Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NowThatWeKnow

  1. OK asprung, does this sound about right? There is no reason why time can not be constant giving us an absolute time and a universal "now" as you propose. It is not the duration of a time segment that changes as you accelerate, but it is how fast you are moving through spacetime that impacts how you measure it.


    To support this, a good example would be a 1 G rocket ride accross the Milky Way. The duration of time is not changing but you are traveling through/accross time. This will allow you to travel 100,000 light years in just 12 years of your life while 100,000 years pass in universal time. How else would this be possible with out breaking the speed of light?


    A similar deception of time occurs when spacetime is curved because of gravity. It is not the duration of a minute that changes put only how you perceive and measure it. So universal or absolute time is measured in flat space while not moving relative to the CMB and everyone can share the same "now".

  2. Yeah, I've got another idea: Why don't you get your scientific research from World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated? That sounds like just as reliable a source.

    It would be about as useful as the last four post in this thread. :P

  3. Yes compaction generates heat energy. The core of the dead star does generate heat as long as it is becoming more compact. But eventually it cools down and becomes as compact as it is able to be and thats it: cold inert material.


    Is it possible that large orbiting masses may be able to maintain heat from movement created by tidal forces?

  4. Oh yeah, Youtube is one of the best places on Earth (Internet or otherwise) to get your scientific sources.:|


    Youtube, like SFN, can be a source of good information or garbage as we witness here daily. :)

  5. where do you see anything in my post about a universal 'now' not existing unless we 'establish' it? that post was only about how and whether it could in theory be established.


    What you said along with what you didn't say did not make what you believe clear. I was just asking a question.


    Your post edit did shed a little light on your statement. So, do you believe there is a universal "now"? I guess you could stack the different length "now" time segments like a pyramid with them centered on each other and consider that simultaneous.

  6. if it turns out that quantum entanglement allows us to communicate instantly over any distance (but thats another whole thread) then we would be able to establish a universal 'now'. other than that there is of course no measurement that we can make to estiblish a universal 'now'.


    Why would we have to establish a universal now in order for one to exist? Two locations can share the same time without human intervention. That would be like saying the speed of light is what it is only because we know what it is.


    My problem with asprung is that he is saying only certain laws of physics carry over to different frames. Also the length of "now" has not been defined and would have a margin of error regardless of its duration.

  7. What's the difference between centripetal and centrifugal force?


    Centripetal is real and centrifugal is an apparent force. Using a satellite as an example, I see centripetal force as gravity and centrifugal force as inertia keeping the satellite going straight and resisting orbit decay.

  8. Martin, is it the case that a major plank of the time dilation theory is that light speed reception is constant? And is it also the case that several experiments, such as measuring light speed whilst we are rotating both toward and away from the sun, have shown this to be the case?


    I am not sure if you or anyone else is still following this thread but here are a few thoughts from a layman. Corrections are always welcome from the experts so we all can learn.


    Space, time and the speed of light are all necessary pieces of the puzzle and must follow certain rules for special relativity to be mathematically correct. However, there are many paradoxes associated with special relativity.


    "Einstein postulated that the speed of light in free space is the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the light source." I look at the speed of light as being constant, but only relative to its current location or frame. As light leaves the Sun headed for open space it would actually speed up as gravity decreased IF it could be measured in real time from a single frame like Earth. Since we can not see the light until it gets to us we can only measure what we see relative to the speed of clocks in our frame. Therefore we measure the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second. If we we were closer to the Sun our clocks would be running slower so the slower light would still be measured at 186,000 miles per second. I look at it like gravity bends space so light has further to go in gravity but your clock is running slower so the math works out.


    In special relativity the time dilation (and length contraction) comes from speed rather then gravity. you will observe the speed of light from any source as being constant. The light from a flash light in your hand or a flash light on a ship moving at relativistic speeds will be seen by you at the same speed. You would observe the light from the ship and the ship itself separating at a speed much slower then light as they both traveled at a speed close to each other. The guy in the ship would see his light moving away from him at the speed of light because relative to his very slow clock it would be moving at 186,000 miles per second.

  9. ...

    The facts are that the data we have from the edge of the universe is up to 12 billion years old.



    Keep in mind that the expansion is not from the edge out, but is uniform. The expansion is also measured much closer to home so the horse is not all that far away. Since there is no reason to believe we are at the center of the universe we could represent what is happening everywhere.

  10. ... my proposal is that time, defined as a demension, spacing events, will not be distorted by velocity or acceleration; only the insturments measuring it will...


    I can not see one without the other so you are on your own. As mentioned, you have an "uphill battle".

  11. The definition of symultaneity is not relevent to the point I am trying to present, which is that the present marches on for both observers to when about the event occurs though their clocks are vastly diffrent.


