Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Meatwad on May 10, 2005, 05:11:34 PM
-
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004226A-F77D-1D4A-90FB809EC5880000 (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0004226A-F77D-1D4A-90FB809EC5880000)
-
The effect is often described using the "twin paradox." Suppose that Sally and Sam are twins. Sally boards a rocket ship and travels at high speed to a nearby star, turns around and flies back to Earth, while Sam stays at home. For Sally the duration of the journey might be, say, one year, but when she returns and steps out of the spaceship, she finds that 10 years have elapsed on Earth
Okay, I'm pretty stupid when it comes to time and relativity. I know that events are relative to when you are observing them from, but what about the above statement.
Sally is in a rocket traveling at high speed. She go to a star and comes back, while on Earth ten years have gone by.
Ten revolutions of the earth have gone by for Sally too, no matter that she was traveling at high speed or not. So for Sally, didn't the same amount of time go by for her? Ten revolutions of the earth went by for her too, didn't it?
Or what is sally measuring time by?
-
Time slowed down for her so she only aged 1 year during those ten revolutions.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Ten revolutions of the earth have gone by for Sally too, no matter that she was traveling at high speed or not. So for Sally, didn't the same amount of time go by for her? Ten revolutions of the earth went by for her too, didn't it?
Or what is sally measuring time by?
Sally would see the Earth's revolution speed up. See (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html) for some good reading.
-
Consume 1 quart rapidly. 24 hours will pass in the blink of an eye.
(http://www.gastronews.cz/pictures/poradna/2003-09-23_A-%20TEQUILA%20JOSE%20CUERVO.jpg)
-
It's all a lie. Fantasy I tell ya. Your better off trying to turn lead into gold! :rofl
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Time slowed down for her so she only aged 1 year during those ten revolutions.
But that's what I don't understand ( like I said, I'm stupid about the subjecty)
The earth went through ten rotations either way, so that's ten years relative to the earth's rotation for Sally and for her brother on earth both, right?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Okay, I'm pretty stupid when it comes to time and relativity. I know that events are relative to when you are observing them from, but what about the above statement.
Sally is in a rocket traveling at high speed. She go to a star and comes back, while on Earth ten years have gone by.
Ten revolutions of the earth have gone by for Sally too, no matter that she was traveling at high speed or not. So for Sally, didn't the same amount of time go by for her? Ten revolutions of the earth went by for her too, didn't it?
Or what is sally measuring time by?
actually, you stumbled upon a good question nuke.
is time a measurement, or is it a force?
I.E. is time merely a unit of measure we have agreed upon, or is it, like gravity, a force that can be manipulated.
-
gravity slows time.
Speed slows time.
but we talk about light speed here, not 200mph! ;)
-
There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.
As far as time dialation and the speed of light, envision two vectors at right angles to each other, one representing the your speed thru the volume of space, the other representing your speed thru the temporal dimension, time.
The addition of these two vectors = the speed of light.
By Pythagorus,
speed thru space squared + speed thru time sqared = speed of light squared. (C squared sounds oddly familiar...)
The faster you go in one direction, the slower you are traveling in the other so that your speed thru spacetime is always "C".
-
ooops - see Sage's comment below (sry is late)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
But that's what I don't understand ( like I said, I'm stupid about the subjecty)
The earth went through ten rotations either way, so that's ten years relative to the earth's rotation for Sally and for her brother on earth both, right?
If it were possible for us to watch Sally, she would seem to be in slow motion, 1/10th speed. Everything about her and her ship would seem to be in slow motion.
If she could watch us, we would seem to be in fast motion. She could see us go through an entire day in 2.4 hours. She probably wouldn't be able to comprehend much though.
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Darkish
The thing is Nuke, that for the girl in the ship the Earth went round the sun only once.. is all relative see.
I don't get it. What if she had a super telescope and watched the earth's rotation and traveled away at the speed of light. She observes the earths physical rotation and times her return to coincide with one rotataion. One physical rotation.
How could the the earth have rotated more than one time for the people on earth as well? Or did she not see the other rotations?
That's what I'm getting at, time as measured by the rotation of the earth for both people. How could they be different?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Consume 1 quart rapidly. 24 hours will pass in the blink of an eye.
