|
MarcTheMushroom
MycoNaught


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 222
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Distance and Time
#15003715 - 08/30/11 08:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
My 97 ford ranger just when over 186 272 miles, which of course, is 1 lightsecond. It took 14 years for it to do this. My question is this....
Has my truck actually traveled 1 second forward in time over its 14 year life or not?
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
I would say that it has traveled 14 years in time, not one second.
I assume you are referring to time dilation? If so, its a little more complicated than that.
|
goodhuck
Thelemic


Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 121
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
#15004667 - 08/31/11 12:31 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
doesn't the theory or relativity E=MC(2) state that to bend time a mass must move close to the speed of light for time to slow down? so therefore your truck must be one second younger? take that, blue book!
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: goodhuck]
#15005123 - 08/31/11 04:24 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> doesn't the theory or relativity E=MC(2) state that to bend time a mass must move close to the speed of light for time to slow down?
No.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Seuss]
#15005504 - 08/31/11 07:59 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I wish I knew a lot more about physics and math, because there was a show on Discovery(or similar) that was all about Einstein and his mental "experimentation" was portrayed well. There was one I vaguely remember about a clock tower and that it would appear to stand still if you were moving away from it at the speed of light (while still being able to visualize the face of the clock). It obviously made sense to me because in order to see the clock moving the light reflected off of it has to hit your eye, and that wouldn't happen moving away from it at light speed.
That made me think about the tree falling in the woods saying. If the tree fell it would generate sound waves even if nothing is there to hear it. Now, I know I lack the ability to understand the details of relativity(or any complex physics at a mechanical/mathematical level) so what I'm typing is basically the shit that pops into my uninformed brain. That clock tower keeps on ticking even if you travel away from it. I just remember thinking that and traveling at light speed for x amount of time would take just as long to get back when traveling at the same speed... so nothing would change.
It sucks not being able to really understand it.
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
XeR0
Mind Voyager



Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 409
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
In order to feasibly travel forward in time whilst perceived time remains intact (travel 20 years into the future in under 20 minutes), you must be moving at the speed of light or faster. You're truck simply traveled the equivalent of one lightsecond which is equal to 186,282 miles. It's all in the change of units. You could've still said that your truck traveled 186,282 miles without ever knowing what a lightsecond is. The simple fact that it traveled one lightsecond doesn't change anything. It simply means that your truck traveled 186,282 miles OR 1 lightsecond OR 299,792 kilometers OR 1.18028527 × 10^10 inches OR ...you get the idea.
Remember: Lightyears/seconds/hours/etc. is a unit measure of DISTANCE and has nothing to do with time whatsoever. Sorry bro. No physics anomalies there....
BTW: Traveling 10 kilometers is equivalent to traveling 0.0000334 lightseconds. Does that mean I've traveled any distance forward or backward through TIME itself? Obviously not.
-------------------- Drug Experience: Caffeine, Codeine/Morphine, Psilocybin/Psilocin, Dream Herb (Calea Zacatechichi), Melatonin, N,N-DMT, LSD, Pramiracetam, Piracetam, Cannabis ToDo: Galantamine, Hydergine
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: XeR0]
#15005951 - 08/31/11 10:48 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> you must be moving at the speed of light or faster.
No.
> Remember: Lightyears/seconds/hours/etc. is a unit measure of DISTANCE and has nothing to do with time whatsoever.
No.
> It sucks not being able to really understand it.
You are not alone. The concepts are very difficult to wrap ones mind around. It is difficult to accept that the rate that time changes depends entirely upon the velocity of the observer with respect to the clock. The clock moves slow for one observer and moves normal for another observer simply because the two observers are moving at different velocities with respect to the clock.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
.
Edited by DieCommie (11/15/16 11:29 AM)
|
XeR0
Mind Voyager



Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 409
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Seuss]
#15007192 - 08/31/11 02:57 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > Remember: Lightyears/seconds/hours/etc. is a unit measure of DISTANCE and has nothing to do with time whatsoever.
No.
Umm...YES...The light-year IS a unit measure of LENGTH.
Proof from the International Astronomical Union: http://www.iau.org/public/measuring/
Quote:
The International Astronomical Union: Alternatively the light-year (ly) is sometimes used in scientific papers as a DISTANCE UNIT, although its use is mostly confined to popular publications and similar media.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year
Quote:
Wikipedia: A light-year, also "light year" or "lightyear" (symbol: ly) is a UNIT OF LENGTH, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometers (10^16 meters, 10 petametres or about 6 trillion miles).
While the definition for a light-year is based on time, it itself is not a time-based unit. It is a unit of LENGTH.
Therefore, traveling any amount of light-years, light-seconds, kilometers, miles, inches, feet, yards, or anything else isn't going to move anyone forward or backward through time (realistically speaking). Saying that you've traveled 100km today is exactly the same thing as saying you've traveled 0.00033 light-seconds; just as making $200.00 is the same thing as saying you've made 20,000 cents. It's all about UNITS!
And yes, I'm no special relativity expert so I'm allowed to make mistakes. But to feasibly go forward or backward through time requires one to attain speeds of equal to or greater than the speed of light. If anyone's got some white papers to prove me wrong, please, I urge you to do so. I say this not as a challenge, but as an invitation to point out my mistakes. This is about learning, after all.
-------------------- Drug Experience: Caffeine, Codeine/Morphine, Psilocybin/Psilocin, Dream Herb (Calea Zacatechichi), Melatonin, N,N-DMT, LSD, Pramiracetam, Piracetam, Cannabis ToDo: Galantamine, Hydergine
Edited by XeR0 (08/31/11 03:12 PM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: XeR0]
#15007407 - 08/31/11 03:36 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I presume he means that seconds and hours aren't a measure of distance. Also, a light year has a little to do with time, its the distance traveled by light over the time period of a year.
|
XeR0
Mind Voyager



Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 409
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
#15007470 - 08/31/11 03:50 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: I presume he means that seconds and hours aren't a measure of distance. Also, a light year has a little to do with time, its the distance traveled by light over the time period of a year.
Lol. Of course I know that but strictly speaking...it's a unit of length. You wouldn't use a lightyear to measure time passed.
-------------------- Drug Experience: Caffeine, Codeine/Morphine, Psilocybin/Psilocin, Dream Herb (Calea Zacatechichi), Melatonin, N,N-DMT, LSD, Pramiracetam, Piracetam, Cannabis ToDo: Galantamine, Hydergine
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: XeR0]
#15007769 - 08/31/11 04:40 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Here is an interesting thought experiment for all of you. If you were moving at near the speed of light, time would seem to slow down for you from the point of view of an observer. So if you flew by the earth in a rocket at close to light speed, an observer would see your clock running much more slowly. However, speed is not an absolute, it is relative. So as a matter of fact, the earth would be moving near light speed in comparison to the people on the rocket. So the people in the rocket will see clocks on earth moving very slowly. Which one is actually slowed down?
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
Which one is actually slowed down?
They both are. Each observes the other slowed down, and each are 'actually' slowed down. Only when the clocks meet back up again is the symmetry broken by the one who turns around.
Its a common misconception that the twins paradox needs general relativity to resolve it. But that is not the case, a simple path integral shows how the paradox resolves and this was demonstrated years before general relativity.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: XeR0]
#15007806 - 08/31/11 04:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
XeR0 said: And yes, I'm no special relativity expert so I'm allowed to make mistakes. But to feasibly go forward or backward through time requires one to attain speeds of equal to or greater than the speed of light. If anyone's got some white papers to prove me wrong, please, I urge you to do so. I say this not as a challenge, but as an invitation to point out my mistakes. This is about learning, after all.
You dont have it quite right. Time dilation occurs at speeds less than the speed of light. At or above the speed of light doesn't entail time travel. Look at the time dilation formula and play with some different values. There is no value that changes the sign of your proper time. (that is, going above the speed of light yields imaginary values, not negative real values)
|
XeR0
Mind Voyager



Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 409
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
#15008035 - 08/31/11 05:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Quote:
XeR0 said: And yes, I'm no special relativity expert so I'm allowed to make mistakes. But to feasibly go forward or backward through time requires one to attain speeds of equal to or greater than the speed of light. If anyone's got some white papers to prove me wrong, please, I urge you to do so. I say this not as a challenge, but as an invitation to point out my mistakes. This is about learning, after all.
You dont have it quite right. Time dilation occurs at speeds less than the speed of light. At or above the speed of light doesn't entail time travel. Look at the time dilation formula and play with some different values. There is no value that changes the sign of your proper time. (that is, going above the speed of light yields imaginary values, not negative real values)
I agree. I was referring more to actually going forward in time than time dilation. I know that time dilation happens on an everyday basis. For instance, when a plane flies off, its clock is slower than the clocks on Earth. This becomes more apparent and obvious with satellites that orbit Earth. I hear that they have to auto-correct the clocks on the satellites to keep them in sync with Earth's.
Heck, I've even read an article once that says that your head ages nanoseconds faster than your feet ( http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/23/5164546-relativity-affects-your-age-just-a-bit )( http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/metrology-news/nist-experiment-proves-your-head-older-your-feet.html ) ( http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/superaccurate-clocks-prove-your-head-older-your-feet ). In truth, time dilation happens everywhere, every time. The greater the distance in altitude, the greater the dilation. Same thing with speed.
However, there is a point in time dilation that could be considered instead as time travel. Basically, if the traveler on the lightspeed-rocket perceives only 1 second passing by, he/she would come out of the rocket and find Earth to have aged 1,000 years later. That, technically, is time dilation but at it's extreme. Therefore, we can consider that as time travel. Which is why I mentioned the whole "speed of light" thing.
By all means, I'm learning quite a lot already. Keep this convo going and who knows? Maybe we'll figure out this whole time/space/gravity once and for all!
-------------------- Drug Experience: Caffeine, Codeine/Morphine, Psilocybin/Psilocin, Dream Herb (Calea Zacatechichi), Melatonin, N,N-DMT, LSD, Pramiracetam, Piracetam, Cannabis ToDo: Galantamine, Hydergine
Edited by XeR0 (08/31/11 08:30 PM)
|
5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast



Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA
Last seen: 6 years, 1 month
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: XeR0]
#15008857 - 08/31/11 08:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks DieCommie, your reply reminded me of an article I read in high school that talked about that. I'll look into it further so I can pull back those memories and find some new information.
--------------------
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.
|
MarcTheMushroom
MycoNaught


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 222
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: XeR0]
#15009488 - 08/31/11 10:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think it was brian greene who said something along the lines of..
you are always traveling through space time at the same rate, the speed of light. so the more you are traveling through space, you are traveling less through time, relative to another observer.
if that was the case then Pythagoras's theorem should apply:
c=sqr(h2 + w2 + L2 + t2)
wikipedia sais: " The formula for determining time dilation in special relativity is: where Δt is the time interval between two co-local events (i.e. happening at the same place) for an observer in some inertial frame (e.g. ticks on his clock) – this is known as the proper time, Δt ' is the time interval between those same events, as measured by another observer, inertial-ly moving with velocity v with respect to the former observer, v is the relative velocity between the observer and the moving clock, c is the speed of light, and Lorenz factor
y=1/sqr(1-v2/c2)
what im a trying to say here is that even though the change in clock time is minute, the area under the curve will eventually add up to give an observable amount.
Edited by MarcTheMushroom (08/31/11 10:39 PM)
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
MarcTheMushroom said:
you are always traveling through space time at the same rate, the speed of light. so the more you are traveling through space, you are traveling less through time, relative to another observer.
if that was the case then Pythagoras's theorem should apply:
c=sqr(h2 + w2 + L2 + t2)
That is close, but not quite right. The phythagorean theorem applies for euclidean spaces, but the space-time of relativity is not euclidean. The space-time of relativity is 'Minkowski' space (or 'lorentzian' space). Minkowski space is close to eucledian, but it has a different 'metric'. That means that the pythagorean theorem doesn't quite hold. The way it should be written is like this,

Notice the difference is that the time dimension has a different sign. This quantity 's' is known as the space time interval. It's value is the same for all observers in any reference frame. (Similar to how the hypotenuse of a triangle in euclidean space is the same size no matter how you set up your axis).
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
#15012146 - 09/01/11 01:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Lets rephrase the situation this way. The guy in the rocket is traveling in a circular path which takes him past the earth every month. He notices that each month the calendar on the earth is one day behind per trip. But the people on earth see his calendar and it shows him a day behind per trip. Wouldn't it have to be this way since the rocket is traveling an appreciable fraction of the speed of light so to observers on earth it is experiencing time dilation. The guy in the rocket sees the earth as moving fast and sees them experiencing the time dilation.
So after 10 trips, guy in rocket shows a date of sept 1 on his calendar but sees aug 22 on the earth calendar as he goes by. Which one is correct? And if instead of passing by on the tenth trip, he comes in for a landing, what do the calendars show and why?
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Thats a good example because its resolution is even more clear. The guy in the rocket is never in an inertial frame, so you cannot say that he is the one standing still and the earth is moving. The only time he is in an inertial frame is when he arrives back on earth and when their clocks meet up and everyone agrees that his clock progressed less than the earths clock.
Making the mistake of thinking that the situation is symmetrical is where the apparent 'paradox' comes in. But thats because people just think about it and dont actually calculate it. To see the resolution to the twins paradox, use the space time interval formula I posted (or the time dilation version). And remember, the equations only hold in an inertial frame. So you can pick any frame you want, but it must be inertial.
|
|