about Bob's article on absolute or relative time

J

Johnny

New member
Stripe said:
How does one use relativity to calculate the change? Is there a named constant that multiplies with the speed?
Click to expand...
See MM's post.

Stripe said:
A change in distance has nothing to do with the dilation of time or what we are discussing. You do not attribute sonic booms to relativity, why do you attribute it here? Why do you even bring it up? Relativity either accounts for the muon's capacity to travel longer distances or it doesn't. No need to involve a "stationary observer".
Click to expand...
I see you continue your spiral down the toilet bowl of stupidity.

The change in apparent distance light must travel has everything to do with the dilation of time, because the speed of light is invariant for all observers. This is the basis of the time dilating effects of both special and general relativity. I know we've been over this 100 million times, but you're still confused, which, given the sheer number of resources and explanations you've been fed, absolutely baffles me.

You can derive the relativity of time assuming only the the invariance of the speed of light and the Pythagorean theorem .

You wrote,
Stripe said:
A change in distance has nothing to do with the dilation of time or what we are discussing.
Click to expand...
From the article,
Article said:
From the frame of reference of a moving observer traveling at the speed v (diagram at lower right), the light pulse traces out a longer, angled path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock appears to be running more slowly.
Click to expand...
You are wrong again.

Stripe said:
No need to involve a "stationary observer".
Click to expand...
Hey, Einstein, special relativity is all about observers in motion vs. stationary observers.

Stripe said:
That's just stupid. Of course something that travels faster will travel further in the same amount of time. You're going to have to find a much clearer way of explaining your ideas.
Click to expand...
That's just stupid eh? It'd help to at least have understood what I wrote before you call it stupid. I didn't say it would travel further. I said it will live longer. Read my sentence again.

Stripe said:
Or it's another example of how gravity affects physical things. :idunno:
Click to expand...
Or you've once again confused general and special relativity, despite the countless number of explanations. This is special relativity, not general relativity. Gravity isn't the culprit here, velocity is as both particles are subject to the same gravitational field. Velocity is responsible for the time dilating effects in this case.
 
J

Johnny

New member
Stripe said:
We do not invoke relativity to explain the fact that sound waves are at a higher frequency from an object travelling towards us. Neither do we need to invoke relativity to to explain lightwaves at a higher frequency when they are from an object travelling toward us.

If we look at a clock moving toward us it will appear to move faster the closer to the speed of light it gets. That is because the lightwaves are arriving at a higher frequency. A very simple physical explanation that is very easily understood. There is no need to talk about "time dilation".
Click to expand...
WRONG. A very "simple physical explanation that is very easily understood" and completely and utterly WRONG. Stop posting this horse ****. Higher frequency has nothing to do with how fast an event appears to occur, only the frequency, or "color" the light appears.

Had you thought about this instead of posting whatever tripe pops into your brain, you'd realize that a high velocity clock moving towards us will appear to run slower, not faster. This is in contrast to what you just posted, that it would "appear to move faster".

I know what he's trying to say. :)
Click to expand...
You're clueless.

I would explain the difference by the change in gravity acting upon the muon.
Click to expand...
The explain this in terms of a particle accelerator where muons are subject to the same gravitational field constantly.

I see no reason why this observation is any different from any of the others we have discussed. Gravity affects real things. It does not affect non-physical, abstract concepts like time and space.
Click to expand...
You see no reason because you still haven't got the first idea about the subject.

SPECIAL

NOT

GENERAL
 
Last edited:
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is the prediction of special relativity that a clock moving toward us will appear to tick slower?
 
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Johnny,

(This is off topic and more a point of curiosity for me than it is anything that has anything to do with this conversation.)

Presume for the moment that the constancy of the speed of light was in question. How would one go about proving that it was or was not constant?

Is there real experimental evidence of the constancy of C or is the constancy of C supported entirely by the mathematics of Einstein's theories?
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Yorzhik said:
To test time dilation.

Do you have any idea how fast we can go?
Click to expand...

It is not the best experiment to test time dilation. It is an expensive, inaccurate, nearly impossible way of testing it. There are better ways, such as using atomic clocks or Muons, as has been done. Why do you think 'metabolic rate' is a better ways of testing this?
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
chair said:
It is not the best experiment to test time dilation. It is an expensive, inaccurate, nearly impossible way of testing it. There are better ways, such as using atomic clocks or Muons, as has been done. Why do you think 'metabolic rate' is a better ways of testing this?
Click to expand...
For a number of reasons. Metabolic rates are dependent upon a large number of independent chemical and electrochemical reactions that all must work together. A scientist can carry out experiments from inside the frame not only on mechanical clocks but on biological clocks and thoughts as well. The scientists will be able to communicate at those rates inside the scientist's frame to other time frames outside that scientist's frame at the same time and visa versa. There's nothing better than an intelligent first hand witness when one is available. Be creative... what else could you do in a different time frame? And last but not least, and certainly the most important to scientists - it would be cool.

So; how fast can we go?
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Yorzhik said:
For a number of reasons. Metabolic rates are dependent upon a large number of independent chemical and electrochemical reactions that all must work together. A scientist can carry out experiments from inside the frame not only on mechanical clocks but on biological clocks and thoughts as well. The scientists will be able to communicate at those rates inside the scientist's frame to other time frames outside that scientist's frame at the same time and visa versa. There's nothing better than an intelligent first hand witness when one is available. Be creative... what else could you do in a different time frame? And last but not least, and certainly the most important to scientists - it would be cool.