(http://www.gastronews.cz/pictures/poradna/2003-09-23_A-%20TEQUILA%20JOSE%20CUERVO.jpg)
RPM's got the truth of it, I tell ya.
-
In any way that she can experiance or measure time one year has passed. She traveled one year in time and her brother traveled 10 years. Time is relative to the situation that each is in.
as it said in the article. This can allready be demonstrated for changes in time that are not very usefull. The speeds required to make it interesting are not within our abilities yet I think.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't get it. What if she had a super telescope and watched the earth's rotation and traveled away at the speed of light. She observes the earths physical rotation and times her return to coincide with one rotataion. One physical rotation.
How could the the earth have rotated more than one time for the people on earth as well? Or did she not see the other rotations?
That's what I'm getting at, time as measured by the rotation of the earth for both people. How could they be different?
Because Sally shouldn't measure the passage of time by the rotation of Earth (around it's axis or around the sun, whichever) but by some accurate timepiece that is travelling with her in the rocket. Were she to look at the Earth with a powerful telescope, she would see that it goes around faster than usually.
So, both the spacefarer and the groundpounder observe equal number of rotations of Earth. For the fellow in the spacecraft, they just seem to go by in a shorter time.
-
Ok.. the problem is with the issue of observation, and that is the heart of relativity.
Think of it this way.. you're on a train and toss a ball up and catch it: to you the ball went straight up and down - to someone looking into the window as the train passed the ball was also moving along at 60 mph as well as going up and down.
So you can have one event that looks very different depending on where you're observing.
-
Originally posted by Darkish
Ok.. the problem is with the issue of observation, and that is the heart of relativity.
Think of it this way.. you're on a train and toss a ball up and catch it: to you the ball went straight up and down - to someone looking into the window as the train passed the ball was also moving along at 60 mph as well as going up and down.
So you can have one event that looks very different depending on where you're observing.
I understand that. What I don't understand is the given example of Sally travelling away at high speed, for what seems like a year for her, but in reality was ten rotations of the earth both for her and the people on earth.
The rotations of the earth cannot change physically for either of them. So for either person, 10 rotations went by regardless of how it was percieved by either one.
-
Sage nailed it.
-
Nuke: :"She observes the earths physical rotation", , she cant,
imagine she have to fly at light speed, or at least very close to it.
So light from the back (i.e: earth) is not visible or at least they
would look strange. The light frequencies go from visible to ultraviolet or beyond, length-shrunk images, distorted by aberration and bizarre time effects.
ah and btw an very easy describing of the theory of relativity is something like this:
Moves the earth around the moon? or the moon around the earth?
a person sitting on the earth will see the moon travel,
a person sitting on the moon will see the earth travel around.
]
-
Originally posted by Darkish
The thing is Nuke, that for the girl in the ship the Earth went round the sun only once.. is all relative see.
No, for the girl in the ship the Earth went around the sun 10 times but did it 10 times faster than normal (ten times in one year.)
What I find interesting is that for particles traveling near the speed of light, the universe around them is much much slower. So in effect, they can travel the length of the galaxy in minutes rather than tens of thousands of years.
So does that mean it wouldn't take four years at the speed of light to reach Alpha Centari?
Did it really take billions of years for the light of a distant star to reach Earth?
Perhaps a resident physicist could shed some light on the subject.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I understand that. What I don't understand is the given example of Sally travelling away at high speed, for what seems like a year for her, but in reality was ten rotations of the earth both for her and the people on earth.
The rotations of the earth cannot change physically for either of them. So for either person, 10 rotations went by regardless of how it was percieved by either one.
Yes, 10 Earth years went by for her too. But, she only aged 1 year and experienced a year's worth of happenings. Think of all she could have earned on interest, and she's only a year older!
eskimo
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
What I find interesting is that for particles traveling near the speed of light, the universe around them is much much slower. So in effect, they can travel the length of the galaxy in minutes rather than tens of thousands of years.
So does that mean it wouldn't take four years at the speed of light to reach Alpha Centari?.
No, thats exsactly the relativity theory, it depends from the point of view.
For the Person inside the starship, 1 lightyears is 1 lightyear.
He would travel 4 Years to AC.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
No, for the girl in the ship the Earth went around the sun 10 times but did it 10 times faster than normal (ten times in one year.)
