Relativity and Time

[Jay-qu]

 

Oh really? It may seem simple at first but imagine this.

You are in a body fitting spacesuit. There is empty space all around you for infinity. How do you take a step now? Even if you move a long distance you may still be at the same place because its empty and theres no reference.

 

Well you dont move, to have moved you have to state a point of reference to which you have moved. But then you can also claim that it is that object that is moving and not you!

 

Im the center of the universe and it all moves around me,

J

[kalesh]

Well you dont move, to have moved you have to state a point of reference to which you have moved. But then you can also claim that it is that object that is moving and not you!

 

Im the center of the universe and it all moves around me,

J

 

That was exactly my point.

[The_Right_Stuff]

At rest with respect to what?

 

If one is at rest in Space, then one is at rest with respect to the dimensions of Space itself. If one is at rest in Time, then one is at rest with respect to the dimension of Time.

 

Space-Time is an open area that one moves across. A different Time, is simply a different location within that Space-Time.

 

With all objects constantly on the move within Space-Time, and doing so with a magnitude of motion that is equivalent to the spatial motion of light, all objects are constantly moving away from their previous positions, and after any given time period, all objects are at an equal distance from their previous position. Some may have moved mostly across Time, other mostly across Space, and others a mix of the two, but all have moved an equal distance across the open multi-dimensional area known as Space-Time.

 

Because of this, even though one man's clock may tick slower than another's, and hence one man ages slower than another, the two men are not separated from each. The two men may eventually once again stand side by side even though one may think that one man should be separated from us because he has fallen back in time by not being able to keep up with the rest of us as we move quickly across time.

 

No. Because everything is in constant motion, and it being an equal degree of motion, everything stays together as a group. That is what the " Present " truly means.

 

And so, if you were able to step back-over to the position of which all objects were located a moment ago, you would find nothing at all, for all matter has been relocated, and is always being relocated due to all matter being constantly on the move within Space-Time.

 

A simple understanding of a geometric structure that produces the equations that are identical to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity addition equation, and correctly predicts all that has been tested to be true to this date, would also seem to merit a credit or two, would it not ?

 

Where is the logic in rejecting something that is in complete agreement all events that are known to have occurred within reality up to this date ?

[Farsight]

Space-Time is an open area that one moves across. A different Time, is simply a different location within that Space-Time...

 

You can't move to this location. Or from it. Its mathematical, hypothetical, not real. And the notion that it is, is something you've swallowed without actually thinking about it. It isn't an actual location. Moving to it is as real as moving to the number ninety nine.

 

A simple understanding of a geometric structure that produces the equations that are identical to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity addition equation, and correctly predicts all that has been tested to be true to this date, would also seem to merit a credit or two, would it not ?

Where is the logic in rejecting something that is in complete agreement all events that are known to have occurred within reality up to this date ?

 

Simple, and wrong. These are equations, mathematics, not reality. You're rejecting reality, in favour of mathematical artifice, and the quite illogical unfounded notion that you "move" through time when you just can not.

[Farsight]

Why can't you move through time? Just because backward time travel hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.

 

You can't move through time because it isn't out there. It isn't some fundamental dimension like the Dimensions of space. It's like heat, it's a derived effect of motion. And besides, you can't demonstrate moving through time. You can sit there looking at your watch, but the fingers of your watch moved, through space. You didn't move anywhere, and you definitely didn't move "through" time. You simply can't demonstrate any movement through time, so don't imagine you can do it.

 

You are in a body fitting spacesuit. There is empty space all around you for infinity. How do you take a step now? Even if you move a long distance you may still be at the same place because its empty and theres no reference.

 

I place a spanner at arms length. Then puff my jetpack. But let's not get sidetracked into imaginary universes. Let's stay real.

[kalesh]

You can't move through time because it isn't out there. It isn't some fundamental dimension like the Dimensions of space. It's like heat, it's a derived effect of motion. And besides, you can't demonstrate moving through time. You can sit there looking at your watch, but the fingers of your watch moved, through space. You didn't move anywhere, and you definitely didn't move "through" time. You simply can't demonstrate any movement through time, so don't imagine you can do it.

 

I have my own reasons for believing that time travel can happen. But if I give you the reasons you'll think that either I need a mental checkup or I'm lying, so I'm going to keep it to myself.

[Jay-qu]

Or we will think your a crank because you are not willing to allow your ideas to stand up against scientific discussion!

[kalesh]

Or we will think your a crank because you are not willing to allow your ideas to stand up against scientific discussion!

