Tampering with the speed time theory when driving.

religion class and a "professor", also he's terribly misinformed if he thinks 90mph will cause time dilation :lol: Brainkiller05

90 mph DOES cause time dilation. It's simply so little time dilation as to be completely irrelevant.

But yes, time dilation absolutely occurs at 90 mph, and lower.

You know time traveling to the futureis very possible if we can travel long enough in the speed of light. Only problem is that it will take 1/3 of the world's power to do so.

We definitely wouldneed to harness the sun's energy.

[QUOTE="0Tyler0"]Time slows down when you approach the speed of light, I don't think it's at 90 mph..MrGeezer

"Time slows down" if you're moving at all. There's no set speed. You could be walking your three legged poodle at a speed of 0.5 mph, and you're undergoing relativistic time dilation. Which itself is LITERALLY time travel into the future.

But yes, he's right. As you go faster, your mass increases. And the passage of time in your reference frame slows down in comparison to the passage of time compared to the reference frame of people who are at rest.

Yes, the mere act of moving is inherently a form of time travel.

I was in my religion class and the professor was talking about higher power and science. So he mentioned how when you're driving more than 90mph time slows down. Your watch can say a certain time but the real time is different. What's all this about? I asked him and he said yeah it's true. When you're on a plane doesn't he plane travel at like 500mph or so. Does that mean time is super slow then or something? how does it work? i kind of want to try it on the track with my car

LegitGamer3212

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="0Tyler0"]Time slows down when you approach the speed of light, I don't think it's at 90 mph..gaming25

"Time slows down" if you're moving at all. There's no set speed. You could be walking your three legged poodle at a speed of 0.5 mph, and you're undergoing relativistic time dilation. Which itself is LITERALLY time travel into the future.

But yes, he's right. As you go faster, your mass increases. And the passage of time in your reference frame slows down in comparison to the passage of time compared to the reference frame of people who are at rest.

Yes, the mere act of moving is inherently a form of time travel.

There is no such thing as time, why do you want to chase it? It's a state of mind, to identify time you need two events- a preceding and a succeeding one.

Blubadox

Ok. You were born when you were born. This preceded your death. You will die when you die. This will succeed your birth.

Well, modern cosmology and astrophysics tells us about time dilation, which occurs (noticeably, even though it technically is always happening) when your speed arrives near the speed of light (like 99.9999999%). If you were in a ship traveling near the speed of light (300,000 km/h) for let's say several days, when you arrived back to Earth, it may have been several months or years. Time is relative.

This is best explained by the Twin Paradox. Let's assume a pair of identical twins are born and live together for the first 25 years of their life. Now, let's say one of them gets the chance to become an astronaut, while the other one stays on Earth. If the astronaut twin was on a ship traveling approximately 299,900 km/h for several years, when he gets back to Earth, he may only be 30, while everyone he knew may be dead and gone.

This is just a brief summary. For something with more depth (I'm lazy), search time dilation, or read about the Theory of Relativity. If you want to read more interesting discoveries by Relativity, read about Minkowski and Anti de Sitter space.

@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.gaming25

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

Well, modern cosmology and astrophysics tells us about time dilation, which occurs (noticeably, even though it technically is always happening) when your speed arrives near the speed of light (like 99.9999999%). If you were in a ship traveling near the speed of light (300,000 km/h) for let's say several days, when you arrived back to Earth, it may have been several months or years. Time is relative.

This is best explained by the Twin Paradox. Let's assume a pair of identical twins are born and live together for the first 25 years of their life. Now, let's say one of them gets the chance to become an astronaut, while the other one stays on Earth. If the astronaut twin was on a ship traveling approximately 299,900 km/h for several years, when he gets back to Earth, he may only be 30, while everyone he knew may be dead and gone.

This is just a brief summary. For something with more depth (I'm lazy), search time dilation, or read about the Theory of Relativity. If you want to read more interesting discoveries by Relativity, read about Minkowski and Anti de Sitter space.

DANTE12345

Correct, although I've never liked the use of the word "paradox" in reference to that mental exercise, as there's nothing paradoxical about it at all.

[QUOTE="gaming25"]@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.GabuEx

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.gaming25

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

I'm confused by your use of the (to my knowledge) scientifically undefined term "time range".

[QUOTE="gaming25"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

GabuEx

I'm confused by your use of the (to my knowledge) scientifically undefined term "time range".

[QUOTE="gaming25"]@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.GabuEx

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

Furthermore, Einstein's "layman" book about Relativity has been available for a LONG ass time. Sure, it does involve mathematics, but it's not too difficult for someone at the high school level.

And apparently now that's FREE, so that's something that everyone needs to read. I's laid out mathematically, for the layman.

