• How faster do you age when going at the speed of light?
    206 replies, posted
You will age as normal. Think of it like this, if you drive a car 100 meters in 60 Seconds, a woman managed to feed her cat and start doing the dishes. If you drive the car 100 meters in 30 seconds, the woman just managed to feed her cat. Fast travelling has nothing to do with aging or that kind of stuff, it just has to do with how much time you can save on doing something else than taking yourself from point A to point B.
Time is relative guys. Go see some youtube documentation about it.
[QUOTE=AngryAsshole;19290503]So time is getting faster and faster as the universe continues to accelerate outwards? What happens when you go above the speed of light, does time dilation continue growing?[/QUOTE] You can't go above the speed of light. Alot of people in this topic need boxes. The faster you go, the slower time moves for you. At the exact speed of light, which is impossible to achieve anyway, time outside in the universe would pass infinitely slowly. This is because the speed of light must be constant, if you are moving toward it or away from it, it is always the same speed, relative to the observer. But, at the speed of light, you would reach infinite mass, therefore infinite velocity, and because time out in the universe is not passing, to you, going at the speed of light, you would travel an infinite distance in no time at all (again, no time for you, to an OUTSIDE observer, either they saw you move at the speed of light, or they are dead because this ripped open the universe or something) And.... traveling an infinite distance, you know what that means! the universe is infinite, so for you, stasis + paradox. Paradoxes are impossible. [editline]01:45PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19295180]I know, but when your car moves at 10m/s it's measured relative to the ground, when a plane moves it's measured relative to the air and the ground, a boat is measured by the sea and the ground, a space craft is measured relative to Earth, this galaxy is measured relative to the local group. I've never heard of anyone trying to find the actual velocity of something relative to the universe itself, it's always relative to some other physical object and I just never understood why, or if there was some good reason as to why it has to be. Obviously it's far more intuitive to express velocities relative to something you can easily observe, and I'm not exactly sure what benefit knowing the absolute velocity of anything would be, but I've wondered this for a while. The whole laser thing was my idea for an experiment that could be used to find the absolute velocity of the pole. Right now I'm moving at 0m/s relative to the ground but the Earth is spinning rather fast and Earth ism moving around Sol rather fast and Sol is moving around The Milky Way rather fast, and that too is moving rather fast etc etc.[/QUOTE] Yup. You got it right. Because of the uncertainty principle, you cannot know the exact [I]POSITION[/I] of something and the exact[I] VELOCITY[/I] at the same[I] EXACT TIME. [/I] This includes space, and is the cause of negative energy, and Zero Point Energy. (ITS NOT JUST SCIENCE FICTION, BITCH :science:) So, The vacuum of space is moving as well, relative to absolutely nothing, so for most things, it is still. Your laser experiment has already been achieved, albeit trying to prove that light was a wave which propagated through "Aether". Because all things are moving, they thought that earth must be moving in a certain direction through this aether, so using a beam splitter and a laser, measured the two beams produced by the beam splitter at right angles, trying to gauge the time difference. If aether existed, one laser must be moving upstream or downstream of it more than the other, so it would move faster or slower than the other. They repeated it dozens of times with many angle configurations. It was proved that no matter what direction light moved, it moved the same velocity. I'm sure you can derive the point of this yourself :buddy: If not, someone else continue this. [editline]01:51PM[/editline] And it does not affect the biological processes at all. The onboard clock on the ship would go the same rate to you, just not to an outside observer. You don't age slower. If the clock onboard measure 50 years, you age 50 years. The exception is this: If we can figure out how to accelerate ships to this speed, we probably would have already cured aging. [editline]01:51PM[/editline] Or killed ourselves in a thermonuclear war.
