Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics - Quantum Physics

Akolaad's Achievements


Quark (2/13)



  1. Is it possible that there is some kind of organism somewhere on some planet orbiting a gravity well and that organism is more than 13.82 Billion years old according to a local clock? Is it possible also that there could be a planet somewhere with organisms on it which, according to a local clock are only 1 billion years since the big bang? That's what I was trying to ask before. It seems to me that this could be possible. But I was hoping other people would weigh in on it.
  2. I'm thinking this might not be the best place for me to ask questions. Though I really appreciate some of the genuine attempts to help my understand (specifically one Delta12) I think that there might be a better science forum out there for beginners to ask questions. I think xyzt might agree with me for once when I say: this isn't the best place for my questions. So thank you all for engaging. It has been an educational introduction to scienceforums.net. I wish you all the best and I hope there are people who find this a good forum for them. I also hope I find one more on my level elsewhere. Goodbye.
  3. Mind blown. That's super cool! Thanks for engaging Delta12.
  4. Ah, I see. Point taken. Ok so venturing once again into GENERAL RELATIVITY, let's say there was a planet with a great deal of force acting on it, such as the planet orbiting the black hole in "interstellar" (hated the movie for a million reasons, but from what I've read, the time dilation between that planet and earth was at least somewhat accurate). If someone went to the surface of that planet his time perception would be very different from the time perception of someone on earth. Let's say that Matthew Mcconaughey's character had set up a lab while he was there, with a nice telescope and all the staff and instruments necessary to measure the age of the universe, would he have discovered that it was 13.82 billion years old?
  5. xyzt, It's called a hypothetical situation, and it's used in something called a thought experiment. Yes it's like pretending. Pretend people could live for 1000 years, what might we accomplish? That doesn't mean I'm asking if people could live for 1000 years. It certainly doesn't mean I'm CLAIMING people can live 1000 years. It's hypothetical situation used for a thought experiment. You're now straining at things to be rude about. You're a complete asshole. And what are you even doing on this forum? Are you so insecure in your social life that you need to get online and show complete strangers how smart you are at physics by being arrogant, rude, and unhelpful? I seriously don't understand.
  6. I clearly did not assert that it were possible to teleport instantaneously.
  7. I clearly did not ask if it were possibly to teleport instantaneously.
  8. Thank you Delta12. That actually was really helpful and I think I get it. Without acceleration for either party then their speeds will be a matter or perspective and their TIME will be a matter of perspective as well. I watched this documentary with Brian Greene once where he showed all of spacetime, all events past present and future, as a loaf of bread. We think of "the present" as being a slice of bread, where all events that are happening "right now" constitute "the present" but then he showed that depending on perspective, you don't always have "slices" that are parallel to each other. In the case of Bob and Bill, traveling away from each other relatively, their "slice" of time constituting "the present" will be angled slightly. So that for Bob "the present" means he is x years old and Bill is x/2 years old, but Bill's slice of "the present" involved himself being x years old and Bob being x/2 years old. Does that sound right? A follow up question I have: Here on earth we perceive that the Universe is 13.82 billion years old. Assuming that we find a habitable planet somewhere in the universe, and assuming we were able to teleport there instantaneously, once we arrived on that planet, could we measure the age of the universe and find that it is much older or much younger for that planet? Might there possibly be planets in this universe that are presently existing only 1 billion years after the big bang? Might there be planets that are presently existing 200 billion years after the Big Bang?
  9. That was annoyingly arrogant, incredibly rude, and profoundly unhelpful. It was arrogant to act so high and mighty and "look how smart I am! I know the name of this paradox." It was rude to keep reiterating how little I know about this subject with no compassion or helpfulness to temper your remarks. I can forgive those. I know from experience that sometimes when you talk to people who know more than you do you encounter arrogance. I can deal with that. I have a thick skin and I can handle people being rude to me. Not a problem at all. But the 3rd sin in really unforgivable in a forum like this. Why even come here to be rude and arrogant if you aren't going to offer something helpful as well? When I first posted my question I got some great answers and I really appreciated them. I'd like to hear more from those people. Remember, I admitted in the beginning that I don't know much about these things. It doesn't help to point that out to me. I'm not trying to be clever and trap anyone here, I'm asking sincere questions. The fact that these parodoxes have names simply means that other people have had these questions before me and it would be great if someone would explain them to me rather than tell me how stupid I am for questioning them. I was mistaken about the difference between special relativity and general relativity, I got them mixed up. (and I said "correct me if I'm wrong") But rather than politely pointing that out I was treated like I was stupid and I had to go find that out elsewhere. But my questions remain. If someone is traveling at light speed relative to earth (but not accelerating) does he age slower than someone on earth? If so, why? I don't want to know the name of the paradox, and I don't want to be told I should study the subject. I am studying the subject, and I'm asking questions of people who