What I find interesting is that for particles traveling near the speed of light, the universe around them is much much slower. So in effect, they can travel the length of the galaxy in minutes rather than tens of thousands of years.
So does that mean it wouldn't take four years at the speed of light to reach Alpha Centari?
Did it really take billions of years for the light of a distant star to reach Earth?
Perhaps a resident physicist could shed some light on the subject.
That's a good explaination. It is very interesting to think about travel near the speed of light.
Just think, if we where able to lauch a ship from earth, travel to Alpha Centari and return at near the speed of light, all the people on earth may well have been long dead upon your return.
So in order for the people on earth and science to advance or learn from your experiences, they would have to wait generations, while meanwhile as you returned, techology on earth will have far surpassed it's state from when you left.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
No, for the girl in the ship the Earth went around the sun 10 times but did it 10 times faster than normal (ten times in one year.)
What I find interesting is that for particles traveling near the speed of light, the universe around them is much much slower. So in effect, they can travel the length of the galaxy in minutes rather than tens of thousands of years.
So does that mean it wouldn't take four years at the speed of light to reach Alpha Centari?
Near the speed of light it would take less than four years, as observed by the travellers. If observed from Earth, the trip would take slighty longer than four years.
GhostFT: The traveller in the spaceship would see the distance to Alpha Centauri shortened by the Lorentz contraction.
This is why muons can penetrate so deep into the atmosphere despite having too short of a half life to otherwise get much anywhere -- they move so fast that the distance appears contracted to them. The other side of the coin is that from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the Earth, the passage of time of the muons is slower, and thus it balances out.
Did it really take billions of years for the light of a distant star to reach Earth?
It did, from our perspective.
-
If you cannot get the time dialation of Sally, Nuke, you're really going to have a fun time with this.
Two spaceships pass each other in deep space. Relative to each other each is traveling at the near speed of light. Each can truthfully say that they are the inertial reference and the other is speeding along.
Relative to ship a, ship b is aging more slowly.
Relative to ship b, ship a is aging more slowly.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you cannot get the time dialation of Sally, Nuke, you're really going to have a fun time with this.
Two spaceships pass each other in deep space. Relative to each other each is traveling at the near speed of light. Each can truthfully say that they are the inertial reference and the other is speeding along.
Relative to ship a, ship b is aging more slowly.
Relative to ship b, ship a is aging more slowly.
I understand the relative motion and how it depends on your perspective. I just need to get drunk and listen to some Hank to let it all sink in I guess :)
p.s., who got Sally preggers?
-
Holden McGroin i love such examples, but dont forget, we dont
travel at light speed and i doubt we will evar.
So, no lightspeed = no time travel and no headache from
freakin RT questions ;) ...back to my whiskey glas
-
still waiting for someone to show me how time is a force, as opposed to a measurment.
-
it's already been proven, two syncronized atomic clocks, one kept on earth the other sent into orbit, after landing the orbiting clock, the two clocks showed different times.
-
is it that time of year again? ill dig up last years threads,
https://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113951
https://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105489
-
All the speed you need is 88mph
(http://sacketmansion.com/delorean/bttfrtside.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Tumor
It's all a lie. Fantasy I tell ya. Your better off trying to turn lead into gold! :rofl
So you dont believe this?:)
http://johntitor.strategicbrains.com/
:D
-
Sally and her brother on earth are both ten earth revolutions older by the time Sally gets back to earth, correct?
-
Nuke, here (http://science.howstuffworks.com/relativity.htm/printable) is a good read.
-
Clocks run a bit faster in the attic than in the basement, which is closer to the center of Earth and therefore deeper down in a gravitational field. Similarly, clocks run faster in space than on the ground.
so my old timex is what determines the global "time" ?
gimme a break. time is an abstract concept, and to think the just by taking a timex to outter space (or in a plane for that matter) makes time pass faster? how does the watch know to run faster? the little gears go "whoa we need to move faster now"?
even with an atomic clock, the little electrons go "move faster dude"
even if in some way they do talk to each other and move faster, that would have no effect on the passage of an abstract concept.
whoever wrote that is absurd.
-
Originally posted by JB73
time is an abstract concept,
Time is not an abstract concept: it's a relative concept, that's the whole point of this thread.
