martianxx Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 I have recently been reading a book called "The fabric of the cosmos" and it states that there is a relationship between speed in time and speed in space. It says that when stationary a body is moving only through time and not through space, seems obvious. Yet when the body begins to move time slows down slightly. It says that when travelling at the speed of light time stops. I was annoyed by the concept of "speed of time" how do we calculate a speed of time. I found out about a group of scientist that took a highly sensitive clock from London Heathrow to Sydney Australia in a Boeing 747. the time taken by the very accurate clock was less than the amount of time that other clocks said. I am not sure if there is already a way to calculate the speed of time, but just in case there isnt i have attempted to make one. I started of by thinking that the speed of time when the body is stationary was 0. And the speed of time when travelling at 186000 miles per second was 1. i then asked my self how fast you would have to travel to have a speed of time of 0.5 this is obvioulsy 186000/2 = 96000 miles per second. I then said that if traveling at 186000 miles per second the speed of time is 1 then it would have to be 186000/186000 = 1 i then took the idea of the speed of light being constant. I worked out that logically the speed of time should be equal to the speed in space divided by the speed of light. If you do this you get a very small number supposing you do it with a possible speed and you get a number that doesnt really mean much. So i developed the idea of the speed of time being how long a second when stationary is when moving at a given speed. The speed in space/speed of light gives the difference between the time of a second while stationary and the time of a second while traveling at the orignal speed. So i said that 1-speed in space/speed of light = time of 1 second while moving. As you can see, when traveling slowly the time changes so little that no one would pick it up, only this amazing clock that went to australia. I will give an example the clock that went to australia if the time taken on a normal clock was 24hrs and the plane averaged 605 mph then: First we must express 605 mph in miles per second. We have to do the calculation, 605/60/60 = 0.168 3sf we put this speed into the equation speed of time = v/c to get, 0.168/186000 = 9.03x10^-7 = 0.000000903 This is the difference in the speed of time so we have to take this from 1. 1 - 0.000000903 = 0.999999097 this is the real time of one second while flying at 605 mph. Assuming it takes 24hrs to get from london to sydney the real time taken = 24x60x60 = 86400. then it is 0.999999097 x 86400 = 86399.92seconds. This in hours is 86399.92/60/60 = 23.99998 so you end up losing 0.8seconds of time. If any of this seems incorrect or has already to your knowlaged been discovered please tell me, i would really like to hear from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2007 Share Posted November 5, 2007 If any of this seems incorrect or has already to your knowlaged been discovered please tell me, i would really like to hear from you. You appear to be talking about relativity. That's what you want to be reading about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The speed of time is always 1. [math]\frac{\partial t}{\partial t} =1[/math] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The speed of time is always 1. [math]\frac{\partial t}{\partial t} =1[/math] But [math]\frac{\partial t}{\partial \tau}[/math] is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 There is no "speed of time". A body and its subatomic elements move through space. The notion of a body moving through time is an abstraction that has no basis in experimental fact. If Brian Greene begs to differ, I'll put money on the table. When "time dilation" occurs (and this is an experimental fact) what's actually happening is that the subatomic elements of the body are moving more slowly through that body's local space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 There is no "speed of time". A body and its subatomic elements move through space. The notion of a body moving through time is an abstraction that has no basis in experimental fact. If Brian Greene begs to differ, I'll put money on the table. When "time dilation" occurs (and this is an experimental fact) what's actually happening is that the subatomic elements of the body are moving more slowly through that body's local space. Please confine your nonstandard view to your own threads. People asking questions in "physics" want the mainstream answer, not a thread hijack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martianxx Posted November 6, 2007 Author Share Posted November 6, 2007 It is quite hard to understand, this is how i see it. If on car is travelling at 70 mph and another is travelling at 100mph the first car is accellerating away from the second. A person at a stationary point observes the first car travel by and it appears to be going very fast, yet from the drivers seat on the second car the driver sees that the car appears to no be accelerating away as quickly. This is motion relative to time. But if time was relative to motion and its speed changed when a body moves then time would have a speed. So what i as saying is if we give time a speed. 1 being a body in motion at a speed of 186000 miles per second and 0 being a stationary body. When you begin to move from 0 to one time begins to accelerate less quickly from you and so its speed is slightly less. Only if it were possible to travel a speed nesicary of have a great significance to the speed of time would it be possible to prove this of course. In theory when traveling at the speed of light it would be as if the 2 cars were both traveling at exactly 80 mph realivly they would appear to not be moving at all, as if they were stationary. Yet the world around them still moves. deltaT/deltaT would = one assuming that speed had no effect on time. Sorry, it appears that i have just accidently proved relativity. Look here http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_time.htm where it is explained alot better. just ignore some of the later, it is more related to islam than physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 It is quite hard to understand, this is how i see it. If on car is travelling at 70 mph and another is travelling at 100mph the first car is accellerating away from the second. No, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 It is quite hard to understand, this is how i see it. If on car is travelling at 70 mph and another is travelling at 100mph the first car is accellerating away from the second. No, neither is accelerating or decelerating! They'll just keep moving maintaining the same distance from each other (of course, as long as the velocity is constant!