• How faster do you age when going at the speed of light?
    206 replies, posted
[QUOTE=psych0;19311884]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] For the last fucking time time dilation has been scientifically [I]proven[/I] [QUOTE=psych0;19311884]Oh and why should things decay slower, just because we are faster?[/QUOTE] Because the speed of light is constant, when you go very fast you can't change the speed of light so instead time is changed.
[QUOTE=FacepunchDollar;19235257]It's just a theory. Is there any actual evidence of god? No but people still believe it :downs:[/QUOTE] I don't know why you're being rated dumb. Probably just because this is Facepunch.
[QUOTE=J0E_SpRaY;19318797]I don't know why you're being rated dumb. Probably just because this is Facepunch.[/QUOTE] He inferred there was no empirical evidence for it(by comparing it to god), which isn't the case, he also used the old 'it's just a theory', which in this context shows an amazing amount of ignorance as the scientific definition of theory is incredibly different from the colloquial usage.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero[/url] Read book online learn about how near light speed travel works ????? learn fisics
[QUOTE=Whiterfire;19291796]:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: How do you think particle accelerators accelerate atomic nuclei to 99.999% the speed of light? We obviously wouldn't use chemicals to do it. A chemical rocket is limited to the speed of the expanding gasses.[/QUOTE] :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: That's not the point, do you plan on accelerating the particles of an entire person? Yeah? Really?
[QUOTE=Whiterfire;19315942][quote=aVoN]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][/quote] Time dilatation only works for relatively moving and different frames of references. You eigentime will not change a tiny bit. It is only differently observed from someone not in your frame of reference. That is why it's called Relativity. [QUOTE=Whiterfire;19315942] [quote=aVoN]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?[/quote] This is a consequence (and not to the "rest of the universe" but to someone else who is not moving to you). The reason is because physics have to work the same, no matter which frame of reference you are in. If you move to someone with 99% c and he shoots a laser on you, you will see the light passing you at c and not at 199% c - otherwise your physics would not run the same as in other frames of references (because it would be 199% c for you and only 100% c for the other guy - which is not logical).
eh, i see your point. And because they person behind you is also observed as slower relative to the universe, but not to you, the laser they fire appears to be going the speed of light, and because the speed of light must be the same, regardless of referance point, the rest of the universe, (I guess including the light) observes you as slower.
For any further questions on time kids, look at the damn clock :argh:
This thread: :psyboom:
Here's a thought. If you were traveling at 2 miles per hour under the speed of light and you turned on a flashlight in the direction you were traveling, you'd see the light slowly traveling in front of you and in a hour it'd be 2 miles in front of you. If I'm wrong about this please correct me and tell me why I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Pepin;19343018]Here's a thought. If you were traveling at 2 miles per hour under the speed of light and you turned on a flashlight in the direction you were traveling, you'd see the light slowly traveling in front of you and in a hour it'd be 2 miles in front of you. If I'm wrong about this please correct me and tell me why I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] You see the light of your flashlight travelling at [b]exact[/b] the speed of light, same as an outer not moving oberserver sees it.
[QUOTE=aVoN;19349528]You see the light of your flashlight travelling at [b]exact[/b] the speed of light, same as an outer not moving oberserver sees it.[/QUOTE] What if you were to travel 2mph under lightspeed [B]alongside[/B] a light beam projected off a still lightsource.
[QUOTE=aVoN;19349528]You see the light of your flashlight travelling at [b]exact[/b] the speed of light, same as an outer not moving oberserver sees it.[/QUOTE] Yes, and I was using that principle in my analogy. Would what I say be theoretically correct?
[QUOTE=Pepin;19351776]Yes, and I was using that principle in my analogy. Would what I say be theoretically correct?[/QUOTE] No, what aVoN means is that the light will past by you as it would if you didn't travel at the speed of time. It wouldn't appear to be slower, it would act the same and look the exact same as if you where only traveling at 5 mph.
