Originally posted by KellyJayConsider this scenario:
Yes it does, as I have been telling you it is like looking at two different
radio stations one is not in sync with the other. The period of time we call
"NOW" is different if we had one moving faster than another, they are
not in sync, if we were to view tiime as if it were a line and we had two
different rates of speed for the period of time we call "N ...[text shortened]... moving quicker than the other, they would not be in the same place at the
same time!
Kelly
You have two video players. You run one at half speed and one at double speed.
At any given point in time, both tapes have a simultaneous 'now' - as do you as the observer. This contradicts your claim.
If the people in one of the movies could observe you and the other tape, they would see you and the other tape going at different speed, but they would never loose the concept of 'now' and would not be in some other space time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI get that, we have covered it before too. Things happen at different rates
Consider this scenario:
You have two video players. You run one at half speed and one at double speed.
At any given point in time, both tapes have a simultaneous 'now' - as do you as the observer. This contradicts your claim.
If the people in one of the movies could observe you and the other tape, they would see you and the other tape going at differen ...[text shortened]... , but they would never loose the concept of 'now' and would not be in some other space time.
it could be two different people walking at different speeds, one getting to
where s/he is going faster than another, which isn't the same thing as
one moving through time quicker than another. If it were than one would
experience time differently, they would not longer be sharing the same
'now' one would be before the other in a different point in time sharing
future moments.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe problem is that you are taking time as constant to be axiomatic and then trying to use that in your scenarios.
I get that, we have covered it before too. Things happen at different rates
it could be two different people walking at different speeds, one getting to
where s/he is going faster than another, which isn't the same thing as
one moving through time quicker than another. If it were than one would
experience time differently, they would not longer be shari w' one would be before the other in a different point in time sharing
future moments.
Kelly
My claim is that it is possible for two people to experience different rates of time and yet still share a universal now.
In my example, the person in the video tape that is being run at high speed is not from his perspective moving through time at a faster rate. From his perspective it is you that is moving slow. The two of you do experience time differently. Yet you still always share a universal now.
If you have any mathematical background then this may help: the line y=2*x is continuous ie any point on each axis has a corresponding point on the other axis ie they share a universal now. Yet the y values move at double the rate of the x values. You on the other hand are stuck with the belief that anything other than y=x would result in discontinuity.
1 edit
Why does not Kelly support his idea with some scientific papers? Just google and you will find the support, if there are any.
If you don't, Kelly, then your ideas cannot ever be taken as anything else than your private opinion. They cannot be taken as science.
For fairness sakes, those who oppose Kellys ideas might do the same. Give some links to scientific papers. And then we, the rest of us, can deduce whose 'opinions' are stronger.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf we were talking about moving through space and two different people
The problem is that you are taking time as constant to be axiomatic and then trying to use that in your scenarios.
My claim is that it is possible for two people to experience different rates of time and yet still share a universal now.
In my example, the person in the video tape that is being run at high speed is not from his perspective moving through ...[text shortened]... other hand are stuck with the belief that anything other than y=x would result in discontinuity.
were both going from point A to point B, they were moving at different
rates of speed one would get there before the other. They would not be
in sync walking with each other. So the same thing is true with time, if you
have two people moving through time at different rates one would get to
a point before the other they would not be in sync and would not be
travelling with each other, they would not be sharing the same "now" they
would be in different places in time.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, this is your opinion, nothing more. Others have their opinions too. You have to respect that.
If we were talking about moving through space and two different people
were both going from point A to point B, they were moving at different
rates of speed one would get there before the other. They would not be
in sync walking with each other. So the same thing is true with time, if you
have to people moving through time at different rates one would g ...[text shortened]... r, they would not be sharing the same "now" they
would be in different places in time.
Kelly
If you can show the scientific facts that support your opinion - fine. If not, it's only your opinion.
If your opponent can show scientific facts, then they have more weight in their opinion.
