1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIs this just a gut feeling with you or do you have some concrete theory that can be tested or refuted? When a theory is proposed and evidence weighed in and predictions are made and verified and engineers can make use of the resulting equations, it tells me there is something to the theory. Why does it not tell you that?
It is merely a curiosity to be pondered, I'm not trying to go any where with this,
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
The 21st century has gone way past pondering this issue to using it in our daily lives as well as using the equations of time and mass to allow high energy particle accelerators to operate correctly.
For instance, if it were not for time dilation, cosmic particles coming in from outer space at a smidgen under c cascade into other very short lived particles when they encounter the upper atmosphere of Earth.
They are normally very short lived and would never make it to the surface of the Earth with their very short lives at lower velocities. The fact they are going close to c causes time to slow down for those particles enough so they can be detected on Earth.
If not, they would have to be detected by sensors high up in the atmosphere since they decay in a few feet to other intermediate particles. This has been proven in high energy experiments in the labs, done at slower velocities, the life times can be tracked very accurately and it tells us they could not make the journey to the surface of the Earth at even 10% slower speeds as that really effectively destroys the time dilation.
This has been shown over and over again. It says time really does slow down close to c. If you have another theory to cover this fact, I am all ears.
There are always people that don't believe in scientific findings.
Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics.
There are people that don't believe in gravitation, and argues that it is just magnetism.
There are people that don't believe in the BigBang and think the Universe is considerably younger, or it has been there forever and ever.
There are people that don't believe in the moon landing.
There are people that don't believe in evolution, and have an alternative explanation.
And there are people that don't believe in time dilation and the peculiarities of relativity theory.
Originally posted by sonhouseI do not see things popping out of our time line, out of the moments we share
Is this just a gut feeling with you or do you have some concrete theory that can be tested or refuted? When a theory is proposed and evidence weighed in and predictions are made and verified and engineers can make use of the resulting equations, it tells me there is something to the theory. Why does it not tell you that?
The 21st century has gone way pas ...[text shortened]... really does slow down close to c. If you have another theory to cover this fact, I am all ears.
together; therefore, I have doubts about the "concrete theory". Think of it like
a radio signal, you tune in you hear the station, and only that station that is
dialed into the frequency you’re listening to. With time if you and I are here sharing
the same moment of time we see each other, where we don't see each other is
when we were in the same room, but during different time frames. The same
moment for me is "The now", it is time as share there is no other outside of the
past or future and those are not places we can see into outside of recording of the
past events.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo how do you explain the fact that we see time dilation in GPS satellites, the Earth's atmosphere composition, laboratory experiments etc.?
I do not see things popping out of our time line, out of the moments we share
together; therefore, I have doubts about the "concrete theory". Think of it like
a radio signal, you tune in you hear the station, and only that station that is
dialed into the frequency you’re listening to. With time if you and I are here sharing
the same moment of time we se e and those are not places we can see into outside of recording of the
past events.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI've already told you, how do you know it is time being affected and not the
So how do you explain the fact that we see time dilation in GPS satellites, the Earth's atmosphere composition, laboratory experiments etc.?
material we are looking at? If something were to move out of the now moment why
would it still be here and not in the past or the future out of sight?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay"Time being affected" and "the material being affected" are the same thing. Even though everything in the universe shares every moment, the amount that organisms age, the rate at which chemistry occurs, etc. change depending on your velocity. That's what time dilation is.
I've already told you, how do you know it is time being affected and not the
material we are looking at? If something were to move out of the now moment why
would it still be here and not in the past or the future out of sight?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm talking about stopping all of the universe at the same time and if there are
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 een the two
people and you'd only have traveled a great deal while making your move.
Kelly
things not in our time frame they would not be here.
The theory of relativity is not consistent with what you describe.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBe careful. That train is accelerating centripetally. I don't know if that changes things.
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?
Originally posted by KellyJayBut relativity does not claim that things pop out of our time line. That would be much closer to quantum mechanic in which things don't have a definite state unless they are interacting (a cat can be both dead and alive).
I do not see things popping out of our time line, out of the moments we share
together; therefore, I have doubts about the "concrete theory".
