Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Quote:

The point he was making is similar to the fact that our galaxy is traveling through space toward a fixed point in the Hydra constellation at 1.34 million miles per hour. This velocity is mind boggling. Can you even imagine a million miles per hour?

Yes, and no

Yes: It is acknowledged by modern astrophysicists that, yes, we are moving at the rate of over a million miles an hour (as determined by comparisons made with the CMB).

No: That is NOT Al's "point' and it is not what Al was saying in formulating the "relativity of simultaneity" in SR. SR PROHIBITS us from considering ourselves to be in motion and DENIES that we could ever, under any circumstances, know we were moving. Then again, it contradicts itself on this very point, so.....

Of course the answer is known because we are always telling time from one reference. How many times do I have to explain that to you?

General relativity is the driving force in your scenario.

The point I was getting at is if velocity dictates the rate of time then moving at a million + miles per hour must have an impact on our time relative to fixed space. Would it not?

if you could escape the gravitational forces of our galaxy and reach a true absolute zero velocity in space relative to space itself, would time speed up compared to that of those back on Earth?

This world is not one dimensional as you seem to perceive it. We (most of us) comprehend and perceive time by our watches/clocks, and also understand daylight saving time.

Quote:

The point I was getting at is if velocity dictates the rate of time then moving at a million + miles per hour must have an impact on our time relative to fixed space. Would it not?

With respect to the CMB (which respected physicists have said is, in some sense, the rest frame of the cosmos) yes. Our time would be slower, relative to that.

Quote:

if you could escape the gravitational forces of our galaxy and reach a true absolute zero velocity in space relative to space itself, would time speed up compared to that of those back on Earth?

Yes, then, according to theory anyway, you would then have the "fastest time in the cosmos."

Parados, what-say, you and me, we place a small wager on this? Say about $10,000. I'm gunna just haul off and take a wild-ass guess sayin that each clock ain't slower than the other. We on?

How would you set about proving that? I'm trying to think of an experiment.

Fowler: This phenomenon is called time dilation. It has been verified in recent years by flying very accurate clocks around the world on jetliners and finding they register less time, by the predicted amount, than identical clocks left on the ground.

Layman: Let's stop all the speculation and PUT THIS TO A TEST.

@parados, Have an answer to the question, Parados? Hint: This experiment has been done, and the answer is known:

Parados: Of course the answer is known because we are always telling time from one reference. How many times do I have to explain that to you?

Layman:Then what is the answer? Do YOU contend that "both are correct?" Yes or no?

Quote:

How would you set about proving that? I'm trying to think of an experiment.

Quote:

Fowler: This phenomenon is called time dilation. It has been verified in recent years by flying very accurate clocks around the world on jetliners and finding they register less time, by the predicted amount, than identical clocks left on the ground.

<---Already quoted that for you FBM.

Let's stop all the speculation and PUT THIS TO A TEST.

Two clocks. Both read 12:00 and both are at a naval station in Washington D.C.

One clock is taken aboard a plane, the other is not moved at all.

The plane takes off for a flight, then returns 6 hours later. When it returns the clock which went nowhere now reads 6:00. Will the clock which went on the plane trip read:

1. Also 6:00, the same as the other?
2. Earlier than 6:00 (say 5:55)?
3. Later than 6:00 (say 6:05) or
4. EACH CLOCK WILL READ EARLIER THAN THE OTHER?

2. Earlier than 6:00.

The clock that underwent acceleration (and therefore changed frame of reference) will be slower than the clock that remained stationary and did not change frame of reference.

There is another odd problem with this time paradox just to beat it into the ground.

What if your car could travel at the speed of light or at least 99% of it? You leave your house at 5pm (you work the night shift and there is no traffic). You are running late and are suppose to work at 5pm but since your car is fast you know you'll make it there on time.. or will you? If time according to you stays normal while you are in your car traveling near the speed of light but time for everyone else would speed up. This means not only are you late for work but you might be hours late if not days. But according to you, you got there at 5:01. How is this possible?

Why, oh, why, can't BOTH be correct?

Krumple wrote:

There is another odd problem with this time paradox just to beat it into the ground.

What if your car could travel at the speed of light or at least 99% of it? You leave your house at 5pm (you work the night shift and there is no traffic). You are running late and are suppose to work at 5pm but since your car is fast you know you'll make it there on time.. or will you? If time according to you stays normal while you are in your car traveling near the speed of light but time for everyone else would speed up. This means not only are you late for work but you might be hours late if not days. But according to you, you got there at 5:01. How is this possible?

Time will not speed up for everyone else. They are remaining in the same inertial frame of reference.