Age of the universe and Relativity of Time

[Lighthouse]

Come on now.... it's brave of Lighthouse to put up a video like this. It's easy to mock his video from the safety of your keyboard.

A brave man would make a video in response.

Oddly enough I don't think allsmiles was mocking me. I think his issue was with shredguitar17.

 

[Johnny]

How does it feel to admit that you're not as smart as you previously proposed to be?

I never proposed to be "smart". Educated, perhaps, but there is a difference. Not that you would know about either.

 

[fool]

Come on now.... it's brave of Lighthouse to put up a video like this. It's easy to mock his video from the safety of your keyboard.

A brave man would make a video in response.

That was brave.

 

[koban]

Age of the universe and Relativity of Time

As I was going up the stairs,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish, he'd go away.




:darwinsm:

 

[Memento Mori]

The speed of light is almost 3 x 10^8 m/s. This is always true in a vacuum, at any speed that you are traveling. If you are traveling at 7 m/s, light travels 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you. If you are traveling 99% the speed of light, light will travel away from you at 3 x 10^8 m/s. Your speed does not impact the speed of light that you observe. Do you understand that?

 

[Lighthouse]

The speed of light is almost 3 x 10^8 m/s. This is always true in a vacuum, at any speed that you are traveling. If you are traveling at 7 m/s, light travels 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you. If you are traveling 99% the speed of light, light will travel away from you at 3 x 10^8 m/s. Your speed does not impact the speed of light that you observe. Do you understand that?

Yes, but relatively it will not travel that much faster than you. Whereas when you are standing still it does travel that much faster than you. So, immobile light is 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you. But at 99% of that it is not 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you.

 

[Memento Mori]

Yes, but relatively it will not travel that much faster than you. Whereas when you are standing still it does travel that much faster than you. So, immobile light is 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you. But at 99% of that it is not 3 x 10^8 m/s faster than you.

Wrong. If you travel 99% the speed of light and turn on a flashlight: the light from the flashlight will travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you. It acts as though you are standing still! This is what makes Relativity so insanely complex! However, you are right it wouldn't travel that much faster than you to an outside observer. This is why it is relative. Light always travels at 3 x 10^8 m/s regardless of what speed you are traveling and it depends on the observer.

I know, it is freaking complex!

 

[Johnny]

Wrong. If you travel 99% the speed of light and turn on a flashlight: the light from the flashlight will travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you. It acts as though you are standing still! This is what makes Relativity so insanely complex! However, you are right it wouldn't travel that much faster than you to an outside observer. This is why it is relative. Light always travels at 3 x 10^8 m/s regardless of what speed you are traveling and it depends on the observer.

I know, it is freaking complex!

And this property of light is exactly why time must be relative!

Constant Speed of Light

 

[Lighthouse]

Wrong. If you travel 99% the speed of light and turn on a flashlight: the light from the flashlight will travel at 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you. It acts as though you are standing still! This is what makes Relativity so insanely complex! However, you are right it wouldn't travel that much faster than you to an outside observer. This is why it is relative. Light always travels at 3 x 10^8 m/s regardless of what speed you are traveling and it depends on the observer.

I know, it is freaking complex!

At what point did I say that it did not travel at that speed? Huh? Where is it?

I'll give you a hint: it's nowhere. Do you know why? Another hint: because I didn't say it.

I never said that it did not travel at that speed. Only that relative to something traveling at 99% the speed of light the light is not traveling that much faster than they are. It is still traveling at that speed, but not that much faster than they are.

The speed of light, rounded off, is 186,000 m/s, in a vacuum. Correct?

So, for the sake of argument let's leave it there.

Now, if I travel at 1/60 m/s, or .0166666.., the light is still traveling at 186,000 m/s, but it is traveling at 185,999.983 m/s faster than I am. This does not mean it has stopped moving at 186,000 m/s.

It still moves away from you at 186,000 m/s. Just as a truck moving at 70 mph moves away from a car traveling 60 mph at 70 mph. It is merely going 10 mph faster. But it is still moving at 70 mph.

 

[Lighthouse]

And this property of light is exactly why time must be relative!

