Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Didymus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. If that's the case, swan, when two objects travel relative to each other, their relative speeds are definitively equal. If A is traveling away from B at a speed, B is moving away from A at an identical speed. Thus, relative speed can not yield assymetrical time dilation.
  2. Can you reference when this technique was used in an experiment testingthe speed of light where the source and receiver or moving relative to each other? Preferably testing both a moving source and stationary receiver vs. A moving receiver and stationary source.
  3. Correct me if I've misread, but that sounds like that only measures the delay based on light transferring through different mediums rather than relative speed. I.e. measuring timing over a fixed distance rather than actually measuring the relative speed of the incoming photons. No? I'm particularly interested in the tests verifying that the speed of light is the same even with a moving source. Once the light bounces off the first mirror in the array, that mirror is the new source of light and the speed of light is still only being measured relative to a stationary source (each mirror
  4. Giving this another honest shot. It's said that long ago, we proved that a source of light traveling either toward or away from measuring equipment will still emit light that will be measured at C. The only ways I would know to measure the speed of light would involve bouncing that light off of an array of mirrors. My question is: Does anyone know of a an experiment to measure the speed of light from a source moving relative to the measuring equipment that used a method that did not involve reflecting that light through a mirror array? Can anyone describe how it would be measured
  5. So then if clocks are said to catch up in time based on the difference in symmetry, would the duration of each trip be irrelevant? Since it's been claimed that time will catch back up when two symmetrical objects stop.
  6. So if youre floating in deep space when suddenly a clock flies past. You see whether it's ticking slow from your perspective... Then catch up to it and look at it again. Are you suggesting that you can definitively detect which one accelerated more during their trip by noting which clock jumps forward in time when the inertial frames meet back up? If both clocks experienced equal acceleration, it's been suggested that both clocks would jump forward and synch. It seems that one could compare the ratio of how each object had accelerated during it's trip by noting how much each clock adj
  7. I'm aware that it will alter the calculations a bit relative to the time spent in the gravity well. But the observer on the home planet will also be experiencing Gr time dilation for the gravity well he's been sitting in the whole trip. Assume the two to be proportional (less gravity, but more time in the field) to cancel out the GR variable. The gravity well is just to provide a situation where a person is inarguably accelerating to leave a planet, then accelerating in the same direction to catch up to the planet again without the planet experiencing any acceleration itself. Just to elimin
  8. Curious about how dilation differentiates between "deceleration" and "acceleration" in the opposite direction? See the illustration a couple posts up.
  9. So then the net result of time dilation is a function of acceleration rather than time spent moving at a certain velocity? If so, how do you differentiate between acceleration and deceleration? I.e. for the sake of direction, imagine a 2D map of a planet sitting to the south of a neutron star. You accelerate (say at .5c) toward the north to get a closer look from within the star's gravity well. Once you hit your speed, you just coast the rest of the way on a trajectory that will send you just close enough to curve your path close enough to your planet (since this isn't a gravitational
  10. So if two people are moving relative to eachother, yet watching the other one's clock the whole time, each will see the other's clock moving at a slower rate and get farther and farther behind their own clock. Say they travel like this for a year and one clock is a month behind the other clock. If, when they come to the same inertial frame, their clocks are once again synched... How do you suppose that works? Does do you believe deceleration will make the clock on the opposite ship seem to jump forward however much is needed to catch up to the normal time? How would this change if they
  11. While this tangent is worth discussing, I feel like others may disagree with your assertion. Are you suggesting that if two objects are traveling past eachother at nearly the speed of light, they'll each see the other's clock running more slowly than their own clocks. yet, when they meet up, their clocks will be synched again as long as their accelerations were identical? Do you suggest that neither clock is actually ever running slower, that they just appear to be doing so from the perspective of the other person? Or do you suggest that each is actually running slower than the other,
  12. So, to eliminate variables, assume Al and Bert are in space ships that accelerate and decelerate instantly without killing anyone. Acceleration is another topic... We're going with straight special relativity time dilation based on relative motion at different inertial frames. If it makes you feel better, assume they start accelerating on the other side of the ship and Al and Bert simply begin their journies by passing the space station simultaneously. How will Al and Bert compare their clocks with eachothers and Bobs?
  13. From Bob's perspective, yes. But when as Al travels, it's Bob's clock that runs slower. Bert's clock runs even slower as his speed relative to Al is so much closer to the speed of light. So how do Al and Bert see eachother from their frames of reference? Note, avoid general relativity's affect on time dilation by assuming that they're all on space ships in negligable gravity and Al and Bert's ships have the technology to accelerate/decelerate very quickly without smashing the occupants. After Al and Bert get to speed, they are no longer accelerating, so still count as an inertial fra
  14. (Sorry, I wall o' text. For ease of skipping to the question Blue text is a remedial preface. Orange text is the explanation someone else gave for the problem in the blue text. Black text is my question about the orange explanation of the blue problem.) I saw an explanation of the twin paradox online that tried to explain the twin paradox. I understand the theory that relative motion dilates time. Hense, a twin travels at .8c to an object 5 lightyears away. From their perspective about 15 years has passed, but when they come back to earth, everyone else has experienced closer to 25 yea
  15. An important thing to consider is that sound travels at a constant speed relative to the medium regardless of how fast the object creating the sound is going. Light, on the other hand travels at a constant speed relative to it's source and requires no medium. So an object can go faster than sound and nothing will hear that object until the object passes. On the other hand an object traveling at any speed will emit light traveling away from it.
  • 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.