But the all the known effects of relativity, you can and do see, you may not realize it, or be able to distinguish the effects from what is predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but the effects are there and if you looked you would see them.
You may have alternative explanations for all the effects but you cannot claim that there is any effect that is predicted that you have not observed (as in you saw something different), nor have you observed any effect which contradicts the theory.
So far your argument seems similar to saying "I don't believe light travels as waves because it looks perfectly straight to me."
We do not directly observe the waves (nor do we easily and intuitively see time dilation), yet every experiment we do shows light having the properties of waves. Are they waves, or is it a result of some more complicated phenomena (like quantum mechanics), I don't know. What I do know is that you can use the wave properties of light for just about everything including the glasses I wear and the computer screen in front of me.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt works for satellites.
Be careful. That train is accelerating centripetally. I don't know if that changes things.
Obviously a train moving fast enough to cause time dilation would be fast enough to fly off the earth like a rocket, so it would have to be held down somehow, but that would be simply a matter of building tracks above it.
I believe that the centripetal effect would have an impact (due to gravity affecting time), but it would cause time dilation too so it would help the experiment not hinder it.
I believe we cant test time dilation on a centrifuge because we cannot spin them fast enough without if flying apart.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, it is not a distinction without a difference, time remaining the same, and
"Time being affected" and "the material being affected" are the same thing. Even though everything in the universe shares every moment, the amount that organisms age, the rate at which chemistry occurs, etc. change depending on your velocity. That's what time dilation is.
having just the material affected instead is quite different! For one something
is not moving through time differently due to changes in time, but other
things are being done, what exactly I’m not sure. You may under some
conditions reach the same conclusions as in adding 3+2 and 2+3 which
allows us to use what we know to our advantage; however, they are different
and there are other conclusions, or assumptions being postulated due to the
differences that would have to be revisited due the differences.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy argument rests that if we are all sharing the same moment in time we are all on
But relativity does not claim that things pop out of our time line. That would be much closer to quantum mechanic in which things don't have a definite state unless they are interacting (a cat can be both dead and alive).
But the all the known effects of relativity, you can and do see, you may not realize it, or be able to distinguish the effects from ...[text shortened]... just about everything including the glasses I wear and the computer screen in front of me.
the same page and can interact together, something in the past or future is not on
the same page as us and we cannot. So when you tell me time gets affected and
something is outside of our time, it is either in the past or future so it isn't apart of
our reality any more.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are two different concepts of time being confused here.
My argument rests that if we are all sharing the same moment in time we are all on
the same page and can interact together, something in the past or future is not on
the same page as us and we cannot. So when you tell me time gets affected and
something is outside of our time, it is either in the past or future so it isn't apart of
our reality any more.
Kelly
Kelly, I agree with you about all sharing a moment in time. However that does not mean we can interact due to the limit of the speed of light. You have to be able to interact to interact! You need to send electromagnetic waves (radio waves, light waves), or make vibrations in the air (sound) etc. Relativity does not change the fact that we are all sharing every moment.
However, when you go really fast, the changes you experience around you are less than if you were standing still. In the same amount of "absolute time" - time as you see it - one person might experience a year of subjective time because their cells, brains etc are working at a certain speed with respect to absolute time, while the other person experiences ten years of subjective time because all of his biological and physical processes are moving ten times faster with respect to absolute time. Thus, in the same amount of time, one person experiences and ages) ten years because he's in fast forward while the other person experiences and ages one year.
Think of it this way. A box that moves really really fast is a device to let you shift whatever or whoever is inside into slow motion mode. He, she or it would think slower, move slower, his/her/its cells metabolize slower, everything.
Orson Scott Card in his Ender series uses this fact in his fiction to preserve important individuals for millenia in a sort of hibernation for when the world needs heroes and geniuses.
Originally posted by KellyJayBecause we are measuring time. So far every single method of measuring time, including indirect ones, give the same result. How do you explain this?
I've already told you, how do you know it is time being affected and not the
material we are looking at? If something were to move out of the now moment why
would it still be here and not in the past or the future out of sight?
Kelly