I assume know a lot more about it than I do. If you are interested in helping me understand please do so, if you're only interested in being rude, and in showing off how smart you are and what paradoxes you can name, feel free to just move along, you're neither needed nor wanted here. In my "actual studying" of this issue I just came across this and it made me laugh. I suppose I'm in good company with scorn and ridicule: "Dingle’s Argument And Question About Special Relativity Professor Herbert Dingle was one of the most respected relativists of his era – at least until he started asking questions that no one could answer. As discussed on the Report page, Dingle became involved in a much publicized debate about the Twin Paradox and his name became intimately linked with that paradox. However, Dingle soon took the essence of the Twin Paradox and created a very simple question about Special Relativity. He was to pursue his questioning of Special Relativity for decades. Many relativists heaped scorn and ridicule on Dingle and his question, but no answer was received." I especially like that last bit: "But no answer was received." I feel ya Dingle! Dingles Question, pretty much verbatim to my question: “According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates (a more detailed, but equally simple, statement is given on pp. 45-6, but this gives the full essence of the matter), i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly?Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false. But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response.” So yes, I am asking "the ol' Dingle Question" apparently. Thank you Mr. Rude and Arrogant and Unhelpful for leading me to that terminology. Now let me restate the entire purpose of this thread: Hey guys, I had this question about Special Relativity and I recently found out it was once a big deal to a guy named Dingle as well. Anyone here got a good explanation to the ol' Dingle Question? Thanks in advance! Let me draw a distinction though between myself and Mr. Dingle: In the wording of his question he seems to be trying to say that Special Relativity may not be true. I don't want to put words in his mouth but that's what it looks like to me. I on the other hand, am operating under the assumption that Special Relativity IS true. I'm not asking my question as an ultimatum: "If no one can answer this then I won't believe in SR!" Instead I'm saying : "Hey science community of people way smarter than I, this seems like a great question to me and I assume it has an answer. Does anyone have any insight? I would love to understand it better."
  10. OK yes that actually does make sense to me, I should have thought about the force felt from acceleration. So speed is never absolute, only relative, but acceleration is real. Still, i'm confused about time dilation. Einstein FIRST came up with general relativity, which correct me if I'm wrong, only has to do with speed, NOT acceleration. It wasn't until special relativity that he addressed changing speeds. Right? So lets ignore the acceleration part for a minute. Imagine a woman is in labor on a spaceship going 95% light speed. She gives birth to baby Bill right as they pass earth. There is another woman on earth who gives birth to baby Bob right as the spaceship passes overhead. The spaceship continues on at 95% light speed (relative to the earth of course). 30 years passes on earth and Bob is now 30 years old. How old is Bill? According to explanations I have seen, Bill would be only a few minutes or hours or perhaps days old, because time would be much slower for him traveling near light speed. I always see diagrams showing that as light hits off the console of the spaceship and moves towards Bill's eyes it has to travel a great distance because the console and Bill are moving laterally, so the light is taking a very long hypotenuse route between objects. It makes sense, but only if that movement i.e. speed, is real. Back on earth, light moves from a desk surface to Bob's eyes, but there is no lateral movement of Bob or Desk at any significant percentage of light speed. Again, this makes sense to me except that relative to Bill, Bob and the desk ARE going 95% light speed. So when we take into account "there is no speed but relative speed" it seems like Bob would age quickly from Bill's perspective, and Bill would age quickly from Bob's perspective. Which is just silly because that means that When Bob is 30 he thinks Bill is only minutes old, and when Bill is 30 he thinks Bob is only minutes old. Again, it all makes quite a lot of sense to me if we admit that one person is ACTUALLY moving near light speed and the other is ACTUALLY motionless. But if speed is only relative then I don't understand time dilation.
  11. Thank you for your reply! But if there is no absolute speed, only speed relative to another body, wouldn't that mean that acceleration is relative as well? If Bill "accelerated" away from Bob, couldn't it be said that Bob "accelerated" away from Bill?
  12. Hey Guys! First time poster here. I've had this question for a while now and I can't seem to find the answer online. So whenever relativity and time dilation is explained they start out by saying that there is no absolute motion, objects only move in relation to each other. The very next thing you see if that "one person is standing still, while another is moving close to the speed of light..." which directly contradicts the first point. If one person is "standing still" and another is "traveling near light speed" but there is no absolute motion, only motion is relation to each other, then it is just as valid to say that the person who was "standing still" was actually traveling near light speed in relation to the other person. I often hear something like: "When Bill gets into a spaceship and flies around near light speed for only a few minutes, he comes home to find his twin brother Bob has aged many years." But here's my question: WHY couldn't we say that Bill was "standing still" while Bob and the Earth were "moving around near light speed" in relation to Bill and therefore BILL is the older twin now???? Thanks in advance!
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.