samtheflash82 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 when you travel at speeds approaching that of light, is that not similar to traveling through time? i mean, lets say you leave earth on your near light speed journey and when you return, you will have experienced less time on the spaceship than people have on earth according to relativity. isn't that time travel? sorry if this is an obvious question but i have seen lots of people asking if "time travel" was possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 It's time travel in the trivial way that we all travel through time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samtheflash82 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 It's time travel in the trivial way that we all travel through time. but people dont seem to realize this. many people (without a firm understanding of relativity perhaps?) seem to think that time travel is impossible, yet it clearly is not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max.yevs Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) There is an experiment where if two clocks are set to the same exact time, and one flown round trip across the world and back to where the second clock is would be a couple seconds behind the other one... i cant seem to wrap my head around how that works http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/ (scroll down, i know this site is kind of made for kids) it also has the example you're reffering to. and it is sort of like time travel- in fact- the person on the spaceship would sort of be moving forward in time- but would the people on earth be moving backwards in time? Edited March 25, 2009 by max.yevs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 there is some experiment like if two clocks are set to exactly the same time, say in New York, and then one of them is taken on a jet around the world and back to New York, it will be like a couple seconds ahead or behind the other clock... anybody know what i'm reffering to? Yup. That's the Hafele-Keating experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment gdRmCqylsME It's also been done more recently using more modern clocks and techniques, and demonstrated to even greater accuracy since the above referenced experiment was run. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 there is some experiment like if two clocks are set to exactly the same time, say in New York, and then one of them is taken on a jet around the world and back to New York, it will be like a couple seconds ahead or behind the other clock... anybody know what i'm reffering to? ya, its called the hafele-keating experiment. a couple atomic clocks and 2 commercial jet flights around the world twice. then compared with the u.s clocks naval observatorie. it worked too. like nanoseconds of pure relativity prediction. dang it! you must have posted right before mine inow. blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 dang it! you must have posted right before mine inow. blast. No, I'm just traveling faster than you are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max.yevs Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 how does that work? i mean you have two clocks, what importance is it how fast they're moving? sorry i just cant wrap my head around it do both the planes get their watches behind? despite their direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 but people dont seem to realize this. many people (without a firm understanding of relativity perhaps?) seem to think that time travel is impossible, yet it clearly is not so. Gravity and speed (acceleration) cause clocks to to tick at different speeds so we are all traveling through time, but some at different rates. This could put you into someones future but not their past. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeddo both the planes get their watches behind? despite their direction? Yes, if the trips were the same as far as acceleration, speed and time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max.yevs Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 intersting... i thought that if you move very fast, it will be as if everybody else is staying still, like in that movie... but this way, if everybody else is moving very fast they'll be staying still in relation to you? P.S. i almost tipped over my monitor trying to get that bug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yup. That's the Hafele-Keating experiment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment That video made it sound like only SR was considered and not GR because of altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yes, if the trips were the same as far as acceleration, speed and time. Careful, though, because in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the two directions are not the same. The earth is not an inertial reference frame, so east- and westbound travelers are not going the same speed, even if their speed with respect to the earth's surface is the same. You have to do the comparison with respect to an inertial frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowThatWeKnow Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Careful, though, because in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the two directions are not the same. The earth is not an inertial reference frame, so east- and westbound travelers are not going the same speed, even if their speed with respect to the earth's surface is the same. You have to do the comparison with respect to an inertial frame. Yes, everything would have to be equal relative to an inertial frame. After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment I see that GR was considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asprung Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Clocks run slower molecules move slower but the progression of "now" does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 asprung - Please don't hijack this thread with your metaphysical claims and your philosophical wanderings about the concept of now. We've covered that material in multiple threads already, and you've already conceded openly on more than one occasion that you cannot support your comments with evidence or citations, so please, mate... Stay interested, but also stay focused on where and what you post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 P.S. i almost tipped over my monitor trying to get that bug. he. i was fooled by it myself. Careful, though, because in the Hafele-Keating experiment, the two directions are not the same. The earth is not an inertial reference frame, so east- and westbound travelers are not going the same speed, even if their speed with respect to the earth's surface is the same. You have to do the comparison with respect to an inertial frame. i got it all up to that, why wouldnt they be traveling at the same speeds no matter what direction they whent? how does east and west change their speeds? ya the guy going against the earths rotation would seem to go faster, but like you said, the earths not an inertial referance frame.{im not trying to challenge you, i know im wrong, i just dont know why.} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The earth rotates. If you fly with the rotation, you'll go faster than if you fly against it... relative to a reference frame off of/away from the earth. Same idea as being on a treadmill (or, maybe a better example is one of those moving sidewalks like they have at many airports). If you walk with the moving strip, you go faster relative to an external point. If you walk against the moving strip, you go slower relative to an external point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 but not relative to your own. and besides, there off earth, and not connected with it at all, are they? so why would earth be included at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 but not relative to your own. and besides, there off earth, and not connected with it at all, are they? so why would earth be included at all? Standing on a rotating body like the Earth means that you're continually accelerating as you move in a circle. So moving in two different directions with equal velocity relative to that spinning surface means you won't have equal accelerations over all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cameron marical Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 but these planes werent standing on the earth. they were in the air, so they werent spinning with the earth at all, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samtheflash82 Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share Posted March 28, 2009 but these planes werent standing on the earth. they were in the air, so they werent spinning with the earth at all, right? the earth was spinning under them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 the atmosphere spins with the earth. the only reason planes were used is that you can travel faster and in a straighter line than you can on the ground. if the atmosphere didn't spin with the earth the equator would experience constant 1000+mph winds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virgo Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 I have some questions about relativity (stupid lazy me not like to read books to get anwers) Lets imagine a space with only 2 bodies that have mass (spaceships with people inside). Both spaceships have same mass and stand still. Now spaceship 2 accelerates to the 0,5c speed. Who is getting older faster and why (SS1 pilot or SS2 pilot)? How to define, who is accelerating and who standing still? Lets imagine the SS2 accelerates to 0,5c, then brakes to 0c and then comes back same way and it all takes one year for SS2. Does it take 1 year for SS1 to wait for SS2 return? If not, why? Now lets imagine Earth and spaceship the same way. Earth standing still and SS accelerates. People in SS see Earth accelerating. SS goes to 0.5c, brakes to 0c and comes back the same way. Are people in SS getting older slower? If yes, is this cause the mass? Tell, me why not to think that Earth accelerates and people there getting older slower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 You can tell who accelerates. Their clock will run slow, if compared in the same frame of reference with the unaccelerated clock. The clock that doesn't accelerate can always be assumed to be at rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Please leave moderation to the staff If you have a problem with a post, report it by clicking the triangle outlined in red. Vigilante posts attempting to enforce perceived or actual rules violations is inappropriate, IMO, and the sniping does not add anything to a discussion. 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