[QUOTE=aVoN;19302660]That device you constructed has it's own frame of reference. If you move along with that device, you measure the exact same as when that device is in rest (and you too). You only measure a (relative) difference if that thing moves and you not. One "Rule" of Relativity is, that physics have to work the same exact way inedependant of what (inertial) frame of reference you are in. As consequence two frames of references see the other one's physics differently, if they have a relative speed to each other.[/QUOTE] I think I worded my post quite badly, I'm not talking about finding the velocity of an object relative to another, but to find the velocity of an object relative to itself(if that makes any sense), here's a better example: Say you have 2 objects in space and launch them side by side at .5c, then you remove everything in the universe except for these two items. They will still be moving at .5c, despite having 0 velocity difference between them, right? If you then replaced those two objects with my little pole and laser example(still moving at .5c), if the pole faces one direction the laser will hit the sensor in half the time it takes for it to hit when facing the other direction. Thus it would be possible to determine the velocity of the pole through space without having to compare it to another reference frame, right? You could say the reference frame that is this pole, is moving at 100m/s through space. It would also allow you to bring an object to a standstill. [edit] altered my post about 50 times and didn't check for new posts. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]Because of the uncertainty principle, you cannot know the exact [I]POSITION[/I] of something and the exact[I] VELOCITY[/I] at the same[I] EXACT TIME. [/I][/quote] Indeed, however I'm talking about macro objects so quantum effects should be largely irrelevant? [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]So, The vacuum of space is moving as well, relative to absolutely nothing, so for most things, it is still.[/quote] I was under the impression it was merely expanding, which is different from moving, i.e. if you were to get two points in space that are stationary relative to each other, they will gradually move apart(ignoring gravity), despite them still retaining no speed them. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]It was proved that no matter what direction light moved, it moved the same velocity. I'm sure you can derive the point of this yourself :buddy:[/quote] No doubt(well, same speed, the direction would change if you changed its direction :p), if this wasn't the case then my experiment wouldn't work at all.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19303979]Say you have 2 objects in space and launch them side by side at .5c, then you remove everything in the universe except for these two items. They will still be moving at .5c, despite having 0 velocity difference between them, right?[/QUOTE] No, they will not. Velocity has to be relative to something. And since the only observant in that universe will be the other object, the resulting velocity will be 0.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;19304236]No, they will not. Velocity has to be relative to something. And since the only observant in that universe will be the other object, the resulting velocity will be 0.[/QUOTE] Yes, so it's relative to those objects, are you saying if you fire a particle away from Earth at .5c then remove the rest of the universe the particle is no longer moving? Anyway, I made a nice illustration of my experiment: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/592301/Misc/RodExperiment.jpg[/img]
Don't know 'bout this, but I read in Popular Science that if you were to wrap electrons around the vessel carrying you, it's possible to travel at the speed of light. The rest of the article was gibberish to me.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19304446]Yes, so it's relative to those objects, are you saying if you fire a particle away from Earth at .5c then remove the rest of the universe the particle is no longer moving?[/QUOTE] If you remove everything except the particle then there's no such thing as "movement". It could be completely still, it could be moving at 0.5c, it makes no difference whatsoever since there's nothing to compare it to.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;19304735]If you remove everything except the particle then there's no such thing as "movement". It could be completely still, it could be moving at 0.5c, it makes no difference whatsoever since there's nothing to compare it to.[/QUOTE] It would be different though, its mass would be higher if it were moving faster. Unless you mean to say such a scenario is impossible and irrelevant, because if there's nothing to observe it then the state of the particle is irrelevant, but that's something rather different as this is purely a hypothetical situation where we can magically observe the results.
Thread is now simply a q/a session with avon as he explains relativity to the masses. Anyway, this has been puzzling me for a while. When you are in a spacecraft travelling at a constant speed, you feel no gravitational effects, but when you are in an accelerating spacecraft you feel a "gravitational" pull in the opposite direction of acceleration. This I understand, however, why is it that in a [b]rotating[/b] spacecraft you feel a pull towards the outside of the spacecraft (like in the centrifuge in [i]2001: A Space Odyssey[/i] regardless of whether the rotational speed is increasing or decreasing. Why is it that you can not be sure that a) You are stationary in space [b]or[/b] moving at a constant velocity through space. b) You are stationary on a planet [b]or[/b] accelerating through space. But you [b]can[/b] be sure that you are [b]rotating[/b]. Why is it that movement is relative but rotation isn't?
[QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]The faster you go, the slower time moves for you. [/quote] Wrong. As faster you move relative to someone else, he sees you slowed down while you see your own time normal. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]At the exact speed of light, which is impossible to achieve anyway, time outside in the universe would pass infinitely slowly.[/quote] Actually if you move near the speed of light, an resting observer sees your eigentime infinitely slowly while you see your time at normal speed. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]But, at the speed of light, you would reach infinite mass, therefore infinite velocity, and because time out in the universe is not passing, to you, going at the speed of light, you would travel an infinite distance in no time at all[/quote] You have no idea what you are talking about. First of all: "Relative mass" is not real. It is a fail-interpretation of earlier days of Special Relativity. And you can't reach "infinite velocity" since the speed of light is your upper threshold. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]And.... traveling an infinite distance, you know what that means! the universe is infinite, so for you, stasis + paradox. [/quote] The universe is most probably not infinite. It started at big bang and is since then expanding. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]Yup. You got it right. Because of the uncertainty principle, you cannot know the exact [I]POSITION[/I] of something and the exact[I] VELOCITY[/I] at the same[I] EXACT TIME. [/I][/quote] To be more specific: Momentum and Position or Energy and Time is Heisenberg. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]So, The vacuum of space is moving as well, relative to absolutely nothing, so for most things, it is still.[/quote] Motion is only defined in space. Space itself can't move. There is no absolute "space at rest" or "relative velocity to the universe". Every particle has it's own frame of reference. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19303436]Your laser experiment has already been achieved, albeit trying to prove that light was a wave which propagated through "Aether". Because all things are moving, they thought that earth must be moving in a certain direction through this aether, so using a beam splitter and a laser, measured the two beams produced by the beam splitter at right angles, trying to gauge the time difference. If aether existed, one laser must be moving upstream or downstream of it more than the other, so it would move faster or slower than the other. They repeated it dozens of times with many angle configurations. It was proved that no matter what direction light moved, it moved the same velocity. I'm sure you can derive the point of this yourself :buddy:[/quote] The good old Michelson Experiment. One of the most important experimental failures of mankind. Lorentz-Transformation and the from there resulting Special Relativity was the only way to "solve" this mystery of that Experiment. [editline]08:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19303979]Say you have 2 objects in space and launch them side by side at .5c, then you remove everything in the universe except for these two items. They will still be moving at .5c, despite having 0 velocity difference between them, right? If you then replaced those two objects with my little pole and laser example(still moving at .5c),[/quote] Movement is only relative. The two objects are in the same reference frame and there, they are at rest. First, they moved at 0.5 c (relative to e.g. our galaxy). Now, if you remove all matter from the universe but those two objects, they aren't moving to anything relatively. They are now locally at rest. [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19303979]if the pole faces one direction the laser will hit the sensor in half the time it takes for it to hit when facing the other direction.[/quote] You can't add velocities like that and the speed of light is - no matter who observes it - constant at the speed of light. [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19303979]Thus it would be possible to determine the velocity of the pole through space without having to compare it to another reference frame, right?[/quote] No. [editline]08:49PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19304446]Yes, so it's relative to those objects, are you saying if you fire a particle away from Earth at .5c then remove the rest of the universe the particle is no longer moving? Anyway, I made a nice illustration of my experiment: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/592301/Misc/RodExperiment.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] If the poles don't move relatively, you won't get any Doppler-Effect. If they don't move relatively, you will always measure the same.
My question is if you traveled 1 year at the speed of light, you would only be one year older but, how much would everyone else age that were on earth while you were traveling at this speed? Would it be the same or would everyone be old or dead?