As I have said before and say again once I am ready I will post my theory for open disscussion (hopefully sometime next week), But the reason as to why I firmly believe that time travel is possible is a different story altogether.

 

However if someone really wants to know it I may discuss it.

[arkain101]

I think in a sense depending on the use of words, the dimension of time and the measure of time can be understood one of the same thing in one use of words, and seperate in another use or understanding of words.

 

For example, lets look at the two kinds of motion.

 

A body in rotation at rest relative to an observer.

 

A body in motion with no rotation relative to an observer.

 

I agree we can use the word time for the dimension we travel through in space if we define time by light. Distance = time delay. t=d/c

 

We can also use the word time for how things age, or, their so called in this example "rotation motion". Slower observed rotation, causes a change in age, where age produces the measure of time, instead of time being the place where you can move to change age.

 

Popular mentioned: "I can not take a step in the direction of time"

To this I agree. An observer can not move in the idea of a dimension of time because their frame remains consant. It can not move, it can only respond to observation of movement around it. An observer is respectfully able be one of two reference frames that are also respectfully two zero points on a relativistic graph that displays locations or positions in space-time.

 

The options we have to choose from in illustrating what space and time is, I find are:

 

1) Is space and time a product of light energy, in a sense that light literally forms the reality the observer will function in. For example, if you move quickly and 'observe' space to contract, then literally all space-time and material in that has literally contracted for you.

or

2)Are things relatively static in space. That is, if you move quickly and experience observations of contraction that are only observations, temporary effects produced by such high speed, but they are not how space actually is.

 

The former is strangely enough where I understand experiments tend to lean towards as the actual case.

 

So if we look at a dimension as a measure produced by observation, but not an actual thing, we can see that all dimensions including space and time are tools for measure, and not entities of the fabric kind.

 

Or we can for a different perspective of understanding consider space and time dimensions real things of the fabric directional kind and in this case find it more pleasing to work with and understand relativity. So in this sense if we said I moved through time it would be equal and perportional to saying I observed my surroundings, and therefore my reality dilate, or 'age' at a different rate. A slower rate of entropy. Example being a fast moving ship.

 

But it is I think important to note that even when their is fast moving frames that does not mean you can observe the dilation.

 

Let me elaborate:

 

If a frame a lightyear away suddenly got ejected from a black hole persay at a very high velocity, the light and the frame would be traveling relatively at the same speed, relative to us. So even if this distant object had a very slow clock, it would be impossible for us to observe it, untill the object literaly reached our boundry of observation... At which point, by the time we make an observation, the object will be LONG gone from where we see it. -in this case it came towards us and flew past a safe distance-.

 

There are restrictions, or principles of observation we have to consider, but through SR we can make an accurate prediction to what just might happen to an object if we happen to observed it at such a high velocity.

 

So in my conclusion. If you call time space, something can move through space and time dimension, but an observer can't.

 

But if you call "age rate/life rate/entropy", time then you may also be correct in your wording to say an object can move in 'time' when they age different.

 

However, to clear up all the wording I prefer it best to say, dimensions are tools of measure that only an observer can produce.

There is time that is entwined with light because light is reality. So 1 light second away, is my future. "I can observe the light of a clock speed up and slow down to a certiain degree depending on its towards or away velocity."

 

Then there is time I refer to as how an object of mass changes/ages in the atomic scale. "I can measure an actual clock to run slower depending on this velocity neary the speed of light"

[The_Right_Stuff]

Or we will think your a crank because you are not willing to allow your ideas to stand up against scientific discussion!

Funny you should say that. I have presented my view of the construct of reality and how such a view is in complete agreement with all tests and experiments that have been performed up to this date, and all I get in response is all cases is responses like...

Originally posted by Popular

You can't move to this location. Or from it. Its mathematical, hypothetical, not real. And the notion that it is, is something you've swallowed without actually thinking about it. It isn't an actual location. Moving to it is as real as moving to the number ninety nine.

That is kind of amusing since it was said that I had swallowed some idea. In truth, I have no background in Physics at all, and my parents had pulled me out of school prior to me having entered grade 11 due to my way of thinking not being common enough such that I would fit in with a majority.

 

Instead, my understanding of the structure of reality was achieved by spending plenty of time lying down in the horizontal position wondering how motion, and variable magnitudes of motion, were possible when it was obvious that both were ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. It boggled my mind as to why no one else that I could see, had managed to notice that motion was absolutely impossible.

 

I eventually realized what was possible, studied the idea with the help of performing a simple geometric analysis, and then used this geometry to create equations from such a structure to see if my understanding related to that of any others, since math seemed to be popular in the world of physics.