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 They'll just keep moving maintaining the same distance from each other no, the gap will increase though there is no acceleration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 no, the gap will increase though there is no acceleration. How come it's done that way??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 well. one is moving 30mph faster than the other car. so, the gap will increase just like the gap would increase if car 1 was stationary and car 2 was going 30 mph. this is how overtaking works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedarkshade Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 just like the gap would increase if car 1 was stationary and car 2 was going 30 mph. Yeah, huh dummy huh!!! . thnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Acceleration is the rate at which your velocity is changing. Measured in distance per unit time per unit time, such as meters per second per second or miles per hour per second. Velocity is the rate at which your distance is changing. Measured in distance per unit time, such as meters per second or miles per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riogho Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 What if I were to have a ball say, and I had inside of it a clock. And that clock ticks at every standard second depedning on how gravity effected it (it just ticked normall). And Ialso had a power source so that the clock would last a long time (i.e. a gerbil), and then I were to cover the ball in an anti-gravity paint, thus neutralizing gravities effect on the clock. If I then were to pull the clock out 5 minutes (as viewed by me standing next to this ball covered in anti-gravity paint), what time would it be at? And would it be the 'standard' time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 If you reduced the gravitational potential (mimicking being higher in a graviy well), the clock would speed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Note that the motion of the clock's components through space speeds up. The clock does not "move faster through time". I am right about this, Swanson. Whatever Brian Greene says, and whatever you think is the mainstream view. Or what's it to be? No criticism of String Theory is permitted, and any challenge to any utterance by some String Theorist must be censored, because String Theory is mainstream? Ho hum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Note that the motion of the clock's components through space speeds up. The clock does not "move faster through time". I am right about this, Swanson. Then show your evidence... something that is not self-referencing non-supported statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I am right about this, Swanson. Whatever Brian Greene says, and whatever you think is the mainstream view. Or what's it to be? No criticism of String Theory is permitted, and any challenge to any utterance by some String Theorist must be censored, because String Theory is mainstream? Ho hum. It has nothing to do with String Theory. It is special relativity. And you are not censored (are you censored at all) because you criticise String Theory (who would care). You are censored because you are a loony. And that is a relativisticly invariant statement. You are a loony in all frames, and in all models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martianxx Posted November 7, 2007 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 It is quite hard to understand, this is how i see it. If on car is travelling at 70 mph and another is travelling at 100mph the first car is accellerating away from the second. Sorry, i meant to say moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Note that the motion of the clock's components through space speeds up. The clock does not "move faster through time". I am right about this, Swanson. Whatever Brian Greene says, and whatever you think is the mainstream view. Or what's it to be? No criticism of String Theory is permitted, and any challenge to any utterance by some String Theorist must be censored, because String Theory is mainstream? Ho hum. Keep your alternative views in their own threads in speculations. When you come up with experimental evidence that you're right, then you will be right. Not until, just like the rest of science. You don't get special treatment. And, as Severian points out, this has nothing to do with string theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Farsight, String Theory is definitely NOT mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Sorry, it appears that i have just accidently proved relativity. Look here http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_time.htm where it is explained alot better. just ignore some of the later, it is more related to islam than physics. How is that you "just proved relativity," and you base this on a link to an interpretation of the Islamic book of spirituality? I'm confused. Trying to avoid another Farsight rabbit's hole I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Keep your alternative views in their own threads in speculations. When you come up with experimental evidence that you're right, then you will be right. Not until, just like the rest of science. You don't get special treatment. And, as Severian points out, this has nothing to do with string theory. Where's the experimental evidence for moving through time? There isn't any. But look, I do get special treatment: It has nothing to do with String Theory. It is special relativity. And you are not censored (are you censored at all) because you criticise String Theory (who would care). You are censored because you are a loony. And that is a relativisticly invariant statement. You are a loony in all frames, and in all models. I'm no loony. And shame on you for coming out with such an ad hominem. For your information, Brian Greene, String Theorist, wrote the book referred to in the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos Farsight, String Theory is definitely NOT mainstream. Any comments anybody? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0713997990 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 Your post has bollocks to do with this thread... only other tangents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now