Time Theory

[tyme]

Hey guys. I guess I'm wrong with this random theory about time, but since everyone here is smarter than I am I was wondering if anyone could see if this theory is wrong, or right. Here it goes.

 

I have been thinking about time for a while now, and how it works. I kept thinking about how time is affected by speed & gravity. Anyway the theory is that time might be the limitation of how fast everything moves, and there might even be a time barrier. With the 'time barrier' I am referring to c, as nothing is apparently faster.

[Strange]

 

Anyway the theory is that time might be the limitation of how fast everything moves

 

That is speed, not time.

 

, and there might even be a time barrier. With the 'time barrier' I am referring to c, as nothing is apparently faster.

 

What is a "time barrier"?

c is the speed of light; which is the fastest possible speed.

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. You appear to be mixing speed and time as if they were the same thing.

[tyme]

 

That is speed, not time.

 

 

What is a "time barrier"?

c is the speed of light; which is the fastest possible speed.

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. You appear to be mixing speed and time as if they were the same thing.

 

I'm saying that time gives speed limitations.

 

Just looking for opinions on this theory.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Angus Senn

[ajb]

I'm saying that time gives speed limitations.

You need time to define speed, so I would say that it is not exactly clear what you mean here.

[tyme]

You need time to define speed, so I would say that it is not exactly clear what you mean here.

 

What I'm thinking is not simple to say, or type. I'll put it another way.

 

Time slows down near any physical object with weight, for smaller physical objects the difference is insignificant, but still there. If you are in the same place where time is being slowed down, everything's speed will decrease including yourself. Since you have been slowed down (thought processing, movement, the whole lot) you won't notice the time difference.

 

Say there is empty space, and then a black hole a few thousand miles away from that empty space. Time around the black hole will be noticeably different due to the gravity impact of the black hole. Imagine you threw a soccer ball towards the black hole from the empty space and waited for the ball to arrive at the black hole. (it will take a long time to arrive). Since there is nothing slowing the ball down, it will continue to travel to the black hole.

 

When the ball is caught in the black holes gravity, it will be pulled into the event horizon. Time around the black hole will be slowed down, and so will the ball. You are still watching from the empty space. The ball should speed up while it is sucked into the event horizon, but since time around the black hole is slowed down, the ball will be slowed down too from your POV. From the ball's POV, time is running normally.

 

With time being different everywhere, it is impossible to tell if our surroundings are slower or faster than times normal flow without atomic clocks or viewing a massive gravitational time distortion around a massively dense and heavy physical object.

 

Time on Earth is slower than the space above because of Earth's gravity. Everything on Earth is affected by this 'slowed time' effect, including us.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Angus Senn

[Strange]

So this sounds like a roughly accurate description of general relativity. This is already taken into account (if necessary) when considering the speeds of objects in different frames of refrerence. It is used, for example, to correct for the effects of gravity and speed of satellites in GPS receivers.

 

The (local) limit of the speed of light comes from this same theory, so it isn't clear what you are saying that is different.

[ajb]

Time slows down near any physical object with weight, for smaller physical objects the difference is insignificant, but still there.

As Strange has said, what you have described comes from general relativity and gravitational time dilation is well studied. So what is your 'theory' here?

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

A theory regarding to this, states that: If you were to travel at c, the speed of light, everything around you would age; but you wouldn't, as you won't experience time if you travel that quick. And since we're applying into that, that would be physically impossible as only massless particles could do so, and though some may say that currently we are unable to travel at c, with further technologies in the future, it may be possible. Even as we do so, our particles would get scattered (as we notice how light travels, and gets scattered, as it gets weaker). So we cannot test this theory yet. One example for instance, that if we were to do so, and not experience time due to the great speed, and we to travel at the speed of light in a space craft or train for one year, we would emerge several thousands or hundreds years from where we began. (As I briefly explained in another thread of several other theories).

[tyme]

A theory regarding to this, states that: If you were to travel at c, the speed of light, everything around you would age; but you wouldn't, as you won't experience time if you travel that quick. And since we're applying into that, that would be physically impossible as only massless particles could do so, and though some may say that currently we are unable to travel at c, with further technologies in the future, it may be possible. Even as we do so, our particles would get scattered (as we notice how light travels, and gets scattered, as it gets weaker). So we cannot test this theory yet. One example for instance, that if we were to do so, and not experience time due to the great speed, and we to travel at the speed of light in a space craft or train for one year, we would emerge several thousands or hundreds years from where we began. (As I briefly explained in another thread of several other theories).

 

I am referring to time's flow, and how time effects an objects speed from a different POV.

[ajb]

A theory regarding to this, states that: If you were to travel at c, the speed of light, everything around you would age; but you wouldn't, as you won't experience time if you travel that quick.

As mentioned in another thread, this is unphysical and so it is not clear what conclusions one should really make.

 

Importantly, the notion of the 'photon's point of view' is not really well-defined. In special relativity by 'point of view' one usually means the rest frame of the object in question. (In general relativity you can always think like this locally.) As photons can never be considered at rest with respect to any inertial frame of reference (frames for which Newton's laws are okay) there is no 'photon rest frame' and it becomes unclear as to what a photon 'experiences'. People say things like 'photons don't experience time' and so on, but this is really taking a limit of the effects of time dilation as v-> c. One should not really understand it as what actually happens at c. Again, the 'point of view' at c is not really clear.