Seriously? This is your argument?

Time must be relative because the speed of light, in a vacuum, is a constant?lain:

Experience of time relative? Certainly! No argument there. At the speed of light, if you could travel that fast, and your mind could keep up of course, you would experience everything in a much faster speed than anyone else, and you would observe the passage of time differently. If you maintained that speed for long enough it would seem to take years for a lot of things to happen, whereas everyone else experienced it in a seemingly much shorter time frame. But in the end it was still the same amount of time.

 

[Memento Mori]

I never said that it did not travel at that speed. Only that relative to something traveling at 99% the speed of light the light is not traveling that much faster than they are. It is still traveling at that speed, but not that much faster than they are.

The speed of light, rounded off, is 186,000 m/s, in a vacuum. Correct?

So, for the sake of argument let's leave it there.

Now, if I travel at 1/60 m/s, or .0166666.., the light is still traveling at 186,000 m/s, but it is traveling at 185,999.983 m/s faster than I am. This does not mean it has stopped moving at 186,000 m/s.

It still moves away from you at 186,000 m/s. Just as a truck moving at 70 mph moves away from a car traveling 60 mph at 70 mph. It is merely going 10 mph faster. But it is still moving at 70 mph.

I'm sorry I came off a little belittling. Forgive me.

However, rounded off light travels 3 x 10^8meters/second. I think you're thinking miles/second or miles/hour or something. I prefer metric.

Here's the thing. When you travel let's say 10 m/s. Light travels away from you at 3 x 10^8 m/s. But to an outside observer the light is traveling 3 x 10^8 m/s also... So to you, the moving person, light travels exactly the same speed as too someone who isn't moving... This isn't really a problem because it's hardly noticeable. Everything seems normal.

The problem arises when you travel near light speed. If you are flying in an aircraft that can fly at a constant rate of 50% c (speed of light) and you turn on the head lights (I guess the sun is going down) the light from the headlights will travel away from you at exactly the same speed as if you weren't moving, 3 x 10^8 m/s. For simplicities sake, light seems to be moving faster than c because it has to escape your speed and maintain its own speed of c. However, to an outside inert observer, the light is also traveling c, and this is where it gets confusing, not c + 50%c (your speed). As long as you don't accelerate, light will always travel 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you regardless of your speed.

So, to sum up, if you travel 50% c. To you, light seems to travel 50% c + c. But to an outside inert observer, the same light seems to travel c. It is relative... I don't really know how to explain it any simpler. You'll have to talk to a Physicist if you want a better answer.

 

[Memento Mori]

And this property of light is exactly why time must be relative!

Constant Speed of Light

That's exactly how I was taught it. It's very difficult to understand if you don't have the imagination for it. Also, I don't suppose you have one on distance?

LH, it turns out distances change also, as you approach the speed of light. But I'm probably opening a whole nother can o' threads.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm sorry I came off a little belittling. Forgive me.

However, rounded off light travels 3 x 10^8meters/second. I think you're thinking miles/second or miles/hour or something. I prefer metric.

Here's the thing. When you travel let's say 10 m/s. Light travels away from you at 3 x 10^8 m/s. But to an outside observer the light is traveling 3 x 10^8 m/s also... So to you, the moving person, light travels exactly the same speed as too someone who isn't moving... This isn't really a problem because it's hardly noticeable. Everything seems normal.

The problem arises when you travel near light speed. If you are flying in an aircraft that can fly at a constant rate of 50% c (speed of light) and you turn on the head lights (I guess the sun is going down) the light from the headlights will travel away from you at exactly the same speed as if you weren't moving, 3 x 10^8 m/s. For simplicities sake, light seems to be moving faster than c because it has to escape your speed and maintain its own speed of c. However, to an outside inert observer, the light is also traveling c, and this is where it gets confusing, not c + 50%c (your speed). As long as you don't accelerate, light will always travel 3 x 10^8 m/s away from you regardless of your speed.

So, to sum up, if you travel 50% c. To you, light seems to travel 50% c + c. But to an outside inert observer, the same light seems to travel c. It is relative... I don't really know how to explain it any simpler. You'll have to talk to a Physicist if you want a better answer.