[QUOTE=Pepin;19351776]Yes, and I was using that principle in my analogy. Would what I say be theoretically correct?[/QUOTE] Read the crap I was posting, it's basically the same thing and aVoN answered it pretty well. Basically the speed at which you move with the flashlight/torch is irrelevant, if you move to .99c, you're dilating time so much that to you, the beam will move at 300million m/s or whatever. Yet, to an outside observer they will appear move at almost the same speed because (assuming they're moving away from you at much the same speed) time for you isn't as dilated. The bit I was confused about was that I totally forgot about time dilation; let's say you use Earth as your reference point: You have a spaceship that can travel to .99c, you do this, so relative to Earth you're moving away from it at this speed. If you then drop a ball or something outside of the spaceship, the ball is now moving at .99c, just as you are. If you then remove the rest of the universe, you have nothing to compare your speeds to, so you're effectively not moving. You can then accelerate away from the ball and reach .99c, so to you, the ball will have no velocity, and you'll be moving at .99c. If you then bring the rest of the universe back, Earth will see the ball moving at .99c, and your spaceship will appear to be moving at .991c or something. Time dilation is the key here, you can always keep accelerating, but time will pass slower and slower for you to an outside observer, but if you remove the outside observers, any object you release will share your dilation, which relative to you is nothing, so yea, interesting stuff.(correct me if I got that totally wrong)
[QUOTE=blah2;19351163]What if you were to travel 2mph under lightspeed [B]alongside[/B] a light beam projected off a still lightsource.[/QUOTE] You see it at [b]exact[/b] the speed of light. Like said about 6 times now in this thread: Physics, no matter how you move relative to someone else has to work the same. The consequence is, that everyone, no matter how they move to someone else relatively, see the speed of light at the same speed. No matter where that light comes from. One consequence of that once more is that time passes differently [U]compared[/U] to another frame of reference (your measure YOUR time at the exact same "speed" as someone else measures HIS time. But between both systems, both times are not equal. That's [U]Relativity[/U]. You need another frame of reference to tell what their time is compared to your own).
This is without a doubt one of the stupidest questions asked by anyone, ever. Ok, unfair. You age [i]slower[/i] relative to slower objects. So you going at speed c, world going at speed <c, you will age more slowly than the world going at <c. This is most extreme at the speed of c, which is not achievable by objects with mass, which is part of the reason light is able to self propagate without needing a medium. That is that it travels at c, not the mass bit. So you baby would come out still about a year old, and it would have seemed to the baby that he or she had only been traveling a fairly short amount of time. Also, putting children in particle accelerators is immoral and dangerous. [editline]06:11PM[/editline] [QUOTE=aVoN;19362902]You see it at [b]exact[/b] the speed of light. Like said about 6 times now in this thread: Physics, no matter how you move relative to someone else has to work the same. The consequence is, that everyone, no matter how they move to someone else relatively, see the speed of light at the same speed. No matter where that light comes from. One consequence of that once more is that time passes differently [U]compared[/U] to another frame of reference (your measure YOUR time at the exact same "speed" as someone else measures HIS time. But between both systems, both times are not equal. That's [U]Relativity[/U]. You need another frame of reference to tell what their time is compared to your own).[/QUOTE] Also, if you ever wondered what happens when you faster than light, examine that the speed of light is not constant. c is only the speed of light in vacuo, in water, It's around 0.75c, where a particle can go faster than this, causing a kind of light shockwave, hitting the back of your own radiation, called cherenkov radiation.
[QUOTE=aVoN;19362902]You see it at [b]exact[/b] the speed of light. Like said about 6 times now in this thread: Physics, no matter how you move relative to someone else has to work the same. The consequence is, that everyone, no matter how they move to someone else relatively, see the speed of light at the same speed. No matter where that light comes from. One consequence of that once more is that time passes differently [U]compared[/U] to another frame of reference (your measure YOUR time at the exact same "speed" as someone else measures HIS time. But between both systems, both times are not equal. That's [U]Relativity[/U]. You need another frame of reference to tell what their time is compared to your own).[/QUOTE] And because going the speed of light means that the light beam along side of your ship would never pass you. This would cause the physics law to be broken, and the light beam would not move at the speed of light relative to you, because you are moving at the same speed. Therefore, you cannot go lightspeed. [editline]05:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Jimjim32;19379191]This is without a doubt one of the stupidest questions asked by anyone, ever. Ok, unfair. You age [i]slower[/i] relative to slower objects. So you going at speed c, world going at speed <c, you will age more slowly than the world going at <c. This is most extreme at the speed of c, which is not achievable by objects with mass, which is part of the reason light is able to self propagate without needing a medium. That is that it travels at c, not the mass bit. So you baby would come out still about a year old, and it would have seemed to the baby that he or she had only been traveling a fairly short amount of time. Also, putting children in [B]particle accelerators is immoral and dangerous.[/B] [editline]06:11PM[/editline] Also, if you ever wondered what happens when you faster than light, examine that the speed of light is not constant. c is only the speed of light in vacuo, in water, It's around 0.75c, where a particle can go faster than this, causing a kind of light shockwave, hitting the back of your own radiation, called cherenkov radiation.[/QUOTE] :cawg:
You would age as normal whilst traveling at 99.9999% the speed of light, or at any speed, but what matters is what others perceive you as on earth. You could travel round the world constantly so you go through different time zones so as time passes it actually stays the same time where you are (Confusing I know). If you traveled from London to New York which is 5 hours behind then you would be 5 hours younger (presuming you traveled there instantly) yet you still remain the same age as you were in London.
