Einstein and two clocks

All that is very well except that Einstein came to the conclusion that if a ship went at light speed for say 2 years, by the time the ship returned the earth would have aged about 200 years or something like that, but you are saying the opposite arent you ?

Well as long as the scientific community cant answer it either that will be fine.
Infact there is no debate really, science and philosophy are the same thing except that philosophy is the arbiter between that which is science and that which is not science - only philosophy could tell you that.

 

Sentient

No , agreeing with that totally. Thats a 100 to 1 time dilation,, there is math tht can say what actual velocity you would need for that.
Very close to light speed
But thats math, maybe tony or shaggie can elucidate.

For example, that 100/1 ratio may occur at 99% C
a 1000/1 ratio at 99.9 C
a 10,000/1 ratio at 99.99 C
An 100,000/1 ratio at 99.99 C
Thus through 10^6 10^7 10^8 exct
but
never reaching C

Zenos paradox may not relate to gross function of mater.
But in the case of arriving at C
It may well hold true.
Velocity of any mass can never reach C
only halve the remaining velocity

but the closer you get the more energy is required to accelerate the
relativistic mass.
Untill it becomes a significant proportion of the energy of the universe.

We are like little kids of 7 trying to figure out why a bike stays upright in motion.

Occam

 

I believe the answer your looking for is 0.99995c or 99.995% of the speed of light. Time for a case study. If we take two people, person A on Earth and person B on a spaceship (im not very creative with names). Person B takes a trip to out nearest star Alpha Centurai 4 light years away. This he does at 0.99995c. For the purposes of this we assume that acceleration is instantaneous as is the process to stopping and turning around to come back, this is a terrible assumption but less terrible than taking it into account. We will first consider person A in the 'reference' frame, here the calculation is easy. 4 light years there and 4 light years back again gives 8 light years at just under the speed of light so from person A's frame person B will return in a little under 8 years. Now person B is travelling at a highly relativistic speed with respect to person A. he sees t = t'/y (y is actually gamma but they can look fairly similar). At 0.99995c, y = 100.00125 (which isnt suprising as this entire problem is a fixed job). So t = 8/100 years, which by pure chance is actually about a month (there are 96 months in 8 years). So person A will have aged 8 years, person B will have aged around a month.

 

Tony

LOL,, yeh best not to include de/acceleration times.
Dont want the post to run to 4 pages.

Didnt realise V had to be so high to reach 100/1 ratio.

Thanks for the heads up.

Occam

 

Great ! I feel like I know everything now and will go on to be even greater than einstein

Thanks tony this is what I meant - its a masterpiece of ... erm ... enlightenment I think . and will probably form the basis of a new science
The science of being stunned by that which we cant understand.
I will call it stunning relativism in which some people will relatively be enlightened and others like me will gawp at the majority of what you just wrote and go "whaaaa????? whappen man !!!!" and only understand person A will be olderthan B
but we will also believe your conclusion is right - for no obvious reason other than we are mathematically illiterate and youre not

I am just off to collect the Nobel Prize for Stunned Relativism

 

.

 

Well muon decay proves this all the time. Its not often you use relativity in everyday life but you have to use it all the time when your building particle accelerators. Here particles travel at 99.(insert 9's)% the speed of light so we see the effects very strongly its not a theory it is a fact thats tested everyday. I don't think of it as someone experiencing time more slowly I think just think they've experienced less of it, ive not really stopped to think if that holds up mathematically but it works in my mind.

 

Tony

Disregarding de/acceleration again.
At a 100/1 dilation
Bob does a big loop out into local space and returns to earth.
To Tom, on earth, 100 months have passed [8 years 4 months].
To Bob, one month.

Yes, relative to Tom, Bob has experiencd 'less of it'
[subjective time processing at 1sec/per/sec]
But is that not because V was taken to relativistic level
for Bob. Thus all mater on his ship was processed at
a 1sec/per/sec that was 100 times longer than the rest of local space
which did not have V altered?

To occam this seems to make sense. But, if all mater was processed
at a 1sec/per/sec that was 100 times longer, then all nuclear/EM
processess would also be so effected.
As you say, muon decay rates show nuclear particles so effected.
But what about em?
Some strange things would be going on in say fibre optic based
computers that had their atomic structure running at an altered
time rate using C that is not altered.
Or is this a case of C is a constant to all observers..?

DOH, my head hurts

Occam

 

Im not entirely sue what your asking so ill go from the top and answer (or at least try to answer) what I think your answering. Firstly dont have things going in circles even if you are travelling at constant SPEED and rotation has a velocity, travel at 60mph an turn quickly you can feel yourself being thrown even if the speedo never leaves 60, hence force, hence acceleration, thats why my guy stopped and came back instead of doing a nice turn. Though I appreciate that doesn't change the question.

Be careful with this 1 sec/sec business as in all frames everybody thinks their clock is correct, indeed there is no correct clock. So I could infact say that person B was stationary and then The Earth and Alpha Centuari were in the same frame moving in the other direction. So it doesn't make all that much sense to think of anyones clock being 'correct' as such. So yes your right the velocity does determine the time dilation but remember that its relative to someone who sees him as traveling at 0.99995c someone traveling at 0.5c would think he was not as old.

We do use relativity to predict the decay time of fundamental particles. Its common in such areas of physics to use relativity to switch between the 'lab frame' and the 'centre of mass frame'. We measure in the lab frame but what we're really interested in is what the particle saw so we switch to the centre of mass frame which is a frame that the particle system being studied thinks is stationary if you follow. The muon decay process is a weak nuclear process but all fundamental forces obey relativity, it would be an odd universe if they didn't. Every optical system sees light travelling at c, indeed by considering how people in different frames would see each others optical systems (torches and mirrors) is how relativity is usually explained, I really do suggest looking it up. Its so much easier to follow with pictures.

 

Tony

Lol.
Yeh, picture book would be nice.
But think have enough general understanding of dilation.
A generalist needs no more.

Have to fill out niche on MPP and sidebar,
distributed systems and recognition.

Occam

 

I think this is like the pictures you must be looking for

non-mathematical man trying to get his head around
einstein

 

Sentient

Lol

Thats occams head when trying to think about the 'shape' of space near
a singularity.

Occam

 

.

 

Hey shaggie that was a great read - I liked that link a lot

 

I've got some superstring in my desk... right next to a pile of dark matter.

Lol.

Things created to satisfy preconceptions..
Apply the same standards to string and dark matter theory as you do to
singularity theory.
And both string and dark matter theories would become
'interesting ideas' ONLY
There is direct indicative evidence if not more of singularities
Show me real physical effects off either strings or dark matter.



Occam

 

Cygnus X-1 was the subject of the bet between physicists Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne, in which Hawking bet against the existence of black holes in the region. Hawking later described this as an "insurance policy" of sorts. To quote from his book, A Brief History of Time, "This was a form of insurance policy for me. I have done a lot of work on black holes, and it would all be wasted if it turned out that black holes do not exist. But in that case, I would have the consolation of winning my bet, which would win me four years of the magazine Private Eye. If black holes do exist, Kip will get one year of Penthouse. When we made the bet in 1975, we were 80% certain that Cygnus was a black hole. By now, I would say that we are about 95% certain, but the bet has yet to be settled." (1988) According to the updated 10th anniversary edition of A Brief History of Time, Hawking has conceded the bet "to the outrage of Kip's liberated wife" due to subsequent observational data in favour of black holes.

'Id go for private eye, penthouse is a silicon industry advert' lol

Occam