Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflineMarcTheMushroom
MycoNaught
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 222
Loc: Canada Flag
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?


--------------------
Marc the Mushroom

bitter.io - Free bitcoin, bitcoin advertising, ptc

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: MarcTheMushroom]
    #15004055 - 08/30/11 09:27 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegoodhuck
Thelemic
 User Gallery

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!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA Flag
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeR0
Mind Voyager
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/13/10
Posts: 409
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
Re: Distance and Time [Re: 5HTSynaptrip]
    #15005596 - 08/31/11 08:39 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: 5HTSynaptrip]
    #15006611 - 08/31/11 01:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

.

Edited by DieCommie (11/15/16 11:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeR0
Mind Voyager
Male User Gallery


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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeR0
Mind Voyager
Male User Gallery


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15007785 - 08/31/11 04:44 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineXeR0
Mind Voyager
Male User Gallery


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)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offline5HTSynaptrip
Dopamine Enthusiast
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 09/14/08
Posts: 4,360
Loc: USA Flag
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. :laugh:


--------------------


Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. - My hero, who will be forever remembered, Carl Sagan.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarcTheMushroom
MycoNaught
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 222
Loc: Canada Flag
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.


--------------------
Marc the Mushroom

bitter.io - Free bitcoin, bitcoin advertising, ptc

Edited by MarcTheMushroom (08/31/11 10:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: MarcTheMushroom]
    #15012063 - 09/01/11 01:23 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

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,

Formula: 0

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).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15020223 - 09/02/11 10:46 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
    #15022298 - 09/03/11 11:30 AM (12 years, 8 months ago)

>rocket is never in an inertial frame

The rocket is moving relative to the earth. The earth is moving relative to the rocket. You can't say the earth is standing still and only the rocket is moving. It matters not which is the more massive object. The earth is moving in relation to the sun. The earth is moving much faster than that in relation to the galactic core. All speed is relative. I don't blame you for not being able to solve the question. It's a very hard one.

There are galaxies moving away from us at a high percentage of the speed of light. Someone who is at rest in relation to that galaxy will be zooming by the earth. To the people on that rocket, the earth is the one moving fast. Who is correct? It's all relative.


--------------------
“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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15023355 - 09/03/11 03:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

All speed is relative. I don't blame you for not being able to solve the question.




Save your condescending remarks.  I understand the problem fully and already provided you a complete explanation.  Re-read my posts and think it through.  Do you know what an inertial frame is?

BTW, its not really that hard of a problem.  This was the very first subject we did in my very first physics class as an undergraduate.  Its an advanced freshmen level problem.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
    #15023857 - 09/03/11 05:16 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Then oh great one can you explain to us mere mortals why an inertial frame makes the speed between objects irrelevant? Instead of saying read the links or you already explained it, explain in detail if you do indeed understand. If you have no idea then continue on.

Einstein said that all speed was relative. The time dilation concept derives from high relative velocities which are stipulated in the example i gave.


--------------------
“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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15024183 - 09/03/11 06:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

.

Edited by DieCommie (11/11/16 09:50 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15024424 - 09/03/11 06:42 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Stonehenge, please cut out the condescending remarks and sarcastic personal commentary.  Discuss the issue, not the person.

I've noticed this is somewhat common in your posts here, but it needs to stop.  You can discuss germane ideas without limitation, howerver; this is not true in the case of irrelevant personal appeals.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Distance and Time [Re: johnm214]
    #15027565 - 09/04/11 12:35 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

John, i said it was a hard question and it is. That is not being condescending, it's the truth. If dc decides he is offended by being told his answer is wrong that does not make what i said an insult.

DC you still have not explained anything.

>Consider an astronaut and a space craft, and consider conservation of energy.  The astronaut is in an inertial frame so he can claim that he is still and his ship is moving.

His ship is moving relative to the earth or some other frame of reference. He can claim he is still in relation to the ship but he is moving in relation to the earth or whatever point of reference you want to make.