[QUOTE=booster;19234968]How faster would you age when traveling at 99% of the speed of light? I know that it would be pretty much impossible to make something carrying a human to go this fast but what if. For example, If you put a baby in this and let it go for about 1 year. Would this mean that the baby had the body of a 10 year old, but the mind of an infant?[/QUOTE] I am not sure if I can quantify the answer. I don't know anything about it. Who told you that? Can you think of another example? No it would not.
Apparently senior airline pilots are actually 1 minute younger than they should be when they retire.. Fun Fact XD
[QUOTE=Speedfalcon;19389061]Apparently senior airline pilots are actually 1 minute younger than they should be when they retire.. Fun Fact XD[/QUOTE] Fractions of a second. Not a minute. Assuming, they fly for a total of 20 years (time measured in their frame of reference) at 400 km/h to someone at rest, they only gain an additional 0.0100534 seconds.
[QUOTE=Master117;19235101]However when you come back to report your discoveries, everyone you know would be dead. Time only slows for you, not the observer.[/QUOTE] Yeah I read that if you were to travel at almost the speed of light then come back, the sun wouldve gone supernova like 1,000,000 years ago.
Harness the power of tachyons and use them as energy then do what ever the fuck you damn well please :science:
I've always wondered of this... Cause speed is always relative to what you call stationary. A car moves 80 mph when you compare it with the earth, but when two cars approaching each other 80 mph, you could say the other car is moving at 160 mph when you compare it with the 2nd car. So lets say we had a stable point to compare with, and one galaxy is moving at 0.7x times the speed of light towards the point. Meanwhile an other galaxy is moving at the same speed from the opposite direction. So when we compare the two galaxies together, theyre approaching at 1.4 times the speed of light. huh? E: I think I got it. The speed of light just means that a particle cannot move past a photon thats moving at the same direction as the particle is.
Edit: Fuck it. I don't think I'm [I]meant[/I] to understand.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;19235070]If we ever discover how to go that fast. I heard somewhere that to accelerate one molecule of fuel to around the speed of light, it would require all of the molecules of fuel in the universe.[/QUOTE] To reach the speed of light, the amount of energy you would need is basically Infinity, so yeah.
[QUOTE=Maucer;19434808]I've always wondered of this... Cause speed is always relative to what you call stationary. A car moves 80 mph when you compare it with the earth, but when two cars approaching each other 80 mph, you could say the other car is moving at 160 mph when you compare it with the 2nd car. So lets say we had a stable point to compare with, and one galaxy is moving at 0.7x times the speed of light towards the point. Meanwhile an other galaxy is moving at the same speed from the opposite direction. So when we compare the two galaxies together, theyre approaching at 1.4 times the speed of light. huh?[/QUOTE] Not quite, I read this page a few days ago and it explains it pretty well: [url]http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Maucer;19434808]I've always wondered of this... Cause speed is always relative to what you call stationary. A car moves 80 mph when you compare it with the earth, but when two cars approaching each other 80 mph, you could say the other car is moving at 160 mph when you compare it with the 2nd car. So lets say we had a stable point to compare with, and one galaxy is moving at 0.7x times the speed of light towards the point. Meanwhile an other galaxy is moving at the same speed from the opposite direction. So when we compare the two galaxies together, theyre approaching at 1.4 times the speed of light. huh?[/QUOTE] You can't add velocities like that. The real formulat for relativistic velocity addition can be found [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula]here[/url]. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/0/3/2035aab1ba5af2e1ff296512b6a57779.png[/img] s is the resutling speed and u,v are the speed of one of the two galaxies. c is the speed of light. Only for slow velocities u and v the second term in the denominator rises against zero, so the Galielean velocityaddition s = u + v becomes valid. Example: Assuming your two galaxies move 100 km/h to one "center point" instead 0f 0.7 c like in your example. The denominator becomes 1.0000000926567 which is pretty much 1.
But if you have two galaxies moving at 0.8c then the denominator is 1.64c so you end up with a value of slightly less than c and HOLY SHIT!!! [editline]11:09PM[/editline] But at CERN they said that the particles in the LHC were going at nearly twice the speed of light :(
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.