 

I was tickled pink to find out that my equations were identical to those known as Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time-Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation. I was even more impressed when I started reading about Albert Einstein and found out the reasoning as to why there were no equations known as the - Einstein Contraction equation, the Einstein Time-Dilation equation, the Einstein Transformation equations, and the Einstein Velocity Addition equation, despite Einstein's popularity. In short, he had a little help.

 

In my case however, the only help I had was having heard of the statement that light was the fastest speed of all, and so all of my achievements were done without any other information being known of, and all done while on my own lying down on my bed with a smile on my face wondering how and object can go on forever in no time a all.

 

I was thinking about how motion contained two variables, Speed and Distance.

 

Variables range from zero to infinity, or in this case of course the variables range from greater than zero to infinity, since zero itself would obviously mean no motion at all. Now if we were to set both of these Variables to the point of infinity, the outcome would be as follows.

1) Traveling across an infinite distance --> To continue to travel without end.

2) Traveling at an infinite speed --> To travel across any distance without the passage of any time.

 

Note: If it takes time to get from point "A" to point "B", this means that you can still move faster and use less time to get from point "A" to point "B", therefore you are still traveling at a finite speed, not at an infinite speed. Only if no time at all occurs while moving across any distance, is the speed actually an infinite speed.

 

This combination of infinities produces a paradox because, 1) + 2) = To continue to travel without end, and all done without the passage of any time at all. Or a more amusing version.....

 

TO GO ON FOREVER, IN NO TIME AT ALL !

 

That statement went over and over in my mind until I eventually realized that I was quite correct in saying that variable motion is absolutely impossible, but that instead it could only occur in a relativistic sense. In other words, I understood the basic mechanics of reality and that variables only existed if you were limited to being exposed less than the completeness of such a construct of reality.

 

For instance, if you hold a pencil horizontally in front of you, you can look at its complete length. However, if you rotate that pencil, the appearance changes, but you at the same time are aware that the pencil is simply being rotated and that nothing about the properties of that pencil have changed.

 

On the other hand, if the axis of space that extends in front of you and behind you, was a dimension that you do not have direct access to and were therefore unaware of, then instead it would appear as though the pencil was magically shrinking in length as one begins to apply certain forces to it.

 

In this case a variable would have been introduced as the result of the subtraction of the awareness of one dimension. By applying certain forces, the length of the pencil could be changed, or so the case seems to be to the observer, even though the length of the pencil has not changed at all. Subtract the view of one dimension of the complete structure and all of its dimensions, and variables are then born. These are therefore Relativistic Variables though, and are NOT Absolute Variables !

 

And the beat goes on......

[Uclock]

The subject of time is a complicated one. Einstein viewed the arrow of time as the mind creating order yet he acknowledged that time dilation is a physical (real) phenomenon. He viewed space as metric a sort of three dimensional grid and time is given a separate dimension but space and time cannot be separated because they are like a coin with two sides, one time the other space. This is how physics views spacetime. It was also Einstein’s view that high relative velocity in uniform motion between frames causes time dilation and this introduces the well known twin paradox because velocity is relative. If I am moving away from you at 6000 m s^-1 then you will note my clock as running slightly slower than your clock but from my frame you are moving away from me at 6000 m s^-1 and it will appear to me that your clock is running slower than my clock.

A gravity field is a distortion of spacetime thus when an object is immersed inside a gravitational field its clock will beat slower than that of a clock in free space so it appears Einstein believed there are two causes for time dilation, one being high velocity the other gravitational fields.

IMHO he was right that gravity causes time dilation but wrong that velocity also causes time dilation because if time dilation is a real phenomenon it will take a force to dilate time and you feel no force when in uniform motion.

 

Tony

[Farsight]

They both do, uclock. Really. Einstein wasn't wrong, and it doesn't take a force to dilate time because that's not how it works. This is how it works:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/9504-time-explained-v2-1-a.html

[Jay-qu]

 

motion is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

 

You never came back to why this is..

 

This combination of infinities produces a paradox because, 1) + 2) = To continue to travel without end, and all done without the passage of any time at all. Or a more amusing version.....

 

TO GO ON FOREVER, IN NO TIME AT ALL !

 

How is this a paradox? It is happening all the time! photons experience no time at all but still manage to traverse the entire universe un-paradoxically..

[Uclock]

Popular

 

They both do, uclock. Really. Einstein wasn't wrong, and it doesn't take a force to dilate time because that's not how it works. This is how it works:

 

Yes you are correct if you assume that space is a metric and time is movement through that metric but what makes you so sure Einstein view of spacetime is correct?

