6

jeeprs

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:09 pm
@prothero,
prothero;148008 wrote:
It has to do with the affect of acceleration and gravity not only on space time but on all other physical process as well

You think? I think it is simply the consequence of relativity. Gravity and acceleration wouldn't enter into it.

Incidentally, I have read somewhere that if you wanted to accelerate the human body to something approaching the upper limit of velocity (90-something percent of light speed), you would have to accelerate at a very high rate for 33 years. (Can you imagine that? Being strapped into a seat with your foot flat to the floorboards - FOR 33 YEARS!!!) Otherwise the G-forces would kill you. The problem is, the faster you go, the more the mass of your ship increases. At very high velocities, the amount of energy required to keep accelerating would greatly exceed all of the output of all of power stations on Earth.

So I am afraid Captain Kirk and warp speed is always going to be just a TV show.....
TuringEquivalent

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 07:40 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;147706 wrote:
From what i understand of this theoretical experiment. There are two twins, one goes at the speed of light, one doesn't, and then after all is said and done, one twin is older. My question is, isn't the twin only visually older? The light cannot catch up to the twin therefore the light cannot portray any time or age on the twin. yet the cells continue to age. Is this only a visual illusion? Light is only visual and doesn't effect the rate of growth of anything organic.

I haven't read up on this much, i just had an interesting discussion in English. I could be totally off on this one and if i am, please forgive me .

For a space-Ship to move at close to the speed of light, v. From the point of view of the space ship, the earth is moving away at v. One can reason in a symmetrical way that the twin on earth is aging more than the twin on ship.
So if we reason in this symmetrical way, both twin will come to the conclusion that they are younger than their far away twin. If so, then there is no paradox.

The situation here is different. The situation is not symmetrical. The twin on earth is in the same inertial frame in the whole journey, while the twin on the ship had to turn around in the middle of his journal, and thus, change inertial frames. The change of frame is what cause the paradox.
wayne

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 08:26 pm
@Yogi DMT,
If you traveled away from earth at light speed, an observer looking back would see time appear suspended on earth? Wouldn't the observer continue to age at a normal rate, relative to the observer?
north

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 09:05 pm
@wayne,
wayne;148036 wrote:
If you traveled away from earth at light speed, an observer looking back would see time appear suspended on earth?

no

because the Earth is still moving

Quote:
Wouldn't the observer continue to age at a normal rate, relative to the observer?

yes

assuming that the 1st observer is based on Earth and the 2nd is the one moving at light speed
wayne

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 09:09 pm
@north,
north;148043 wrote:
no

because the Earth is still moving [/QUOTE

I mean light speed relative to earth.

QUOTE=yes

assuming that the 1st observer is based on Earth and the 2nd is the one moving at light speed[/QUOTE]

..................botched the quote system
0 Replies

north

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 09:23 pm
@Yogi DMT,
the Einstein's paradox is based on perception of an object at light speed
0 Replies

Yogi DMT

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:06 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;148023 wrote:
For a space-Ship to move at close to the speed of light, v. From the point of view of the space ship, the earth is moving away at v. One can reason in a symmetrical way that the twin on earth is aging more than the twin on ship.
So if we reason in this symmetrical way, both twin will come to the conclusion that they are younger than their far away twin. If so, then there is no paradox.

The situation here is different. The situation is not symmetrical. The twin on earth is in the same inertial frame in the whole journey, while the twin on the ship had to turn around in the middle of his journal, and thus, change inertial frames. The change of frame is what cause the paradox.

Sorry but i lost you after you said from the point of view of the spaceship, the earth is moving away at v. I'm just not grasping how speed has anything to do with time.
kennethamy

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:11 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;148067 wrote:
Sorry but i lost you after you said from the point of view of the spaceship, the earth is moving away at v. I'm just not grasping how speed has anything to do with time.

But speed is just the distance you travel in a particular amount of time. For instance, my speed in a car may be thirty miles an hour.
0 Replies

Yogi DMT

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:13 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Speed relates distance to time that's all. The more distance covered in an amount of time, the faster the speed, but you already knew that.
kennethamy

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:15 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;148071 wrote:
Speed relates distance to time that's all. The more distance covered in an amount of time, the faster the speed, but you already knew that.

Exactly. So, you have answered your own question. That is what speed has to do with time.
0 Replies

Yogi DMT

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:21 pm
@Yogi DMT,
I doubt you really thought that what i wanted to know about the relationship between speed and time. I would like to know how a faster a speed could possibly mean a sped up or slowed down sense of time. A second is a second and meter is a meter, i didn't need for you to be a smart ass and give me a dumb answer. This question is about Einstein's theory and my question being why would speed change perception of time.
kennethamy

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:38 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;148074 wrote:
I doubt you really thought that what i wanted to know about the relationship between speed and time. I would like to know how a faster a speed could possibly mean a sped up or slowed down sense of time. A second is a second and meter is a meter, i didn't need for you to be a smart ass and give me a dumb answer. This question is about Einstein's theory and my question being why would speed change perception of time.