[QUOTE=aVoN;19304936]Movement is only relative. The two objects are in the same reference frame and there, they are at rest. First, they moved at 0.5 c (relative to e.g. our galaxy). Now, if you remove all matter from the universe but those two objects, they aren't moving to anything relatively. They are now locally at rest.[/QUOTE] I understand they are at rest relative to one another, but surely there is a difference between releasing those two objects at .5c relative to Earth then removing the rest of the galaxy, to releasing two objects at 0m/s relative to Earth then removing the rest of the galaxy, right? If these objects were moving at .99c, their mass would be far higher than when in Earth's orbit, thus if we then removed the rest of the universe, their mass would remain very high?(I don't see why not) Thus there would be a tangible difference between these two sets of objects, even if there's no other frames to measure their velocity from. [QUOTE=aVoN;19304936]You can't add velocities like that and the speed of light is - no matter who observes it - constant at the speed of light.[/QUOTE] Right, the light beam would travel at the same speed regardless of how fast the laser was moving, but because the sensor is moving with the laser, surely if they were both attached to this pole and moving very fast, in one direction the light(moving at a constant speed) would hit the sensor faster than in another direction. For there to be no Doppler shift, the light would have to carry the momentum of the laser that emitted it, but if it moves at c regardless of the emitter, then this cannot be the case? [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;19304848]This I understand, however, why is it that in a [b]rotating[/b] spacecraft you feel a pull towards the outside of the spacecraft (like in the centrifuge in [i]2001: A Space Odyssey[/i] regardless of whether the rotational speed is increasing or decreasing.[/QUOTE] Gravity to us on Earth is just an acceleration downward at a rate of around 9.8m/s^2, if a space ship accelerates at the same rate, then we can't tell the difference(you say you understand this), standing on the inside of a rotating section in a space craft is almost no different. If you get a large circle and spin it, you can measure the velocity for every point on the surface at any time frame, and this will constantly be changing for every point as it rotates. If you place an object on the inside of the circle and it comes into contact with the surface, friction will cause the object's velocity to move toward that of the surface its in contact with. But as this velocity keeps changing, the object keeps feeling acceleration, this change in velocity points away from the centre of rotation, thus if it spins at the right speed, you'll feel the same as on Earth, almost. However, you can bet that if the rotation sped up or slowed down you'd notice. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;19304848]Why is it that you can not be sure that a) You are stationary in space [b]or[/b] moving at a constant velocity through space. b) You are stationary on a planet [b]or[/b] accelerating through space. [/quote] a) Because with regard to moving, we only feel acceleration, if you're moving at 10m/s or 10km/s through space, as long as you're not accelerating, you won't feel any different. b) As mentioned above, being on a planet like Earth means you're falling toward the surface all the time, to you, there's no difference between this and some object falling into you at the same rate. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;19304848]But you [b]can[/b] be sure that you are [b]rotating[/b]. Why is it that movement is relative but rotation isn't?[/QUOTE] Rotation is relative too, in fact rotation is just objects moving in relation to each other, in the case of us, we can easily tell the difference between movement and rotation because with movement at a constant speed you're not accelerating. With rotation, your whole body is accelerating, and the rate of this is proportional to the distance any rotating point is from the centre of rotation.
So it's basically that you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you can tell when you change direction? (Rotating)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;19306481]So it's basically that you can't tell if you're moving or not, but you can tell when you change direction? (Rotating)[/QUOTE] Right, because rotating is changing direction, except all of you changes direction differently all the time.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19307294]Right, because rotating is changing direction, except all of you changes direction differently all the time.[/QUOTE] Oh, I thought it was more complicated that that. Thanks! :buddy:
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19305418]I understand they are at rest relative to one another, but surely there is a difference between releasing those two objects at .5c relative to Earth then removing the rest of the galaxy, to releasing two objects at 0m/s relative to Earth then removing the rest of the galaxy, right?[/quote] Not really. Just the start-conditions are different. But since later there is nothing else you can reference their speed to it makes not difference. A velocity is always a relative measurement. My speed on earth in my chair is 0 m/s. But relatively to our solar-system I'm moving with hundred miles and hour. But if you now remove the solar-system (and everything else) but earth, what remains? 0 m/s. [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19305418]If these objects were moving at .99c, their mass would be far higher than when in Earth's orbit, thus if we then removed the rest of the universe, their mass would remain very high?