What exactly IS time, and how can traveling at the speed of light effect the rate at which time flows? Has einsteins thoery of general/special reletivity been proven?
. a part of existence how it is measured can be varied. But here is the logic: to measure takes time perception No. .
In my limited knowledge time is a progression of events. One event follows another....the faster you travel the faster you "catch up" with events. At the speed of light you are travelling as fast as events are happening...and if you could travel faster than the speed of light you would be passing events that have already happened...going back in time.
If he exsited ...yes. But relativity does not allow someone to travel faster than the speed of light. Because the faster something travels the more force it takes to move it. That is why you could set a ten pound weight on your foot without doing much damage...but if you drop it from ten foot in the air it weighs a whole lot more and will do substantial damage to your foot.
that's circular the math says, NO? Is it possible the math is wrong? So if the force, light itself? but what if in the so called black hole (even horizen)? doesnt that break the laws of the relative? isnt a collapse representing, just that?
After you pass the "event horizon" time slows due to intense gravity. An atomic clock on the suface of the earth moves a little slower than an atomic clock in orbit...gravity slows time. Inside a black hole time would stop...the gravity would stop everything. But time would continue outside the black hole. Time is relative. Time could be expressed as a measurement...a dimension if you will...if a quarteback passes a football you my want to know where the football is at at 4:31.003 o'clock in the afternoon. To find out where a moving object is going to be (or where it was) you need a fourth measurement...time.
Speed is time. Otherwise how do you describe getting from one place to another in relation to distance?
I have no idea what you are saying...I once made a statement in algebra class. My professor said one thing to me that stuck...prove it!!!! You can either use logic or math...prove Einstein wrong.
He proved himself wrong with the EPR paradox. That is one of the reasons i like the Big E so much, he was honest with himself.
In order to travel back in time, several quantum values of all the particles in the universe would need to be reversed. For instance, particles such as electrons have spin numbers and they would have to start "spinning" the opposite way. This is all vague and not worth considering. There are two camps in theoretical physics - the general relativity people and the particle physics people. The former monopolized all the time and attention in the popular media inspiring the popular imagination, while the latter prefer to keep their low profile, since they figured if more people get their degrees interpreting and re-interpreting relativity, that will leave them with less crowded space in their own budget-restrictive field of research and free to collect all the prizes as breakthroughs are made.
I don't think time can be manipulated by speed, i just think the ways we measure time can be maniplutaed by speed. So time stays consistant but the atomic clock itself slows down when it goes at a faster speed.
Fing wrote: I really don't get it either. How does speed affect time? It doesn't make sense. Uncle Ferd says it works like dis... ... let's say ya wanna see yer fat g/f who lives 90 miles away... ... if ya travel at 60 mph, it gonna take ya an hour an' a half to get to her... ... but if ya only go 30 mph, it gonna take 3 hours... ... understand? ... If ya ain't in no particular hurry to see her... ... go at 30 mph.
Well, you know the Lawrence equations? Supposedly at the speed of light concepts such as distance will become irrelevant. So two objects normally separated by 1 AU will actually appear next to each other and hence it will take 0 time to cover distance between them. Or vice versa, objects next to each other will appear far away. There are different ways to conceptualize this because everything has to be discussed in relative terms. Lawrence himself of course came up with an erroneous analysis to account for findings of an experiment conducted by two American researchers, in order to defend the concept of the aether.
Since we need experiments at the end of the day anyways, let's define time from the eperimental point of view. What you can experimentally measure is only whether 2 events coincide or not (with a certain inaccuracy). So, to measure the time progression of a test subject, you set up a set of reference events (such as clock ticks) and then measure which reference your experimental test subject coincides with. So far then there is no such thing as time, only coincidence. If there was no information transfer necessary to evaluate whether the coincidence happened or not, then everything would be coincidental and there would be no such thing as time. So now you must choose how you represent the information that evaluates the coincidence. If you choose electromagnetic waves/interactions for this job, then what you have essentially selected is a constant velocity, the speed of light, that reports to you about the existance of a coincidence. As a result, this velocity (velocity = space/time) will displace and delay you in your observation of that coincidence. In other words, time is an experimental artifact, that you insert into the picture, to distort your evaluation of that coincidence, because you chose a constant velocity such as light to observe the coincidnce. You can choose other evaluation methods to observe the coincidence. You can choose gravity for example. With that representation of the information about the existance of the coincidence, you get other experimental artifacts. Light and gravity don't behave independently from each other either. That is yet another, combinational, artifact, and is described by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Einstein's theories of relativity were experimentally verified using fast aircraft (mach7) as well as cosmological gravity lense observations.