You cannot reason your way to the truth. You have to bring some heyavy scientific reptorts to back you up. If not - this is not more than a quibble.
Show us your scientific evidence, Kelly, this *is* the science forum, you know.
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasWrap your minds around this link, and look at the animation on the last page very closely.
Kelly, this is your opinion, nothing more. Others have their opinions too. You have to respect that.
If you can show the scientific facts that support your opinion - fine. If not, it's only your opinion.
If your opponent can show scientific facts, then they have more weight in their opinion.
You cannot reason your way to the truth. You have to brin ...[text shortened]... n a quibble.
Show us your scientific evidence, Kelly, this *is* the science forum, you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
This piece also gives equations for time and position for constant acceleration as well as uniform motion.
Here is another link with figures for various uniform velocities of home time vs ship time:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html
There is an animation there also, 'fly through the matrix' which I am having a hard time getting my mind around. I think it shows doppler shifted views of what you would see if you went through that 'matrix galaxy' at various velocities, I think.
Originally posted by sonhouseGood ones who support your view, sonhouse. Well done.
Wrap your minds around this link, and look at the animation on the last page very closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
This piece also gives equations for time and position for constant acceleration as well as uniform motion.
Here is another link with figures for various uniform velocities of home time vs ship time:
http://www.fo ...[text shortened]... what you would see if you went through that 'matrix galaxy' at various velocities, I think.
Now it is Kellys turn. Can you produce evidence for your opinion that can outweigh sonhouse opinion? If so, you're still on thrack and the debate can go further. If not, we have to understand that Kellys opinions, albeit interesting ones, but still not so scientific founded.
Kellys turn...
Originally posted by sonhouseI don't see how you think this adds to the discussion when we have used
Wrap your minds around this link, and look at the animation on the last page very closely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
This piece also gives equations for time and position for constant acceleration as well as uniform motion.
Here is another link with figures for various uniform velocities of home time vs ship time:
http://www.fo ...[text shortened]... what you would see if you went through that 'matrix galaxy' at various velocities, I think.
everything from movies, albums, people walking and so on all to say the
same thing? The math works, that does not mean that time changes only
that the math works, we can write programs to simulate the point, again
it is just a program simulation not necessarily a reflection of time being
altered.
If "NOW" is the same for everyone, then the past and future is also the
same for everyone at all times. This again does not mean that we cannot
under changes due to stresses, but it does not mean that time changes
or we move through time differently at different rates due to shifts in time,
we may move through at different speeds that is not time being altered.
Kelly
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThat clearly is not the case. If you have two spacecraft taking off at the same time, one going .9 c and the other .999c, the first one will arrive second of course but the second one will be younger when they arrive. This has been proven a hundred different ways. How do you explain that in terms we can understand that 'saves' the constancy of time?
I don't see how you think this adds to the discussion when we have used
everything from movies, albums, people walking and so on all to say the
same thing? The math works, that does not mean that time changes only
that the math works, we can write programs to simulate the point, again
it is just a program simulation not necessarily a reflection of time ifts in time,
we may move through at different speeds that is not time being altered.
Kelly
In my hypothetical journey, they are going parallel, and one has started earlier than the other so they can start from the starting line together, and finish say, 10 light years away at the same star. Just by their differing velocities they will have different clock rates and every thing else down to the sub atomic level, all their atoms and molecules will age at a different rate.
On a journey of 10 LY, where they start from the same point after having accelerated to their respective velocities of .9c and .999c, the clocks onboard the two craft and the aging rate of the travelers will be off by over a year, the slower moving one will have aged one year more than the other.
This is every biological clock in the body aging, not some simple time shift. The DNA will have its telomeres that much shorter, there will be that much less hair on the heads of the slower travelers, etc.
If you take that to a larger extreme, lets say the beginning is the same, the leave the starting line at their respective velocities, now the journey is 100 light years, suppose everyone on both ships are 20 years old at the start, at the end, the slower one will have aged 43 years and the faster one aged 4.3 years, the slower one will be about 65, the faster one will be around 24. Big difference.
