So, as we are orbiting around the sun, time itself is getting denser because the sun's gravity is pulling it in...which is why time for us expands, but we may not notice it because we are expanding with it, so in relation to us, things look relatively the same proportionally.

 

How, if someone travels into the past, they've essentially subverted their own time-density and have become smaller (or, dimmer)--and if an object becomes dimmer in terms of time, then essentially you're looking at it in the past...why? Because the clock itself is becoming denser as time approaches, so as the clock changes in numbers and becomes brighter (denser/older), if you subvert its density (because its moving faster in relation to time/gravity and light), then it has become dimmer/lighter (notice how the term "lighter" also has the word "light" in it), and if you dim the light on an evolving/growing clock, then you have dimmed the lights on its measurements...so, you lose light displayed by the clock, a number or so.

 

So, then, to the person speeding up, light itself becomes slower--if you speed up enough light comes almost to a haulting end, becoming black to you. This is all ties in with our own consciousness, as well...afterall, we are using these illusionary senses to measure it all. So, regardless if you're looping around the globe or even a parking lot, you are still racing light itself--the sensory waves. If you speed up enough, you have actually escaped some of the light displayed, thereby becoming a dim vision of the past. If someone were to travel at the speed of light in a parkinglot, perhaps the person would actually shrink the size of a distant star in relation to us.

 

It's really hard to attempt to discuss things, however, because time keeps going on, and so the relativity keeps changing--we on earth use proportions to attempt to understand it all, but even these proportions are subject to changing.

[mmalluck]

Did you see my earlier post? You could test some of what you're saying.

 

There's one problem with your revised argument. Light travels at the same speed at all frames of reference. It's one of the paradoxes of light itself.

 

No matter what speed you are traveling, light will always travel at 2.998*10^6 meters per second in any reference frame.

 

For clarities sake here's and example:

A man in a spaceship is traveling near the speed of light. Inside the cabin of his ship, he turns on his flashlight in the direction of travel and shinies it on the wall. Using a device he measures the speed at which the beam of light leaves the flashlight and strikes the wall. Amazingly enough it still strikes the wall with a speed of 2.998*10^6 meters per second.

 

Now a outside stationary observer is watching this event. He watches the guy in the spaceship go swooshing by at near the speed of light and measures the amount of time for the beam of light from the flashlight to hit the wall. One would expect that the light would take longer to reach the wall now because the wall is moving away from the light source at near the speed of light. But the outside observer finds that the light still travels 2.998*10^6 m/s, and takes the same amount of time to reach that wall as it did for the man traveling in the ship. To the outside observer, the ship's walls have appeared to have moved closer together with respect to the direction of travel.

 

This is has been predicted and tested by special relativity and good 'ol Einstein.

 

If you want another explanation/example I suggest you look at these pages:

Special relativity paradox

Special relativity and light cones

Time dialation

[Christ slave]

What? Why would an outside observer think the wall is moving away from the light source? The lightsource is moving along with the wall--they're both moving in the same direction at the same speed.

 

It's like throwing a ball in an airplane...the ball doesn't go flinging to the back of the airplane, and neither does light which is likewise moving with the momentum/vehicle.

 

Neither does the man in the spaceship go flinging to the back because the object moving is like earth, it's almost stationary. Am I wrong here?

 

In other words, the lightsource is moving in respect to the object moving. Am I wrong here? What were you trying to tell me?

[mmalluck]

What? Why would an outside observer think the wall is moving away from the light source?

 

The distance the light has to travel becomes longer according to the stationary observer. Light may be fast, but it's still bound by a set speed.

 

What I'm talking about is illistrated by the time dialation link I included earlier.

 

And for those too lazy to go to the link:

 

You have two guys with simple clocks. They bounce a beam of light off a mirror and see how long it takes for it to bounce back. Borrowing images from the link. It would look something like this:

 

Now if the blue guy goes running off with his clock, according to the stationary red-guy observer, the beam of light in his clock has to travel along a longer path from the mirror and back. It travels along a diagnol and would look like this:

 

If the red-guy measures the speed of the light in the other's clock, he finds it's traveling at a constant 2.998*10^6 m/s, just like his.

 

From the blue-guys moving frame of reference, the light is going straight back and forth between him and the mirror at the same speed of light and there we have paradox, unless we take time dialation into effect.

 

Accoring to the Red-guy, Blue's clock is running slow. Accoring to the Blue-guy, Red's clock is also running slow.

 

Me and that webpage do a kinda of crappy job explain this. There's other's out there that are better.

[Christ slave]

That's very skewed, especially since light/perception (distance-perception) diminishes the further out something gets...likewise, the further out the lightbeaem goes, it's actually traveling in a triangular pattern in terms of distance, because up close it's large and the further out it goes it gets smaller (like a cone).

 

So, while you want to measure the light, you yourself are still viewing light with your eyes...so, if you time light with your eyes, how then would the speed not be different? You're playing a game with light...a lightshow!

[mmalluck]

That's very skewed' date=' especially since light/perception (distance-perception) diminishes the further out something gets...likewise, the further out the lightbeaem goes, it's actually traveling in a triangular pattern in terms of distance, because up close it's large and the further out it goes it gets smaller (like a cone).

[/quote']

 

Huh? Are you saying you're using your eyes to measure the speed of light? That's like using your arm to judge how heavy a mountain is. In this example you'd have to have some equipment to measure the speed of light. That's a given.

 

The shape of the light beam has very little to do with the speed it travels. If you'd like we could use a series of single photons to make our beams (IE the thinest beam possible).

 

Now if you're talking about "light cones" you should go back to my Special Relativity and Light Cones link and do some reading. It comes from the same page as the mirror clock thingie.

[swansont]

Accoring to the Red-guy' date=' Blue's clock is running slow. Accoring to the Blue-guy, Red's clock is running fast.

[/quote']

 

No, the Blue guy also sees the Red guy's clock running slow (from symmetry, how can he not?). In inertial frames, the moving clock runs slow. The Blue guy is not moving in his own frame.

[mmalluck]

I thought so. I almost went back and changed it, but decided to leave it as is.

 

It's changed now.

[Christ slave]

I don't know, have they tried the same experiment with other things beside light and got different results?

[mmalluck]

Well I know the satellites responsible for GPS (and probably every other communication satellite) use the principles of special relativity to keep in contact.

 

I know the GPS satellites are particularly sensitive. All a GPS satellites does is simply transmit a time code (they're just a big radio clocks in space). The receiver on the ground gets the time codes from various GPS satellites to calculate your position, but the receiver also has to take into account the velocity of the satellites and correct the time codes accordingly.

 

Or in other words, special relativity is a well tested, well accepted, and well used theory.

[Christ slave]

Ok, thanks.

[uncool]

The two things must come together again for the two to be comparable, andthat is only possible (assuming a flat universe)with acceleration. it is the acceleration, NOT THE SPEED, which causes the difference. Should the earth come back to the other thing, then the earth would be the younger one.

-uncool-

[Cashio]

The idea behind the fact that nothing (with a finite rest mass) can travel faster than the speed of light could be explained briefly by this:

 

At any given time, you are traveling at the speed of light exactly! some of your way is through time, and the other part is through space. so if you are traveling faster through space, you travel slower through (in) time.

 

* the change is not liniaric.

[Bio-Hazard]

Yep. That's why I suggest you learn how to use a cryogenic chamber.