So let's say you have an oscillating atom of an element which at each oscillation sends out a light bacon in all directions. Then you have two frames of reference, that of the oscillating atom and that of the observer. When they're stationary with respect to each other, the oscillation occur at the same rate. When the observer starts moving away, the time intervals between each beacon as observed by the observer increase, and as the observer approaches the speed of light with respect to the oscillating atom, these beacon time intervals also approach infinity. But that's all observational because the speed of light is not infinite, right? If the observer kept an identical oscillating atom with him, would this mean that his atom oscillates at twice the time interval of the one he left behind? Mind you, any two objects interact with each other with particles such as virtual photons, so their interaction is indeed limited by the speed of light. But again, that's all observational. In observational terms, the observed object will appear to undergo changes according to relativity laws, but their relative velocities will not change the inherent proporties of either the observer or the observed object in their own respective frames of reference. Moreover, if you had any two objects receding from one another at a relative velocity greater than the speed of light, as far as each would be concerned, the other would not exist by the virtue of their non-interaction that is limited by the velocity of virtual photons. But does this mean they really don't exist? But now if you inserted another object with an intermediate velocity between them, and the other two would be able to interact with and change the behaviour of the third? Would the other two still think the other does not exist, if they could observe changes in the third's behaviour?
time is theoritically a motion at still. when movement/s take/s place measurement of time begins. polscie
best post..... the mass (clock) is crossing lines of energy affecting it. ie... think of a particle spinning in an accelerator, the mass is affected by the speed, but the particle is not traveling thru time 'slower'
Do you mean that for example 2 objects run away from each other with a speed relative to a middle point observer that is greater than half the speed of light, as reported by the middle point observer looking at both objects? In this situation the 2 objects will always deny each other's existance. The 2 objects' relative speed will be grater than the speed of light. If then one of the objects (say "first") somehow makes the observer change its inertial moment, the other object (say "other") will see it as the observer itself initiating the change, and this "other" object will book this as a feature of the observer, not as an effect by the "first" object, as the "first" object doesn't exist in the "other" object's world. But if the "other" object decides to observe the observer with something else that is not limited by the speed of light, it can look further and discover the "first" object. This is why we know that our universe is bigger than what we can see, but we will never know what lies beyond the electromagnetic horison, until we build other, non-electromagnetic instrumentation. We currently observe lots of non-existant things affecting us, such as dark matter, dark energy, dark whatever, and we need the non-electromagnetic methods to probe for them because they are beyond space and time.
Hypotheses that go beyond what we can observe and measure right now have some place in physics, as long as there is the prospect that they will become verifiable within a reasonable timespan. Everything else is just speculation (including a lot of stuff in this thread) and should be declared as such. As for me, I'm more interested in everything that can be explored with the best available experiments and technology now or in the near future. I won't stop you from speculating though as it's a nice exercise. That's not true. The two objects are able to see each other. For example, if the middle point observer sees the two objects move away in opposite directions at 0.9c, the two objects see each other move away at 0.9945c. If you accept Einstein's two postulates, that is. There are many good reasons to do so (follow the second link to see a few). How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity? http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFA...iments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates
So there goes the whole general theory of relativity which always maintained that velocity greater than that of light is impossible. Or will the GTR diehards now say that Einstein who always spoke in vague terms and what ever he said could have been interpreted in 20 different ways that often contradicted one another, always meant to say that. GTR only describes how matter interacts with each other through electromagnetic interactions, but does not reflect reality.