(I don't see why not)[/quote] "Relativistic mass", which you are referring too is nothing real. I explained it many times in this forums before. Their mass will not increase a tiny bit. Even if, their mass would be stay unchanged in their local frame of reference. The formula for the relativistic momentum is [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?p= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - (v/c)^2}} m v[/img]. At the beginning, people associated the fraction (the Lorentz-Boost-Factor) to the mass calling it m' which pretends the mass to increase with the velocity v. They called it "the relativistic mass". But doing so does not fullfill Newtonian Laws (Force is the time-derivative of the momentum) if you just simply insert m'. In fact, that boost-factor has to be associated with the velocity. There are even situations, when taking the "relativistic mass" for real, where the "relativisitic mass" behaves totally different in longitudinal direction (Direction the particle moves on) and transversal direction (surface which is orthogonal to the path of the particle). If you read up Einsteins proposal to "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper" (Special Relativity) he uses the concept of "longitudinal mass" and "transversal mass". Later, physicists made clear, only the restmass is important and all other factors belong to the mapping-rules of the transformation from one frame of reference to another. [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19305418]Right, the light beam would travel at the same speed regardless of how fast the laser was moving, but because the sensor is moving with the laser, surely if they were both attached to this pole and moving very fast, in one direction the light(moving at a constant speed) would hit the sensor faster than in another direction.[/quote] Not a tiny bit. The speed of light is constant no matter from which frame of reference you measure it. You can move at 99.999999999% the speed of light and someone behind you fires a laser at you. When the beam starts passing you, you see it passing at exact the speed of light. Same does the person who has fired it sees it. In your case, it makes no difference, if your device moves (relative to earth which later is removed among all other stuff in the universe). The pole and the laser move synchronously. So they are at the same frame of reference. Doing this experiment then is 100% equivalent to do it e.g. on earth at rest, because the laser and the other pole are in rest in their local frame of reference. So there is no dopplershit at all. [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19305418]Gravity to us on Earth is just an acceleration downward at a rate of around 9.8m/s^2, if a space ship accelerates at the same rate, then we can't tell the difference(you say you understand this), standing on the inside of a rotating section in a space craft is almost no different. If you get a large circle and spin it, you can measure the velocity for every point on the surface at any time frame, and this will constantly be changing for every point as it rotates. If you place an object on the inside of the circle and it comes into contact with the surface, friction will cause the object's velocity to move toward that of the surface its in contact with. But as this velocity keeps changing, the object keeps feeling acceleration, this change in velocity points away from the centre of rotation, thus if it spins at the right speed, you'll feel the same as on Earth, almost. However, you can bet that if the rotation sped up or slowed down you'd notice. a) Because with regard to moving, we only feel acceleration, if you're moving at 10m/s or 10km/s through space, as long as you're not accelerating, you won't feel any different. b) As mentioned above, being on a planet like Earth means you're falling toward the surface all the time, to you, there's no difference between this and some object falling into you at the same rate. Rotation is relative too, in fact rotation is just objects moving in relation to each other, in the case of us, we can easily tell the difference between movement and rotation because with movement at a constant speed you're not accelerating. With rotation, your whole body is accelerating, and the rate of this is proportional to the distance any rotating point is from the centre of rotation.[/QUOTE] Centripetal force is a pseudo force. It can't really be compared to real forces. It only comes from inertia. But it makes no difference if your rotating device moves at 0.5 c relative to the Milkyway and then gets removed or if it is at 0 c and then gets removed. The physics is the same and you can't tell a difference between movement and non-movement if you are [b]in[/b] that frame-of-reference (which you are: You are "the sensor").
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu8456pVSLI[/media]
[QUOTE=OLLIE!;19235001]As you go faster and faster, time appears to slow down. If you could go 99.99999% of the speed of light, you would hardly age at all in 100 years. According to our current understanding of physics (and this is subject to change) you can never move at the speed of light, although with enough power you could approach it very nearly. The faster you go, the more time slows down.[/QUOTE] Where exactly do you get this information from? Judging from the amount of agree's you've received you're probably right. But from what I know, this is bullshit. Time would only [b]appear[/b] to go slower if our brain could process information faster than it currently can. If we traveled by the speed of light would everything not just happen so fast that we would not notice it? For example you don't see how the lightbeam spreads from the lightbulb in the flashlight when you turn it on, it happens far to fast for us to notice it. Because we can only see/process 25 FPS. Oh and why should things decay slower, just because we are faster?