>He observes his ship has kinetic energy of one half m v squared.  He fires his rocket and 'boosts' into a different inertial frame.

I assume you mean accelerates the ship since you have used the terms rocket and ship.

>He changes his velocity, is momentarily in a non-inertial frame, and then comes to a rest relative to the ship.  He is now again in an inertial frame and can claim he is at rest.

At rest relative to the ship, not to where he started from or any other point.

>He now calculates that the ship has zero kinetic energy - and he is right!  He calculates that the exhaust from his boosting rockets has nowhere near enough energy to make up for the difference.  He concludes that conservation of energy does not hold. 

This contains many errors. Zero kinetic energy in relation to what? All speed is relative as you agreed before. Kinetic energy has to have a point of reference. We are at rest in relation to the earth but we are spinning around the sun and the earth itself is spinning. So we are experiencing motion even if we don't feel it. The conclusions drawn by your astronaut are incorrect.

>What is wrong with his thinking?  He is comparing the situation in one inertial frame to that in another inertial frame.  That is not how conservation laws work.  You have to compare apples to apples, you have to compare conserved quantities from within the same inertial frame.

You can compare conservation of energy in regard to any frame of reference. It will work and has to work in all those reference points. For example, if he is moving at speed toward the moon, he has kinetic energy in regard to the moon and if he hits it, that energy will cause the ship to be smashed. He will have a different kinetic energy in regard to the earth, to the sun, to other planets or to a piece of debris floating by. By firing the rocket he changes the kinetic energy he has in regard to each of those systems. He might be moving slower in regard to the moon, faster toward the earth and at an angle to another point

>This is where you are going wrong as well.  In your first situation you can use an inertial frame of the earth.  And you can also use an inertial frame of your space ship until it 'boosts' by changing inertial frames.  At that point you have to consider your inertial frame to be still moving away from the earth, not towards it like the space ship.

Sorry, that makes no sense. I was speaking of a rocket passing by the earth at speed. It has velocity relative to the earth. The earth has velocity relative to the ship.

>In your second situation you made the resolution even clearer.  You made it such that the space ship is never in an inertial frame, it is constantly accelerating.  In that case, you can still use the inertial frame of the earth.  But for the space ship, you can only choose a frame that it occupies for an instant.  You can choose one that is the same as the ships when it begins, or when it is half way around.  But your ship will constantly be accelerating (or 'boosting') out of your inertial frame. In that case, you can still use the inertial frame of the earth.  But for the space ship, you can only choose a frame that it occupies for an instant.  You can choose one that is the same as the ships when it begins, or when it is half way around.  But your ship will constantly be accelerating (or 'boosting') out of your inertial frame.

The ship will have an acceleration due to traveling in a circular path. It still has a velocity in relation to the earth. At some point it's going away, at some point it's going at right angles, at some point in the circular path it is heading toward the earth. The point being that it is always moving at speed in relation to the earth. I will grant you that the speed varies but that makes no difference. We can take the average speed and i said it had a time dilation of one day per month which corresponds to an average speed which is fairly fast.

>To resolve the apparent paradox, pick an inertial frame and don't change it half way through your situation - stay with it.  Then calculate your time dilation and see that there is never really a paradox at all.  I can help you with this if you want.  If you read the original paper on relativity its clearly explained in there too.  (As well as any general university physics textbook :wink:)

Now who is being condescending? Your mistake as i see it is that you seem to think that if the ship is changing velocity then the rules fly out the window. We have not changed the frame of reference. It always has a high speed in relation to the earth. A changing speed in relation to a fixed point, in this case the earth, just means the time dilation will change over the course of the orbit but you can still calculate an average.

Lets go back to the first example since the second seems confusing. The ship is moving fast in relation to the earth. The earth is moving fast in relation to the ship. Which one experiences time dilation 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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15028761 - 09/04/11 04:22 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Your mistake as i see it is that you seem to think that if the ship is changing velocity then the rules fly out the window.