-
i love this stuff! personally 10 earth years in space (@high velocity) should = 10 earth years here (as far as aging is concernd)
im no physic guy but, if said sally had the scope and wa traveling at such a velocity of near/at or beyond light speed (wise guys keep an open mind) woudnt the earth slow down or go in a backward direction as she traveled ? the light from the earth the she see's is gonna take longer for her to see it and the father she goes and faster she goes it seems to me logical that the earth from her prosective would stop and rewind, if she passed the SOL (Speed Of Light)
this is a nice read for us laymans as an idea to supass the speed of light.................the old German Jew dont believe it could have been done but new ideas spark thought............http://www.hbccufo.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1042
Go past the first 1/3 of it!
-
Nuke and Boxboy:
Time is not consistent in the universe, it depends on the speed you are going and the amount of gravity you are experiencing.
Both effects are proven in many experiments.
For example it hs been proven that time runs at different speeds when two identical nuclear clkocks are seperated, one being left on earth surface and the other flown on a jet. The one on a jet runs slower because of the jets speed. The clocks are accurate enough to record the difference.
Nuclear clocks work by "timing" the decay of radioactive materials. The decay rate (in earth time) is known for such materials so counting the decay gives the most accurate time measurments possible.
Now here's the kicker. The clock on the jet registered a slower time because the rate of decay changed due to the time changing effects of speed. Its actually decaying slower, in other words its aging slower than the radioactive material left on earth.
Thats 100% like the twin paradox, its a proven effect. This also mrans time travel into the future is a proven effect.
As for gravity. Gravity slows time. It has been proven. A clock at ground level runs slower than a clock 100 ffet higher.
Global Positioning Sysatem GPS actually takes this into account. If the clocks in the satelites in space were not adjusted for thie effect GPC would be totally innacurate.
Pretty wild stuff, speed and gravity have a phyisical real world effect on time.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Global Positioning Sysatem GPS actually takes this into account. If the clocks in the satelites in space were not adjusted for thie effect GPC would be totally innacurate.
Hmmm... the clocks in the GPS satellites are not adjusted. If so, we wouldn't have to account for the error that increases at each leap year. GPS is about 14 seconds off of UTC today.
-
Originally posted by JB73
so my old timex is what determines the global "time" ?
gimme a break. time is an abstract concept, and to think the just by taking a timex to outter space (or in a plane for that matter) makes time pass faster? how does the watch know to run faster? the little gears go "whoa we need to move faster now"?
even with an atomic clock, the little electrons go "move faster dude"
even if in some way they do talk to each other and move faster, that would have no effect on the passage of an abstract concept.
whoever wrote that is absurd.
Time simply goes slower at higher speed and higher gravity.
It's aproven phyisical fact.
The reason your timex would speed up or slow down is because it reports to yoiu the amount of time that is going on. The clock does not create time, it maesures it. Its like a water flow gague, it doesnt create the water flowing throughh it, it just says how much is flowing. And the flow rate is time.
TIME IS NOT AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT
If you think it is, then do explain how time is affected by gravity?
Because it's proven fcat that clocks run slower in high gravity.
How is an " abstract concept" effected by a physical force such as gravity.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... the clocks in the GPS satellites are not adjusted. If so, we wouldn't have to account for the error that increases at each leap year. GPS is about 14 seconds off of UTC today.
All I'm saying is that GPS does take into effect the time difference of runjing at reduced gravity.
-
Thanks Grun, I have been aware of the atomic clock experiment since I was a very young kid. It's a proven fact, you are right.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
All I'm saying is that GPS does take into effect the time difference of runjing at reduced gravity.
Gotcha... the clocks are set to account for this phenomena before they are launched. I'm with ya.
-
Yep Nuke it's very cool stuff.
For more cool stuff see these free internet videos, allready posted here, but worth showing again:
NOVA "The Elegant Universe"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
-
a flyby very close to a supermass (black hole) could throw you into
the future, but you have to be very carefully dont to get sucked in
and then been crushed at the singularity ;) good morning everyone
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I understand the relative motion and how it depends on your perspective. I just need to get drunk and listen to some Hank to let it all sink in I guess :)
p.s., who got Sally preggers?
According to Quantum Theory, Sally is both pregnant and not pregnant, Hank is both alive and dead.