Apparently I'm just going to have to wait to see how long it takes the two of you to understand that I did not disagree with you.

 

[Johnny]

Lighthouse, if you're responding to my previous post (which you probably are), I deleted it. I need to stop posting out of anger. Apologies.

Experience of time relative? Certainly! No argument there. At the speed of light, if you could travel that fast, and your mind could keep up of course, you would experience everything in a much faster speed than anyone else, and you would observe the passage of time differently. If you maintained that speed for long enough it would seem to take years for a lot of things to happen, whereas everyone else experienced it in a seemingly much shorter time frame. But in the end it was still the same amount of time.

I can agree with this in principle (though in the reverse). The question, then, is whose time is right?

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, if you're responding to my previous post (which you probably are), I deleted it. I need to stop posting out of anger. Apologies.

I can agree with this in principle (though in the reverse). The question, then, is whose time is right?

Time is a constant. The right time would be the amount of time it took. regardless of how it seemed, relative to the speed of the observer.

 

[Johnny]

Apparently I'm just going to have to wait to see how long it takes the two of you to understand that I did not disagree with you.

Specifically this sentence, "It still moves away from you at 186,000 m/s. Just as a truck moving at 70 mph moves away from a car traveling 60 mph at 70 mph. It is merely going 10 mph faster. But it is still moving at 70 mph." is not correct when it comes to light.

To phrase it in those terms, light always moves 186,000 miles/second faster than you are.

The right time would be the amount of time it took. regardless of how it seemed, relative to the speed of the observer.

But by whose watch? What I'm asking is who is keeping the right time? The observer standing still? The observer in motion? Consider that the observer in motion can justifiably argue that it was the other guy who was actually moving in the opposite direction.

 

[Memento Mori]

Apparently I'm just going to have to wait to see how long it takes the two of you to understand that I did not disagree with you.

Well, you seem to disagree. As long as you understand that to everyone light always travels c away from a person. That number never changes unless it goes through a different material.

The speed of light is set for every person (in a vacuum). It will always travel away from you at 3 x 10^8 m/s regardless of what speed you're going. We agree? You understand, that when you travel say 10 m/s, light does not suddenly travel at 299,999,990 m/s because of your speed?

 

[Lighthouse]

Specifically this sentence, "It still moves away from you at 186,000 m/s. Just as a truck moving at 70 mph moves away from a car traveling 60 mph at 70 mph. It is merely going 10 mph faster. But it is still moving at 70 mph." is incorrect when it comes to light.

To phrase it in those terms, light always moves 186,000 miles/second faster than you are.

Then why call it a constant? Other than the fact that it constantly moves that much faster. But if that is the case then it cannot be said to always move at that speed relative to nothing.

But the real question is if it is true that it always moves that much faster than you, then you will never approach its speed, and could not actually move at 99% the speed of light.

 

[Lighthouse]

But by whose watch? What I'm asking is who is keeping the right time? The observer standing still? The observer in motion? Consider that the observer in motion can justifiably argue that it was the other guy who was actually moving in the opposite direction.

Watches are never exactly right.:nono:

But that's irrelevant, because the watch has nothing to do with it. Five seconds is five seconds.

Well, you seem to disagree. As long as you understand that to everyone light always travels c away from a person. That number never changes unless it goes through a different material.

The speed of light is set for every person (in a vacuum). It will always travel away from you at 3 x 10^8 m/s regardless of what speed you're going. We agree? You understand, that when you travel say 10 m/s, light does not suddenly travel at 299,999,990 m/s because of your speed?

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6786/sherlockholmes01.gif

 

[Memento Mori]

Then why call it a constant? Other than the fact that it constantly moves that much faster. But if that is the case then it cannot be said to always move at that speed relative to nothing.

But the real question is if it is true that it always moves that much faster than you, then you will never approach its speed, and could not actually move at 99% the speed of light.

But you can move 99% c relative to an inert outside observer. In this case, your time and the observers time run differently. Also, the distances you experience change... huh... Light is always constant no matter what speed you move. That's why it's called a constant. Light only changes speed through different material