Originally posted by KellyJayAnd this is something that is at the heart of relativity. Because nothing can travel faster than light, it is impossible to ever obtain any such picture. The question then is:
however, I also have to acknowledge that depending upon the speed of your camera you could still miss a
few things due to some things moving at great rates of speed.
If you can never know whether two events are simultaneous, then should we say that they are or not? Does it matter?
As regards your ideas concerning measuring devices being affected and not time itself, consider the following scenario:
You are put into a new bullet train that achieves near light speed.
You travel on the train for a period of 1 hour going round and round the world, all the time you are working out your next chess move while keeping one eye on the chess clock as you are only allowed one hour to move.
You make your move and immediately you step out of the train and your friend at the station tells you that for him, a whole 24 hours has passed and he has played 5 games of chess, had a good 8 hour sleep, a work out in the gym and a little chatting on a chess site.
Now clearly your instruments on the train went faster, the instruments being both the chess clock and your own internal body clock which give you a sense of time, but did time go faster for you, or is it all an illusion? How would you know?
Do you believe the above scenario is possible, or do you believe we are wrong about relativity? ie do you think you would actually experience less time, or do you think you would see the clock going slower due to some strange phenomena but still have plenty of time for yourself?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm talking about stopping all of the universe at the same time and if there are
And this is something that is at the heart of relativity. Because nothing can travel faster than light, it is impossible to ever obtain any such picture. The question then is:
If you can never know whether two events are simultaneous, then should we say that they are or not? Does it matter?
As regards your ideas concerning measuring devices being affe ...[text shortened]... the clock going slower due to some strange phenomena but still have plenty of time for yourself?
things not in our time frame they would not be here. That has as much proof behind
it as you telling me nothing can move faster than the speed of light, we just do not
know.
If we do not know if something is true, simply saying that is all that is required
don't you think? I would say that everything is happening simultaneously, if we all
share the same moment in time, now can we always see two or more specific
events occur at the same time, more than likely no depending on the speeds.
You again are assuming quite a bit with your bullet train example, if all moments are
shared than you'd still have the same time frames taking place between the two
people and you'd only have traveled a great deal while making your move.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayActually the axiom that nothing can move faster than light has implications we can measure (e.g. time dilation).
I'm talking about stopping all of the universe at the same time and if there are
things not in our time frame they would not be here. That has as much proof behind
it as you telling me nothing can move faster than the speed of light, we just do not
know.
If we do not know if something is true, simply saying that is all that is required
don't you thin ...[text shortened]... een the two
people and you'd only have traveled a great deal while making your move.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe important question for me is whether or not there are any implications either way. If relativity is correct, then moments are not shared, only related. But if they are shared, then as far as I can tell, that is just a special case and wouldn't violate relativity.
I would say that everything is happening simultaneously, if we all
share the same moment in time, now can we always see two or more specific
events occur at the same time, more than likely no depending on the speeds.
I would say that we don't know whether time is shared or relative, and I am not sure that it really matters. What matters to scientists is whether we can ever know if two moments are simultaneous and what the implications are for us.
Note that simultaneous moments of time is not equivalent to time being constant for all time frames. There is no doubt from relativity that time is not constant for all time frames.
You again are assuming quite a bit with your bullet train example, if all moments are
shared than you'd still have the same time frames taking place between the two
people and you'd only have traveled a great deal while making your move.
Kelly
I was not assuming, I was trying to find out what your views were regarding time dilation (a well known and thoroughly studied phenomena).
I just want to see if you have really thought it through.
So am I correct that you believe that you would not experience any time dilation on the train? If so, how do you explain the clocks on satellites running slow?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith respect to the train I've already given you my thoughts, which is to say that
The important question for me is whether or not there are any implications either way. If relativity is correct, then moments are not shared, only related. But if they are shared, then as far as I can tell, that is just a special case and wouldn't violate relativity.
I would say that we don't know whether time is shared or relative, and I am not sure tha ...[text shortened]... time dilation on the train? If so, how do you explain the clocks on satellites running slow?
our ability to measure time has limitations. If our clocks due to some stress like
gravity causes them to speed up or slow down when they are subjected to it, than
our views about time are off the mark. It would not be a time dilation on the train
in that time went through some change, just our ability to keep time. If we always
shared the same moment everywhere it would not be time changing, just our
ability to keep time would be off.
If we move in and out of the same time, then your time travel example would mean
that during that event, we would not be in the same time frame, one would be out
of sync with the rest, displaced as it were with the rest of the universe till it came
back to sync up.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut this unknown gravity effect seems to alter all clocks in exactly the same way would almost certainly also affect our own bodily functions in the same way (or are we somehow immune?).
With respect to the train I've already given you my thoughts, which is to say that
our ability to measure time has limitations. If our clocks due to some stress like
gravity causes them to speed up or slow down when they are subjected to it, than
our views about time are off the mark. It would not be a time dilation on the train
in that time went throug ...[text shortened]... e moment everywhere it would not be time changing, just our
ability to keep time would be off.
So we would experience time as if less of it has passed.
In my example you would believe to all intents and purposes that only one hour had passed, whereas your friend at the station would assure you that 24 hours had passed.
So do you believe that humans are somehow immune to these unknown gravitational effects, or do you accept that my scenario is not only possible but likely considering our current knowledge of science?
If you believe humans are immune, do you have a reason for that belief, or are you just speculating?
If we are immune, do you think we could design an experiment to test the hypothesis? For example we could put some human brain cells onto a satellite and measure their rate of metabolism and compare it to ones on earth.