If that's too boring, all sorts of other scientists have wrtten "pop science" books which detail the same thing, only not going as in-depth with the math. I recall Brian Greene covering this pretty well conceptually in his books (even though I don't take string theories seriously), and Stephen Hawking covering this pretty well in one of his books.

And yes...high speeds in space have CONFIRMED that Einstein was right. Time dilation at "sub-light" speeds is small, no doubt. But it ABSOLUTELY happens, and is a fundamental property of motion.

As Xaos stated, we're all moving through spacetime at a set speed ("c", or the speed of light through a vaccuum). The faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time. And the slower you travel through space, the faster you travel through time. Travelling through space inherently slows your passage through time, it's that the diffenrence typically doesn't become IMPORTANT until you approach the speed of light.

I'm pretty sure astronauts experience measurable time dilation while in orbit.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.gaming25

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

so lets say in a an experiment a clock is placed in an object not moving while another clock is place in a missile traveling at the speed of light. After say a year the missile will be in the future? So say we make the missle stop after 1 year of traveling at the speed of light it'll see into the future like a crystal ball or something?

[QUOTE="DANTE12345"]

Well, modern cosmology and astrophysics tells us about time dilation, which occurs (noticeably, even though it technically is always happening) when your speed arrives near the speed of light (like 99.9999999%). If you were in a ship traveling near the speed of light (300,000 km/h) for let's say several days, when you arrived back to Earth, it may have been several months or years. Time is relative.

This is best explained by the Twin Paradox. Let's assume a pair of identical twins are born and live together for the first 25 years of their life. Now, let's say one of them gets the chance to become an astronaut, while the other one stays on Earth. If the astronaut twin was on a ship traveling approximately 299,900 km/h for several years, when he gets back to Earth, he may only be 30, while everyone he knew may be dead and gone.

This is just a brief summary. For something with more depth (I'm lazy), search time dilation, or read about the Theory of Relativity. If you want to read more interesting discoveries by Relativity, read about Minkowski and Anti de Sitter space.

GabuEx

Correct, although I've never liked the use of the word "paradox" in reference to that mental exercise, as there's nothing paradoxical about it at all.

Yeah, it always irks me whenever I read about the topic in books. I never got it either, but it's generally the name the gedanken goes by.

Actually, if you're interested in some aspects of cosmology and the Big Bang, I would recommend reading From Eternity to Here by Sean Carroll. Flatterland, Like Flatland Only More So is a fiction book that actually covers real topics, so I would also recommend that. It has its own section talking about Minkowski, Anti de Sitter space, light cones, and closed time-like curves (CTCs). Same in the first book. Trust me, they are great.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.MrGeezer

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

Furthermore, Einstein's "layman" book about Relativity has been available for a LONG ass time. Sure, it does involve mathematics, but it's not too difficult for someone at the high school level.

And apparently now that's FREE, so that's something that everyone needs to read. I's laid out mathematically, for the layman.

If that's too boring, all sorts of other scientists have wrtten "pop science" books which detail the same thing, only not going as in-depth with the math. I recall Brian Greene covering this pretty well conceptually in his books (even though I don't take string theories seriously), and Stephen Hawking covering this pretty well in one of his books.

And yes...high speeds in space have CONFIRMED that Einstein was right. Time dilation at "sub-light" speeds is small, no doubt. But it ABSOLUTELY happens, and is a fundamental property of motion.

As Xaos stated, we're all moving through spacetime at a set speed ("c", or the speed of light through a vaccuum). The faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time. And the slower you travel through space, the faster you travel through time. Travelling through space inherently slows your passage through time, it's that the diffenrence typically doesn't become IMPORTANT until you approach the speed of light.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"]@xaos You cant just tell me how "right" someone is without giving me a rebuttal.MrGeezer

If you want a very concrete real-world observable example, astronauts (who blast off at very high speeds) have been observed to have their watches be very slightly slow in comparison to the clocks to which they were synchronized upon departure.

Furthermore, Einstein's "layman" book about Relativity has been available for a LONG ass time. Sure, it does involve mathematics, but it's not too difficult for someone at the high school level.

And apparently now that's FREE, so that's something that everyone needs to read. I's laid out mathematically, for the layman.

If that's too boring, all sorts of other scientists have wrtten "pop science" books which detail the same thing, only not going as in-depth with the math. I recall Brian Greene covering this pretty well conceptually in his books (even though I don't take string theories seriously), and Stephen Hawking covering this pretty well in one of his books.

And yes...high speeds in space have CONFIRMED that Einstein was right. Time dilation at "sub-light" speeds is small, no doubt. But it ABSOLUTELY happens, and is a fundamental property of motion.

As Xaos stated, we're all moving through spacetime at a set speed ("c", or the speed of light through a vaccuum). The faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time. And the slower you travel through space, the faster you travel through time. Travelling through space inherently slows your passage through time, it's that the diffenrence typically doesn't become IMPORTANT until you approach the speed of light.