 

I have read your essay on time and it is interesting but IMHO time and the arrow of time is real and not an illusion.

 

Tony

[CraigD]

IMHO he [Einstein] was right that gravity causes time dilation but wrong that velocity also causes time dilation because if time dilation is a real phenomenon it will take a force to dilate time and you feel no force when in uniform motion.

This argument doesn’t quite make sense to me.

 

Time dilation due to relative velocity, per Special Relativity, can be viewed as purely a geometric effect (as illustrated by the ”light clock” thought experiment). For an observer in each inertial frame in this illustration to agree (that is, not each perceive the other’s clock as slower than their own), one of them usually will experience a lot of force accelerating to, then back down from, a high velocity relative to the other. Only through some measurement of this acceleration can one decide which of the two measured the least time. To reject this prediction, one must either reject that the speed of light is constant, or predict length contraction perpendicular to an object’s velocity, a prediction 90° different than SR’s.

 

Concerning time dilation due to gravity, per General Relativity: one only experiences a large force under special conditions, such as one experiences standing on the surface of a planet. If one orbits the same planet, even though the acceleration of gravity at one’s greater distance from the planet is not much less than at the surface, one experiences hardly any force. Despite this large difference in experienced force, the time dilations due to gravity experienced on the surface vs. orbiting it are not much different.

 

Without considering any of the above arguments, there’s strong experimental evidence that both the prediction of SR and of GR are correct. So I think Uclock is incorrect to accept one theory, but reject the other.

[Uclock]

Craig D

 

This argument doesn’t quite make sense to me.

 

Time dilation due to relative velocity, per Special Relativity, can be viewed as purely a geometric effect (as illustrated by the ”light clock” thought experiment). For an observer in each inertial frame in this illustration to agree (that is, not each perceive the other’s clock as slower than their own), one of them usually will experience a lot of force accelerating to, then back down from, a high velocity relative to the other. Only through some measurement of this acceleration can one decide which of the two measured the least time. To reject this prediction, one must either reject that the speed of light is constant, or predict length contraction perpendicular to an object’s velocity, a prediction 90° different than SR’s.

I am not rejecting time dilation due to acceleration nor am I rejecting the constancy of the speed of light, I am rejecting the view that space is a kind of metric.

 

Concerning time dilation due to gravity, per General Relativity: one only experiences a large force under special conditions, such as one experiences standing on the surface of a planet. If one orbits the same planet, even though the acceleration of gravity at one’s greater distance from the planet is not much less than at the surface, one experiences hardly any force. Despite this large difference in experienced force, the time dilations due to gravity experienced on the surface vs. orbiting it are not much different.

 

If an object is in free fall such as in orbit around the Earth it experiences no force and according to GR the time difference is t = t’sqrt(1-(2GM/rc^2)), is that correct?

 

 

Without considering any of the above arguments, there’s strong experimental evidence that both the prediction of SR and of GR are correct. So I think Uclock is incorrect to accept one theory, but reject the other.

 

As I understand it there has never been an experiment where purely velocity accounts for time dilation, if there has been one undertaken can you please point me in the right direction.

 

Tony

[CraigD]

As I understand it there has never been an experiment where purely velocity accounts for time dilation, if there has been one undertaken can you please point me in the right direction.

There have been several – a good discussion is ongoing in 10493 (which Uclock knows, having contributed to it).

 

Experiments in which a very precise electro-mechanical clocks (eg: atomic clocks) is flown in a high-speed vehicle, then returned and compared to its twin on the ground, are rare, and troubled by the need for such vehicles to be high above the ground, and thus experience a slight time elongation due to General Relativity effects. Although several have been conducted, their results are low precision compared to experiments involving near-lightspeed subatomic particles, and can be considered more engineering tests of the clocks used as physics experiments. Although low-precision, these tests have validated Special Relativity.

 

Given recent advances in miniaturizing atomic clocks, and continuing investments in unmanned space exploration, I entertain the hope that a more convincing “clock in a ship” test of SR will occur within the next decade or two. A problem with getting such an experiment flown, though, is that it still wouldn’t be as precise as previous subatomic particle tests, so, despite being dramatic, is difficult to “sell” to mission planners, who almost certainly all accept SR, and thus have no strong drive to revalidate it for the benefit of skeptics such as Uclock. My hope is that some other experiment may result in a miniature atomic clock being flown on a spacecraft, and that a SR validating experiment using it could be done nearly “for free”.

 

If there are any JPL, Goddard, or other folk reading this, take pity on us amateur skeptics, and fly this experiment! Please?!