Nope, you are seeing it wrong.  Your mistake is that you think you can use a ship with a changing velocity as a reference frame.  You cannot.  That is the rule you are throwing out the window.


Quote:

Lets go back to the first example since the second seems confusing. The ship is moving fast in relation to the earth. The earth is moving fast in relation to the ship. Which one experiences time dilation and why?




From what inertial frame?  Dont forget, what I said... "To resolve the apparent paradox, pick an inertial frame and don't change it half way through your situation - stay with it.  Then calculate your time dilation and see that there is never really a paradox at all.  I can help you with this if you want."

So pick an inertial frame, and then you can ask how much each one ages relative to that inertial frame.  Change your inertial frame half way through, and you will get nonsensical nonphysical results.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
    #15029027 - 09/04/11 05:07 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

>Your mistake is that you think you can use a ship with a changing velocity as a reference frame.  You cannot.  That is the rule you are throwing out the window.

OK, so you are saying that we must stick to one inertial frame of reference and ignore everything else ? And why is that? The universe is not that simple. A star in a far away galaxy does exert an influence on life here although very slight. All things are interconnected and you can't just look at things in a vacuum while ignoring everything else. Show me where this law is you are quoting? And not a link to a long website. There is nothing in newton's laws of physics that says this nor did einstein, that i'm aware of say that.


--------------------
“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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15030705 - 09/04/11 11:10 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

.

Edited by DieCommie (11/16/16 10:09 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
    #15032697 - 09/05/11 01:08 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

No, i don't think that is it. OK, now i have to admit i'm not sure i have the answer myself. I will present a theory or two though i've already found one or two possible holes in the logic.

If the observer on earth sees the rocket flying past at a high rate of speed, it will seem to be undergoing time dilation and be behind the rate of time on earth. The observer in the rocket sees the earth flying by at a high rate of speed and sees the earth undergoing time dilation while his time is normal. The reason for this is because the man in the craft is not moving at speed in regards to the rocket but the rocket, the calendar and the rocket's observer are moving from the point of view of the earth.

So the time dilation the earth sees in the rocket is correct and the time dilation seen by the rocket is true for that observer. Which one is moving fast depends on your point of view and the time dilation also depends on the point of view. Both observers are correct using their frame of reference.

Can anyone add to this or find some major flaw? Or come up with a better theory? DC i'm sure this is what you were trying to say, right?


--------------------
“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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: Distance and Time [Re: Stonehenge]
    #15042787 - 09/07/11 01:16 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

I suspect Im the most patient poster around here when it comes to explaining science.  Most of our local experts wouldnt even bother.  I think you understand it better now though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Distance and Time [Re: DieCommie]
    #15042925 - 09/07/11 01:48 PM (12 years, 8 months ago)

It's not a matter of patience, its a matter of not being familiar with the material. Like i said, it was not an easy question but i think my answer comes close and is valid by itself. I was hoping someone would offer more insights but it's a rare bird who knows about this stuff outside of something they can quote out of a book.


--------------------
“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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE jungjedi 622 0 08/11/06 09:34 PM
by jungjedi
* how does this calendar work? sherm 703 3 03/06/05 11:54 AM
by sherm
* Google Calendar HELLA_TIGHT 569 3 10/18/08 10:31 AM
by tak
* I want to build a long distance (15+ Mi.) wireless network. Baby_Hitler 982 11 03/03/06 05:19 AM
by ChuangTzu
* moon observation archive? TODAY 444 0 04/19/05 10:54 PM
by TODAY
* Observed 'Distinct Behaivioral Differentiation' driven by natural selection within a Species? Minstrel 617 3 10/15/08 07:12 PM
by DieCommie
* You don't have to move faster-than-light across stupendous distances to other stars... Ginseng1 316 0 05/01/08 11:34 PM
by
* Major evolutionary change has finally been observed
( 1 2 all )
HagbardCeline 4,024 26 12/04/09 07:01 PM
by iPhonesRule

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
1,286 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 12 queries.