I replied to the question you asked.
0 Replies

Yogi DMT

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:45 pm
@Yogi DMT,
I guess you did. I was hoping you would answer keeping in mind the relevance to the context. But instead you wanted to demonstrate your own ignorance of what was really being asked by giving me an answer that had no merit in what i actually wanted to be explained.
kennethamy

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:47 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;148082 wrote:
I guess you did. I was hoping you would answer keeping in mind the relevance to the context. But instead you wanted to demonstrate your own ignorance of what was really being asked by giving me an answer that had no merit in what i actually wanted to be explained.

Well, I suggest that next time you ask, you ask the question you actually want the answer to.
0 Replies

Yogi DMT

1
Sat 3 Apr, 2010 10:55 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Use your big brain to find out that i already know the literal relationship between time and speed. Now use that big brain again to realize we are talking about a situation that says if something moves very fast then the time relative to that something will be different than a normal perception of time. The question therefore being, how would the speed of something affect perception of time? In context, how are speed and time related? Answering me with a smartass response is solving nothing and i do not see why you would even waste your time doing so. Your not answering what i want answered your just trying to be smart which again, accomplishes nothing.
0 Replies

jeeprs

1
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:16 am
@Yogi DMT,
It doesn't affect the PERCEPTION of time. It affects TIME - as I tried to explain that in this post - what about this example wasn't clear? I will try and explain it again if I know that.
0 Replies

prothero

1
Sun 4 Apr, 2010 12:19 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;148011 wrote:
You think? I think it is simply the consequence of relativity. Gravity and acceleration wouldn't enter into it.
But they do. Gravity and acceleration are indisthinguishable in general relativity and gravity affects time. Clocks run slower on the surface of the sun than on the surface of the earth. The twin paradox also involves the relative motion of two different systems (the traveling twin and the stay at home twin). In order to travel and return acceleration away and home is involved. The measured speed of light is constant in all reference systems, the conclusion of special relativity which means that time and space are variable and measurements of time and space in different reference systems based on relative motion will vary; only the measured speed of light remains constant in all systems. Special relativity is incorporated into general relativity.

---------- Post added 04-03-2010 at 11:32 PM ----------

jeeprs;148098 wrote:
It doesn't affect the PERCEPTION of time. It affects TIME - as I tried to explain that in this post - what about this example wasn't clear? I will try and explain it again if I know that.
Yes and time is not some independent variable which clicks along at some uniform pace. Time is merely the rate of change of certain processes, radiaoactive decay, cesium wavelenghts etc. The rate that these processes occur is affected by gravity, by acceleration, by relative motion. The speed of light is the only constant. Time and space are not rigid and inflexible but are elastic and are affected by gravity, by acceleration and by relative motion. That is the whole universe altering aspect of relativity. The cartesian notion of space time as a rigid inflexible independent medium in which objects are placed in wrong. Time and space are not like a rigid box more like a sponge or in the common example like a trampoline which is distorted by mass and gravity.
0 Replies

HexHammer

1
Mon 3 May, 2010 06:59 am
@Yogi DMT,
Yogi DMT;147706 wrote:
From what i understand of this theoretical experiment. There are two twins, one goes at the speed of light, one doesn't, and then after all is said and done, one twin is older. My question is, isn't the twin only visually older? The light cannot catch up to the twin therefore the light cannot portray any time or age on the twin. yet the cells continue to age. Is this only a visual illusion? Light is only visual and doesn't effect the rate of growth of anything organic.
Being able to illuminate anything has nothing to do with time.

All Einstein's explenations of time is Imo nonsens, it's catch and simple to understand, but seems to me ..very misleading.
prothero

1
Mon 3 May, 2010 02:05 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;159529 wrote:
Being able to illuminate anything has nothing to do with time.
All Einstein's explenations of time is Imo nonsens, it's catch and simple to understand, but seems to me ..very misleading.
It is true. The difference in the ages of the twins is not a trick, not an optical illusion, it is a real physiological physical difference.

We like to think of time as uniform fixed intervals. It is not. The rate at which clocks tick, atoms decay, your heart beats are all variable depending on your gravitational and inertial reference frame. Time only seems uniform to us because in general everything we encounter is in the same gravitational frame. In fact satellites and GPS systems encounter relativistic effects. The truth of the variablity of time (of change and process) has been repeatedly confirmed in all types of experiments and actual situations encountered in high energy physics labs and space exploration. Everything about the traveling twin slows; his heart rate, his thought processes, the rate at which his cells metabolize and age, etc. It is real.

We also like to think of space (volume and shape) and mass as fixed properties of objects. They are not. Space is flexible. The energy of acceleration increases the mass of an object (E=mc2). The curvature and shape of space itself (and the objects in it) is changed by gravity and relative motion.

This is not a drill. This is not a trick. This not an optical illusion or an Alice in Wonderland fantasy. This is the reality of space and time in the modern world. Your everyday conclusions about the fixed nature of time and space and the shape and weight of objects is wrong. Not just in theory but in fact. In one of the best, confirmed theories in all of science. A theory constructed mostly in the form of thought experiments (during slow moments in the patent office), the empirical confirmation of which awaited years and decades (in a vote for rationalism over empiricism).

Quantum theory, general relativity and evolution are the backbones of our modern understanding of our world. They are all confirmed theories.
0 Replies

Emil

1
Mon 3 May, 2010 03:43 pm
@Yogi DMT,
Time dilation is pretty interesting.

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

1. Forums
2. » Einstein's paradox
3. » Page 2