    I can relate to what you are saying I think. At any point of time in one frame there is a simultaneous event happening in other frames, even if we do not observe it. One problem would be that a one second event in one frame may be a 10 second event in another frame making it unable to happen at the same time. It seems you would have to use a very high resolution of time and then just call it close enough.

  12. But darkness doesn't move...


    That may depend on what definition of "dark" and "move" you use. Does a shadow move? I probably should have put a smiley with my post as I was having fun with what some would think a silly question.

  13. iNow, It would seem that true simultaneity could only happen in the same or identical frames. Since that is almost impossible, a range of error is necessary to use the word. It seems that asprung allows for more error then most and may not be that far off, at least in his mind.


    When I read your post I see you well ahead of me in most areas of physics. :)

    Edit - Plus, Swansont and Martin correct my post often and yours rarely.

  14. http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html


    It truly gets to the heart of the misunderstandings with which everyone has been trying to assist you.


    Excellent link and got a bookmark. While relativistic speed may show the "simultaneity concept rather well", Here on Planet Earth we have a huge variable frame caused by general relativity. We don't let that stop us from defining simultaneous events. At what point does time dilatation or length contraction cause a problem in defining simultaneous? Could we say that when the front of the train passed the end of the dock my right foot hit the ground and call it close enough?

  15. Is that at all points of accerelation (including deceleration) or just one in particular (like when he first leaves Unprime or when he begins his return trip)?


    During acceleration away from Earths frame your clock will continue to run slower and slower as you accelerate. When you shut off your engines and become an inertial frame moving away from Earth your clock will maintain a ratio of running slow. As you decelerate back to Earth's frame your clocks will speed up until they match the speed of Earth's clocks. The same thing happens on the way home.


    Does that sound right Swansont?

  16. This reminds me of another question... say you're going at the speed of light- how long does it take to get to the sun? 8 minutes? So you would age 8 minutes? Or would it take 0 minutes?


    But if it would take 8 minutes, why is light necesarily the fastest thing in the universe? What if something could do it in 7 minutes?


    You can't go the speed of light but at relativistic speeds the distance from the Earth to the Sun would be covered in seconds, not minutes. You would also age only seconds. This would be because of time dilatation and length contraction.

  17. Our construction here demands a wide-ranging network of agreed simultaneity. Martin, you use provocative terms: "Cosmology is slightly different from GR..." I have been asking about this, as mathematically it is letting go of strict covariance.


    Hi Norman, I am in over my head and I am definitely not answering for Martin. Don't most agree that GR will require some tweaking for simultaneity when considering some of the large distances in cosmology? It seems like I was reading about that somewhere.

  18. wait a sec....


    say there's a beam of light... traveling at c, speed of light

    ther's two guys, one is standing still, and one is traveling at 0.5c


    know we now light always goes at speed 1c. so relative to the second guy, shouldn't it be 0.5c? or if its 1c relative to him, shouldn't it be 1.5c relative to the other one?


    I think that speed of anything, even light, should be taken in relation to earth, because even though its not completely stationary, its speed is insignificant compared to c.


    Relative to Earth? OK. Accelerate away from Earth to .99c and shut off your rocket engines. While traveling away from Earth at .99c, send a second rocket from your rocket pointed away from Earth and have it accelerate to .99c. You will see yourself moving away from Earth at .99c and the second rocket moving away from your at .99c for a combined speed of almost twice the speed of light. However, from Earth the second rocket will be moving away from Earth at just under the speed of light.


    Your example is frame mixing and that does not work. Each frame has its own time dilatation and length contraction conditions and should not be mixed. Relative to you, light will move at c. The only exception is using the expansion of space to separate faster then the speed of light.

  19. but this leads to an interesting modification. If you're going forward at the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight behind you, how fast would the light be moving? at 0 mph or still at the speed of light?


    Light speed is independent of the motion of the source. Relative to you, your light will travel c in any direction. You can think of it as you are standing still and everything around you is moving.

  20. ... have they really stopped light? Ok.. that's it.. im never ever gonna think again.. just gonna sing duppeyyydoooppooopppppp to myself and accept anything and everything... hell why not.. slowing it down to anything but 0 i could accept... I just can not accept yet.. that light can be stopped to 0 m/s. ddoooopppeeeeyyddddoooppppddddiiidddooopppppppppplllaallaaiillaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.breakdown.end of line


    Don't quit thinking yet. There are several in these forums that say the light is really not slowed down or stopped. That is why I started my last post with "Most of the experts around here will argue that light can not be slowed down but the average speed can be slowed down as it passes through different substances. The light is absorbed and then re-emitted with a delay coming while it is absorbed." There is a thread about all this somewhere around here not far away.

  • 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.