If human cells metabolized at a normal rate on a satellite even though the various watches were all running slow, that would be very interesting.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadDid the ship disappear when it went forward or backward in time? In order for me
But this unknown gravity effect seems to alter all clocks in exactly the same way would almost certainly also affect our own bodily functions in the same way (or are we somehow immune?).
So we would experience time as if less of it has passed.
In my example you would believe to all intents and purposes that only one hour had passed, whereas your friend ...[text shortened]... satellite even though the various watches were all running slow, that would be very interesting.
to see the events around me I have to be there in the time they take place, or
see some recording of the events; where I'm sitting now people have shared this
spot in different times, are they visable to me now, how about those that are
going to share this space in the future can I see them now? My point is if people
and those clocks really left our time (the moment we share) they would have left our
space too, because they would not be sharing the same moment with the rest of
us. If I'm watching a plane or something else experience your shift in time, when
my time isn't shifting, I'd say it isn't time shifting but something else.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is the "something else"?
Did the ship disappear when it went forward or backward in time? In order for me
to see the events around me I have to be there in the time they take place, or
see some recording of the events; where I'm sitting now people have shared this
spot in different times, are they visable to me now, how about those that are
going to share this space in the futu ...[text shortened]... me, when
my time isn't shifting, I'd say it isn't time shifting but something else.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think we are not communicating here. I didn't say anything about moving backward in time.
Did the ship disappear when it went forward or backward in time?
My scenario is that one person is moving at near light speed and experiences less time than a person who is stationary.
If I'm watching a plane or something else experience your shift in time, when
my time isn't shifting, I'd say it isn't time shifting but something else.
Kelly
We can watch (monitor) a GPS satellite all the time. It doesn't disappear off into some other space or anything.
However, if we put a clock on the GPS satellite it goes noticeably slower than a clock that is on the surface of the earth - even though you may be communicating with it right down to the microsecond.
I am claiming that if the GPS satellite was going much faster, and a person (or animal) was on the satellite, they would not sit there seeing all the clocks go in slow motion, but would see the clocks run at normal speed whilst the people on earth would appear to be moving extremely fast.
What I want to know from you is whether you dispute this claim and why. What is it about the human anatomy that would cause it not to be subject to the changes in the laws of physics that appear to affect every possible clock that we can think of?
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhile you are expressing all this as unknown, scientists and engineers around the world are busy using this phenomena to make stuff like GPS work, it would not work without the time dilation formulae built into each and every GPS satellite and each and every GPS handheld on the ground. They all have those formula's built in otherwise they would not even be as accurate as a 15th century mariners map.
Something is happening that what we use to mark time is now off, what that
something is as far as I'm concern is still unknown.
Kelly
All that due to other people not believing it to be just another unknown but actually working out the rules for working with it, and beings how they get pretty darned accurate with GPS units, some down to less than an inch, it would seem to me they have a pretty good handle on these 'unknowns'.
If you think about the speed of light, it is about one nanosecond per foot. Think about that. If I have a navigational system based on the speed of light even though time runs differently on a satellite and at different altitudes due to gravitational bending of space-time, and we can achieve and accuracy of one inch, then we have to be able to figure time out to better than 1/12th of a nanosecond, or 80 odd Picoseconds. You should, in your profession, realize we are used to seeing times much shorter than that in optical phenomena, down to ATTO seconds in some cases. So if time is off on satellites, it has to be coordinated to within 80 picoseconds on every GPS unit or thereabouts and the actual time dilation is much much greater than that so these 'unknowns' are being dealt with pretty darn accurately.
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are two important factors here:
Something is happening that what we use to mark time is now off, what that
something is as far as I'm concern is still unknown.
Kelly
1. The 'unknown' was predicted before it was measured. The current explanation (relativity) matches the predictions to an amazing degree (see sonhouse's post) suggesting we might be on to something.
2. As far as we can tell this effect of unknown origin affects all clocks (ie all physical laws involved in clocks) in such a way as to be virtually identical to time moving slower. If all these laws are affected in this way then there is no reason to believe that humans would not be equally affected to the point that they would to all intents and purposes experience time as if it was moving slower.
And finally, my main question for you:
Do you think that if your hypothesis is correct that there are any meaningful implications? Do you think it would affect say astronomy, big bang theory, dating methods or any other branch of science? If not, then is it merely a curiosity to be pondered?
Originally posted by sonhouseNothing wrong with that, I'm glad GPS works and other applications are here too,
While you are expressing all this as unknown, scientists and engineers around the world are busy using this phenomena to make stuff like GPS work, it would not work without the time dilation formulae built into each and every GPS satellite and each and every GPS handheld on the ground. They all have those formula's built in otherwise they would not even be ...[text shortened]... uch much greater than that so these 'unknowns' are being dealt with pretty darn accurately.
that doesn't change a thing I said either. We can get something wrong but still
make use of the results if they are constant. Where it would play out would be
in the larger picture on how we piece it all together, an error here, an error there
and then things just don't fit.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is merely a curiosity to be pondered, I'm not trying to go any where with this,
There are two important factors here:
1. The 'unknown' was predicted before it was measured. The current explanation (relativity) matches the predictions to an amazing degree (see sonhouse's post) suggesting we might be on to something.
2. As far as we can tell this effect of unknown origin affects all clocks (ie all physical laws involved in clocks) in ...[text shortened]... methods or any other branch of science? If not, then is it merely a curiosity to be pondered?
I have no larger point to make. I don't see how this would change much if anything
at all in my day to day life. I'm quite fond of the results we get with GPS and other
odds and ends; however, that doesn't mean that time really does shift in space
due to the forces the universe applies to it.
Kelly