[QUOTE=Rich209;19305351]My question is if you traveled 1 year at the speed of light, you would only be one year older but, how much would everyone else age that were on earth while you were traveling at this speed? Would it be the same or would everyone be old or dead?[/QUOTE] They would all be 1 year older... To see an object or anything the light has to be reflected and come to your eyes and basically everything visually is done by light... This light is moving at the speed of light (duh) so when you move at the speed of light the light coming to your eyes from other sources is trying to catch up to you but is moving at the same speed. Imagine going down the highway in your car going 70 miles an hour... or kilometers an hour whichever way you like. If the car behind you is going the same speed it never catches up and it is always behind you... So the car behind you is always the same car in the same spot all the time. Now take that concept into speed of light situation, it would APPEAR that everything around you is staying the same because it is the same light that was there when you first started moving at the speed of light because no other light can catch up to you. The reason it is thought that time stops is because Einstein imagined a clock behind him when going the speed of light... The image of the second hand moving would never reach him because he was traveling as fast as the light coming towards him. Actual time doesn't stop, it is just an illusion. So if you traveled 1 year going the speed of light, you would be a year older and so would everyone else. Also the quote above from OLLIE! is wrong... You would age 100 years if it was 100 years later... Time doesn't ACTUALLY stop or slow.
[QUOTE=Darkcoder;19303979]I think I worded my post quite badly, I'm not talking about finding the velocity of an object relative to another, but to find the velocity of an object relative to itself(if that makes any sense), here's a better example: [B]Say you have 2 objects in space and launch them side by side at .5c, then you remove everything in the universe except for these two items. They will still be moving at .5c, despite having 0 velocity difference between them, right? If you then replaced those two objects with my little pole and laser example(still moving at .5c), if the pole faces one direction the laser will hit the sensor in half the time it takes for it to hit when facing the other direction. Thus it would be possible to determine the velocity of the pole through space without having to compare it to another reference frame, right? You could say the reference frame that is this pole, is moving at 100m/s through space. It would also allow you to bring an object to a standstill.[/B] [edit] altered my post about 50 times and didn't check for new posts. Indeed, however I'm talking about macro objects so quantum effects should be largely irrelevant? I was under the impression it was merely expanding, which is different from moving, i.e. if you were to get two points in space that are stationary relative to each other, they will gradually move apart(ignoring gravity), despite them still retaining no speed them. No doubt(well, same speed, the direction would change if you changed its direction :p), if this wasn't the case then my experiment wouldn't work at all.[/QUOTE] No, it would not work. It doesn't matter about anything, Have AvoN explain it. Light is special. Velocity doesn't matter to it, because when those objects move, some various shit happens and light appears to reach them at the same time because it can and doesn't give a fuck. And the uncertainty principle matters because it applies to space and the vacuum itself. [editline]11:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19303979] No doubt(well, same speed, the direction would change if you changed its direction :p), if this wasn't the case then my experiment wouldn't work at all.[/QUOTE] I meant that no matter what direction it faced, it reached the point at the same time. Ergo, speed and direction had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on it. [editline]11:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19304446]Yes, so it's relative to those objects, are you saying if you fire a particle away from Earth at .5c then remove the rest of the universe the particle is no longer moving? Anyway, I made a nice illustration of my experiment: [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/592301/Misc/RodExperiment.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This assumes that light has mass. It doesn't. The expiriment would not work, because it just fucking won't. If you are already going fast, then time slows down for you. So if you shoot light out of your ship, BECAUSE you are moving SLOWER, the light appears to be moving at the speed of light. The same effect applies to space, so no matter what, you could not measure changes in wavelength and your expiriment would not work. [editline]11:07PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19304845]It would be different though, its mass would be higher if it were moving faster. Unless you mean to say such a scenario is impossible and irrelevant, because if there's nothing to observe it then the state of the particle is irrelevant, but that's something rather different as this is purely a hypothetical situation where we can magically observe the results.