That is a real time difference. Suppose they were writing one book a year about their travels. The slower one would have written over 40 books and the faster one would only have had time to write 4 books.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat is because we do not generally experience space dilation at walking speeds. It doesn't mean it cant happen.
If we were talking about moving through space and two different people
were both going from point A to point B, they were moving at different
rates of speed one would get there before the other. They would not be
in sync walking with each other. So the same thing is true with time, if you
have two people moving through time at different rates one would ...[text shortened]... r, they would not be sharing the same "now" they
would be in different places in time.
Kelly
Maybe this example will help you:
Two footballers are trying to run the length of a football field. One runs straight and the other takes the diagonal. They run at different rates yet both cross the actual field over the same time period. At any given time they are abreast of each other, but one must travel further and faster to get to the far end.
This is the science forum, therefore we discuss science here.
Time dilation is confirmed with numerous scientific experiemtns. It's contraintuitive, but it's nonetheless a fact. Sonhouse has presented some indisputable links to verify his opinion.
Kelly has presented no scientific links. He presents his opinions. Only. Again. And again. Kellys proof might be appealing, because it's intuitive. But it is not science.
I think Sonhouse opinion wins. By far.
As this is the Science Forum, we have a scientific answer to this. Non-scientific pinions lose. Sorry, Kelly, but you actually have to produce some scientific facts to support your opinions.
2 edits
On that trip I mentioned, if we had a super telescope to image both ships as they traveled to their destination 100 light years away, we would see the faster one getting there first but from our perspective, 100 years will have passed on earth and we would think they both took slightly longer than 100 years to get there, even though the men onboard would have a completely different time rate, all three clocks, earth clock, ship one, slower, ship two, faster, would all have different ideas on how much time had gone by on their journeys.
The telescope reveals the slower one is 36 days behind a photon they are also tracking but the faster one is 4 days slower than a photon on the same trip. But there is a tremendous human difference in the time readings from the standpoint of the travelers, the faster one gets there in just over 4 years as seen by their clocks, but the slower one takes over 40 years of their own time as seen on their own clocks and confirmed by the aging process at work in the now 65 year old dudes.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSorry my first responce to this wasn't very good.
That clearly is not the case. If you have two spacecraft taking off at the same time, one going .9 c and the other .999c, the first one will arrive second of course but the second one will be younger when they arrive. This has been proven a hundred different ways. How do you explain that in terms we can understand that 'saves' the constancy of time?
In m ...[text shortened]... would have written over 40 books and the faster one would only have had time to write 4 books.
KJ
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWe don't have to, we already know it works by the lifetimes of known particles that cosmic rays generate when they crash headlong into molecules in our upper atmosphere, they would not have enough personal time to make it to the ground before being converted into decay products but because time is slower for them, BECAUSE they are going at a tremendous velocity, they hang around before turning into some other particle to make it all the way to the ground, if they were going say, 10 percent slower, they would blow up into their decay products well above the atmosphere and we can measure that. How else would you interpret that besides a change in the flow of time in those fast particles. It also is proven to happen in the big particle accelerators like in Cern.
We lets do that! Lets send two spaces ships off into space and see this
occur!
Kelly
It's just like humans, in 100 years or so, we change to non-living matter and if the journey was 200 light years, the one in the slower ship would take over 80 years of ship time and would have a low probability of surviving the journey but the faster ship, because it is at .999c would for sure still be alive, only 28 years old after starting at the age of 20. The dudes in the slower ship would be over 100 years old, making it unlikely they would still be alive at the end of such a journey. For sure, the faster ship, going home at the same velocity, would get back home after 200 years of Earth time but would only be 36 years old. The other dudes, even if they were alive when they get to the star, a slim but possible event, if they turned around and went back home at that .9c velocity, they would be 180 years old when they got back and they better have some incredible live extending routines if they expect to be alive at that age. Also 200 years passes by on Earth all the while.