Physics. What do you make of this?

[arkain101]

Where to start with this.

 

I believe I have come across a paradox of some kind. If that is the right word. To do with velocity and physics.

 

The twin paradox is a thought expirement that creates a problem within special relativity. A space traveler that leaves earth at nearly C and comes back should return younger than if he had a twin that remained on earth. The paradox in this lies as to deciding which reference frame is the one to undergo this time dialation. Now, explanations of this paradox have said that it is simple to explain that, the reason the traveler is the only one to undergo significant time dialation is because it undergoes a force.

 

Now getting to what I have been putting together. If it is true that the body undergoing to the force that shows velocity undegoes time dialation then lets consider this. Gravity is a force which can accelerate an object. Hypothetically lets assume this ship traveler uses a gravity source to its far away destination to leave the planet. With this source of propullsion zero force should be experienced for the accelerating traveler. Gravity affects each and every atom in the body at the same rate of a small object. So this ship will accelerate away at C and experience absolutly zero force regardless of how fast it accelerates. Now, we have the problem here that the key to determining which body is undergoing time dialation is undetectable because each body experiences no force.

 

Next, there is no absolute rest. The only way to explain something as at rest is to be in the same vicinty and equall motion of that concirned object of rest. This means, in order to claim rest, there must be two reference frames in sync to in a sense join as one to understand what it is undergoing. In space there is no sense of direction. There is no top, up, bottom, down, left or right in the big picture. Of course we can navagate. I refer to the fact of a quote I believe to be correct that, "space has no center and no edge" and so can not be disected into direction. This takes me to my further point. Even in the scenario of the twin paradox, where, we say that body undergoing the force of acceleration is to be the one considered to experience time dialation. Now, using the fact of no absolute rest, is it not fair to say, that the ship undergoing a force as it accelerates to C, could actually be decreasing velocity. This is, that it could be De-accelerating, and undergoing the same force as if it were accelerating. To imagine this with logic is to imagine our galaxy or solar system for that matter is traveling north, to say, at 0.5 C with a reference to some other frame.?.Now this is impossible to determine, but, to contine, the ship unknowingly takes off in the direction of south and in fact slows down as it engages its engine. Theoretically when it reaches 0 velocity in reference to the planet, it assumes it is going .5 C south. When the ship reaches C it is traveling south at 0.5 C where it thinks it is going 1C, but in reference to the earths assumption of velocity it is not Traveling C.

 

Now here with this in mind we look at velocity. A "distance" covered by a "time" is a velocity. We notice it has no reference to an aboslute rest, but only to a reference of "two" reference frame. With no sense of direction in the big picture, a max velocity is undeterminable? and unrelavent. If C is the distance covered by time maximum which light for sure is constrained by then this would have to require an absolute rest to make this statement? With no center, no edge, where is it that something can be considered to contain velocity in the first place. Now if velocity is a tool we have created which originated from the use of time and velocity can only be considered when there is two reference frames involved then time should follow that rule. Time would require two reference frames. Two reference frames allows for chance of interaction. Interaction allows of action, which allows for time. Like I considered earlier, time may be a tool from a reference of the distance of two reference frames under change. Time comes from velocity and velocity comes from time. Although, so if either one has no relation to the functionality of the universe then they should cancel out the other as a function. What does exist is energy, and it can play out action and function of interactions. To determine energy tools need to be found to measure and apply it. which sounds more correct than energy being discovered by the existance of entities of time and velocity.

Could velocity be considered as this. A body is in motion and is in motion in a strait line. In order to create velocity or determine velocity we must add a second reference frame. Now we can say that the distance from this object from front to back, which means the distance that makes up the object from the point facing in direction of travel and the point facing in the direction of away from travel is the distance it obtains in space in linear motion. Now to determine a "velocity" we use this distance instead of our invented distance (like a meter unit). As this object travels directly towards the 2nd reference frame the distance of this object can be considered to be the unit used to measure the distance from it (A) to 2nd frame (:). Instead of using time we can consider that the distance length of the moving object is being covered at a cirtain tempo. We manipulate this tempo with a standard device here on earth. That you type in the mass and distance and tap the tempo on this device and it tells you the Kinetic energy of the object with our best assumed mass.

 

what are your thoughts on this.. I had to get it written down while I had it clear in my mind. Seems logical?

[kamil]

The twin paradox can be solved without using the acceleration explanation, it is explained quite well in this link:

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html

 

Your ideas on time and kinetic energy are similair to mine from what I interpreted. That energy(more speccifically kinetic energy) makes things move and from this movement we can create the concept of space.

Im not sure if this is what u are talking about.

[arkain101]

I was driving home one night really fast and I passed by someones house who has LED lights for christmas lights, When I drove by I looked past the lights, so my eyes were unfocused. I noticed suddenly that as I passed the LED lights (which have a 60hertz or so) they began to "slow down" the flickering when I was moving past them perpendicular to their light went from unoticeable flickering to obvious flickering. From a distance come at the light source there was no flickering that I could see it looked pretty smooth.. but as my velocity perpendicular to the source increased, as I got closer, I could see distance between their flickers as if they had slowed down, or maybe it was my brain? or my time? that had slowed down.

 

I wish a I had a set of LED lights that I could spin around over my head (about 10 feet of it) and see if I could notice considerable distance between the flickers.

 

Is time really slower down here? or is the angle of the light pulse hitting me the cause. imagining a sphereical light pusle at 60hertz coming off the lights. as I drive past it, I go from the perpendicular point to an ever increaseing distance away from the lights. maybe it was just my imagination..

[kamil]

Moving at 60km/h gives a lorentz factor of very nearly close to 1. meaning that a 60 hertz light bulb(flicking 60times on and of every second) would still very nearly be flashing at 60 times a second. So the relavistic effects fo time dilation we can rule out.

The frequency of the signals that you observe shouldn't change if you are closer of further away from the source........:shrug:

This sounds interesting but at the moment i cant think of a reason why you observed this.

[Boerseun]

The most likely cause of you seeing the LED's flickering would be that as the LED's crosses your field of vision, different cones and rods in your retina is activated. In other words, if it takes a second to cross your view, and the light fell on 60 different cones and rods in succession, the sequence might look like this: Individual cone/rod - LED state:

 

cone1(LED on) - cone2(LED off) - cone3(LED on) - cone4(LED off) - etc.

 

In other words, you'll be aware of these fast changes in the LED's state, because you are actually triggering different optical nerves with either an LED being on, or off.

 

If you look at it directly, you're continuously using the same cone/rod - and the same nerve. And a single cone/rod cannot respond so fast to such speedy changes as a 60Hz LED, creating the impression that the LED is permanently burning. You can see the same effect by staring at a TV screen, and then quickly looking to your right or left. The TV will appear to be flickering as the image crosses your retina.