[/QUOTE] It would not have higher mass, because nothing else in the universe would have lower mass to compare it to. [editline]11:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=aVoN;19304936]Wrong. As faster you move relative to someone else, he sees you slowed down while you see your own time normal. [/QUOTE] But it would not matter because if time slowed down for you, you would still see it the same. Its not like your own brain would remain the same! It does not matter if everything else in the universe sped up, or you slowed down. It has the same [I]outcome.[/I] [editline]11:14PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Rich209;19305351]My question is if you traveled 1 year at the speed of light, you would only be one year older but, how much would everyone else age that were on earth while you were traveling at this speed? Would it be the same or would everyone be old or dead?[/QUOTE] The universe would be infinitely older. Doesn't matter how you interpret it, if it WERE possible to go the speed of light, you would be in a sort of stasis or something I don't know. I am 14 and self taught in this shit I don't have your fancy college shit leave me alone :kratos: [editline]11:15PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Darkcoder;19305418]I understand they are at rest relative to one another, but surely there is a difference between releasing those two objects at .5c relative to Earth then removing the rest of the galaxy, to releasing two objects at 0m/s relative to Earth then removing the rest of the galaxy, right? [/QUOTE] Nope. No difference at all. [editline]11:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=aVoN;19310394] Not a tiny bit. The speed of light is constant no matter from which frame of reference you measure it. You can move at 99.999999999% the speed of light and someone behind you fires a laser at you. When the beam starts passing you, you see it passing at exact the speed of light. Same does the person who has fired it sees it.[/QUOTE] This is because relative to the rest of the universe, you are slower, right? [editline]11:23PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lucario;19310487][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu8456pVSLI[/media][/QUOTE] Why didn't he starve to death [editline]11:24PM[/editline] [quote=psych0;19311884]oh and why should things decay slower, just because we are faster?[/quote] because they don't decay slower. Time is slower. Everything there is slower. Not just the decaying thing [editline]11:26PM[/editline] Yes, but wouldn't that light either get absorbed or freeze in your eyeball? (TO SQUAD)
Not a lot of people get relativity.
No, they don't.
[QUOTE=Whiterfire;19315942]If you are already going fast, then time slows down for you. So if you shoot light out of your ship, BECAUSE you are moving SLOWER, the light appears to be moving at the speed of light.[/quote] Right, I totally forgot about time dilation. I think I see where I went wrong, thanks a lot aVoN :).
Well theoretically if you let the baby on the traveling vessel for what IT perceives as one year then it will be physiologically 1 year old but if it came back to earth it would be many years into the future.
Physics :psyboom:
Time does not exist physically. Prove me wrong.
[QUOTE=jalit;19317420]Time does not exist physically. Prove me wrong.[/QUOTE] If you mean physically in the sense that it does not exist as matter, then yeah. Neither does velocity, direction, distance, gravity, intelligence. These are units, used to measure things that exist. They, themselves, do not exist.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;19317158]Well theoretically if you let the baby on the traveling vessel for what IT perceives as one year then it will be physiologically 1 year old but if it came back to earth it would be many years into the future.[/QUOTE] The only reason why it would be MANY years into the future is because if it went away from Earth for 1 year, then it would take 1 more year to get back so the baby would come back as a 2 year old... I don't think people understand that TIME DOESN'T ACTUALLY SLOW DOWN!!! IT ONLY APPEARS TO SLOW DOWN.
You seem to be using Star Trek physics. Let me clear some stuff up: You do not age any faster or slower. Instead, time is relatively faster or slower. You, however, do not notice anything, except that when you get back from your trip, thousands of years have passed. See "A Brief History of Time" for a nice, friendly explanation. To be completely precise, at the speed of light your time-rate ratio, ie. how fast time flows for "Earth" versus you, reaches 1/0. This is because particles with mass cannot travel at lightspeed, as it requires literally an infinite amount of energy to accelerate that last fraction. Thus, at lightspeed, you do not age. You also do not experience anything, so it's completely useless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.