If you don't mind me asking, why don't you take M-theory (I assume as you said string theory, which constitutes M-theory) seriously. Is it because it is hard to define it as even a science, if at all, or is it due you subscribing to other theories of quantum gravity and a more complete Standard Model? Just wondering.

Personally, I think that it (M-theory) could be a viable solution to things, and it is supported and backs up many recognized theories, like the Hooft's Holographic Principle.

[QUOTE="Blubadox"]

There is no such thing as time, why do you want to chase it? It's a state of mind, to identify time you need two events- a preceding and a succeeding one.

Elephant_Couple

Ok. You were born when you were born. This preceded your death. You will die when you die. This will succeed your birth.

I've never understood the notion that "time is an illusion". That doesn't even make sense on an elementary layman's scale. Time is just as real as space, but you won't hear anyone dumb enough to seriously state "I'm not embarrasingly short, since space isn't real."

Yes, space is real. It defines a real event. If you are supposed to be at a job interview, and you instead end up 50 miles away on a beach, that's a big ****ing deal. People don't buy maps because "space is just an illusion". No, space is very real. If an event is happening "here" but not "there", then it's pretty important to place yourself "here". If you get invited to a party, you try to find directions. Because it doesn't do you ANY ****ing good if you arrive at the party, but at the wrong ****ing location.

Yes, space is OBVIOUSLY real and important, or else maps wouldn't ****ing exist.

Time is EQUALLY important. Because space is not sufficient enough to define the "location" of an "event". Time is just as crucial and just as real. As evidenced by the fact that I got fired for showing up late to work. If you are supposed to be at a location at a certain time, and are there at a DIFFERENT time, then you have ****ed up. Time, in cooperation with space, defines an event. Without consideration of that event's location in time, then that event's location in space doesn't mean a ****ing thing.

And yes, we all know this, that's why we try not to show up at work three hours late.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="gaming25"] I think you missed my point. No matter how fast someone is going, they are going to the same time range as everyone else. There is no "future" to go into if everyone is already there when you get there.gaming25

I'm confused by your use of the (to my knowledge) scientifically undefined term "time range".

What does this even mean? I don't understand. If you go faster than other people, they will age faster than you, because they are moving through time faster than you are. This has been empirically observed and documented.

[QUOTE="Elephant_Couple"]

[QUOTE="Blubadox"]

There is no such thing as time, why do you want to chase it? It's a state of mind, to identify time you need two events- a preceding and a succeeding one.

MrGeezer

Ok. You were born when you were born. This preceded your death. You will die when you die. This will succeed your birth.

I've never understood the notion that "time is an illusion". That doesn't even make sense on an elementary layman's scale. Time is just as real as space, but you won't hear anyone dumb enough to seriously state "I'm not embarrasingly short, since space isn't real."

I've done my best to keep the technicalities to the minimum so that everyone can understand, however let me try once more. A stone falls to the ground, if you ask "why does it fall to the ground?" you are taking into account the fact that every event is preceeded by another event, so every particle is in relation to every other particle in the universe which makes it a observational fallacy as you are limited by your mind. The real fact is - the stone never fell to the ground, it is only the rearrangment of the quanta in the universe in relation to changes in your mind.

At 200 mph, the time dilation (and Lorentz-Fitzgerald spatial contraction and relativistic mass gain) would be 0.99999999999995552854290976483791, which actually is higher than I'd have expectedxaos

Didn't the person in your avatar say, "What did I tell you? 88 MPH!":lol:

I've done my best to keep the technicalities to the minimum so that everyone can understand, however let me try once more. A stone falls to the ground, if you ask "why does it fall to the ground?" you are taking into account the fact that every event is preceeded by another event, so every particle is in relation to every other particle in the universe which makes it a observational fallacy as you are limited by your mind. The real fact is - the stone never fell to the ground, it is only the rearrangment of the quanta in the universe in relation to changes in your mind.

Blubadox

Which is what people ultimately mean when they say it fell to the ground.

You can dress it up however you like, but the fact remains that according to all accepted definitions of our sensory perception, there was indeed a stone, and it was indeed compelled by the force of gravity between it and the Earth to fall to the ground, and after a period of measurable time its position was relocated from its initial position to the ground, so yes, it did fall to the ground, and attempting to argue not only that it did not but also that it is a fact that it did not is nothing more than attempting to redefine words in the English language, which is a fruitless and pointless endeavor that accomplishes nothing other than actively impeding proper communication, thereby missing the entire point not only of the sentence describing the observation but of language altogether.

So yeah.