So; how fast can we go?
Click to expand...

I only have time for a short answer now.

Think about this: When have you last seen someone measure time by using a biological system?

It is a extraordinarily poor way of measuring time. There are mechanical clocks, sundials, water clocks, atomic clocks, spring driven clocks, quartz clocks...but I haven't heard of a "metabolic rate clock", certainly not as a practical way of timekeeping.
 
Memento Mori

Memento Mori

New member
Yorzhik said:
So; how fast can we go?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, the limit is the speed of light. Practically, a few multiples of the speed of sound. Unless, someone were willing to give up their life to travel far into space at high speeds (but I somewhat doubt this) and even then I don't think we would be able to hit .001% the speed of light.

As for this whole metabolism thing. You might as well measure how many times a day a guy takes a leak at high speeds.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
chair said:
I only have time for a short answer now.

Think about this: When have you last seen someone measure time by using a biological system?
Click to expand...
I did it yesterday. I was working and thought... it must be about 2 o'clock now. I checked a clock and I was right. We probably use our sense of time (it comes from somewhere within our biology) more than our clocks.

BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEASURING TIME DILATION.

It is a extraordinarily poor way of measuring time. There are mechanical clocks, sundials, water clocks, atomic clocks, spring driven clocks, quartz clocks...but I haven't heard of a "metabolic rate clock", certainly not as a practical way of timekeeping.
Click to expand...
Then don't call it a clock if that bothers you. Call it an experiment from inside a different time frame. Is that OK with you? Sheesh.

So, how fast can we go?
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Yorzhik said:
I did it yesterday. I was working and thought... it must be about 2 o'clock now. I checked a clock and I was right. We probably use our sense of time (it comes from somewhere within our biology) more than our clocks.

BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MEASURING TIME DILATION.


Then don't call it a clock if that bothers you. Call it an experiment from inside a different time frame. Is that OK with you? Sheesh.

So, how fast can we go?
Click to expand...

Here.

If I have calculated correctly-
The energy required to accelerate 1 Kg of mass to 10% of the speed of light is: 4.15E14 Joules. This would require a nuclear explosion of 100 kilotons to achieve. It is 1.6E18 watt-hours.

Multiply by your weight in kg to get what you would need to accelerate yourself to this velocity.

The experiment would be very expensive, to put it mildly. And as I have been driving at all along- what's the point? What would we learn form it that we haven't learned from other experiments?
 
Memento Mori

Memento Mori

New member
chair said:
Here.

If I have calculated correctly-
The energy required to accelerate 1 Kg of mass to 10% of the speed of light is: 4.15E14 Joules. This would require a nuclear explosion of 100 kilotons to achieve. It is 1.6E18 watt-hours.

Multiply by your weight in kg to get what you would need to accelerate yourself to this velocity.

The experiment would be very expensive, to put it mildly. And as I have been driving at all along- what's the point? What would we learn form it that we haven't learned from other experiments?
Click to expand...

Wow... 415,000,000,000,000 J? Well ten percent is pretty high.

Plus how would you get an inert observer to get the readings from a craft moving ten percent the speed of light? I mean, if you had the monitor on board, the readings would look completely normal because the instruments are moving at the same speed.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Memento Mori said:
Wow... 415,000,000,000,000 J? Well ten percent is pretty high.

Plus how would you get an inert observer to get the readings from a craft moving ten percent the speed of light? I mean, if you had the monitor on board, the readings would look completely normal because the instruments are moving at the same speed.
Click to expand...

I think what they wanted to do here was to test the "twin paradox". So the idea is to eventually slow down the speeding twin and compare his age to the stationary one once they were both in the same time frame.

10% of teh speed of light is pretty fast. But we need to get a large difference in apparent age in order to measure it. And the experiment needs to be finished inside of a few years, or at least within a lifetime. But the calculation gives a ballpark idea of what we are talking about.

By the way- my calculation was for 1 kilogram. Multiply by 50 for a small human. Or, more correctly, multiply by many thousands for the mass of the spaceship (and it's fuel!) required to do this experiment. Oh, and how were we going to decelerate the ship? More energy, I suppose.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
chair said:
Here.

If I have calculated correctly-
The energy required to accelerate 1 Kg of mass to 10% of the speed of light is: 4.15E14 Joules. This would require a nuclear explosion of 100 kilotons to achieve. It is 1.6E18 watt-hours.

Multiply by your weight in kg to get what you would need to accelerate yourself to this velocity.

The experiment would be very expensive, to put it mildly. And as I have been driving at all along- what's the point? What would we learn form it that we haven't learned from other experiments?
Click to expand...
I'll have to answer when I have more time.
 
Yorzhik

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
chair said:
Here.

If I have calculated correctly-
The energy required to accelerate 1 Kg of mass to 10% of the speed of light is: 4.15E14 Joules. This would require a nuclear explosion of 100 kilotons to achieve. It is 1.6E18 watt-hours.

Multiply by your weight in kg to get what you would need to accelerate yourself to this velocity.

The experiment would be very expensive, to put it mildly. And as I have been driving at all along- what's the point? What would we learn form it that we haven't learned from other experiments?
Click to expand...
The emails I've sent to people who should know have so far gone unanswered.

Chair; you need to calm down. The point of doing this was explained. If we cannot get a human to go fast enough, then we should scale back to something as close to it that we can. If you don't want to be involved, just go do something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top