Nah, it is a stupid conclusion from a incomplete General Relativity Theory. It epic failed when using light year as measurement of time.

magicalclick

mind you the theory of relativity has been held up to test even on the quantum level. and has held up to more test than the theory of gravity. the incomplete theory of gravity of newtonian physics. light year is not a measurement of time. its a measurement of distance. and its the distance light travels in a vaccume in 1 year. also lets get some sourcing in here before we disregard the theory of relativity.

I dont claim to be an expert in relativity or time dialation. or even in physics. but dont discount a physical theory untill if you cant even comprehend what a light year is.

Does any of this matters? Distant is relative. Both of you are correct. But, is time relative? Some people can make up an equation to claim it is relative. But, can time be relative?

I simply do not believe it.

magicalclick

As I stated, astronauts whose watches were synchronized with a clock upon launch were found to have slightly slow watches when they returned.

There is objective, empirical observed evidence for the relativistic nature of time.

So what if I was flying around the earth at the speed of light for one year earth time, how much time will have passed for me?

Sorry if that's a stupid question, I was always curious and space and time works at high rates, but never really understood too much of it.

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

Does any of this matters? Distant is relative. Both of you are correct. But, is time relative? Some people can make up an equation to claim it is relative. But, can time be relative?

I simply do not believe it.

GabuEx

As I stated, astronauts whose watches were synchronized with a clock upon launch were found to have slightly slow watches when they returned.

There is objective, empirical observed evidence for the relativistic nature of time.

Gabu, your post grabbed my interest. Objects orbiting the Earth (and those that accelerate enough to escape gravity for a moon landing) travel fairly fast. Do you know how much of a time differential the astronauts incurred as a result of their travels?

I think it'd be best to drop of that class. Your professor clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

As I stated, astronauts whose watches were synchronized with a clock upon launch were found to have slightly slow watches when they returned.

There is objective, empirical observed evidence for the relativistic nature of time.

magicalclick

Gabu, your post grabbed my interest. Objects orbiting the Earth (and those that accelerate enough to escape gravity for a moon landing) travel fairly fast. Do you know how much of a time differential the astronauts incurred as a result of their travels?

To escape the Earth's gravity, you have to travel at Mach 34. That isn't slow.:P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

As I stated, astronauts whose watches were synchronized with a clock upon launch were found to have slightly slow watches when they returned.

There is objective, empirical observed evidence for the relativistic nature of time.

magicalclick

what kind of watch? this is important.

An atomic watch, as in the kind that take a licking and keep on ticking. There's also xaos' experiment, if you doubt this. And there are other things that don't require the use of clocks, as well; for example, many particles have been observed to have a lifespan that is much, much longer than they should have had were the relativistic nature of time false.

Gabu, your post grabbed my interest. Objects orbiting the Earth (and those that accelerate enough to escape gravity for a moon landing) travel fairly fast. Do you know how much of a time differential the astronauts incurred as a result of their travels?

topsemag55

Not very much, but still a measurable amount.

Ummmm, I'm going to have to disagree with this. I mean, I've done 120mph straight for well over 5 minutes, and time was not changing. If that were true, then my watch should be wrong, and shouldn't stay exactly the same as my atomic cell phone clock, or my cell phone should be off, then it would have to try and catch up when I stop, but that has never happened before.GTA_dude

Yes it was. It's just that 120 mph is such a tiny fraction of the speed of light that there would be no physical way to measure the difference.

based on theory alone, that punny speed cannot make enough time differential to be obverable by human with our current technology.magicalclick

Eh? Yes it can. Astronauts' watches when they landed were around 300 microseconds off. That absolutely is observable.

Not very much, but still a measurable amount.

GabuEx

Even still, an amazing read, to have actual evidence of time dilation upon human beings.:)

So traveling at Mach 34 to escape Earth's gravity does cause time dilation.

I wonder, if an object orbiting Earth contacts the upper atmosphere and starts to incur orbital decay and atrmospheric re-entry(such as Skylab), does reverse dilation occur? Is there a cutoff speed for time dilation?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not very much, but still a measurable amount.

topsemag55

Even still, an amazing read, to have actual evidence of time dilation upon human beings.:)

So traveling at Mach 34 to escape Earth's gravity does cause time dilation.

I wonder, if an object orbiting Earth contacts the upper atmosphere and starts to incur orbital decay and atrmospheric re-entry(such as Skylab), does reverse dilation occur? Is there a cutoff speed for time dilation?

Can you explain what you mean by "reverse dilation"?

Can you explain what you mean by "reverse dilation"?

GabuEx

The link you gave said the astronauts aged. Coming back to Earth - thus decelerating - wouldn't that reverse the effects of relativity, or am I reading it wrong? Or would traveling back into a gravitational field at the same speed you left it reverse the effect?

I bookmarked this thread. Awesome read.

A lot of pseudo intellectualism going on in this thread.