14 Jun 08
Originally posted by MattPRight, so does time really get changed, or the material we look at
As has already been said, time dilation, lorentze contraction and other relativistic effects have been observed and measured many times. They are used every day in particle accelerators to accuratly steer particle beams. They are even used in cathode ray TVs to steer the electrons.
Another example include cosmic radiation which penetrates the atmosphere ...[text shortened]... ou do not know much about the subject and are ignorent of (or choose to ignore) the evidence.
which does not mean TIME has changed at all?
Kelly
14 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy? Because the clocks in the same gravity will measure time at the same pace. At a different gravity they measure at a different pace.
Why? They showed different times and the reason is because time
slowed or something acted upon one or bot of the the clocks?
Kelly
Do you have a suggestion as to what "acted" on one or both of the clocks? Do you have anything that will actually invalidate the experiment or is this just speculation that it "could have happened"?
14 Jun 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOh please, where were they, what was being done to them during this
Why? Because the clocks in the same gravity will measure time at the same pace. At a different gravity they measure at a different pace.
Do you have a suggestion as to what "acted" on one or both of the clocks? Do you have anything that will actually invalidate the experiment or is this just speculation that it "could have happened"?
experiement? You KNOW that time itself changes and not maybe
somehing that effects the clocks, something else maybe? That is my
question to you, just by looking at them you know what really
happened, and what didn't?
Kelly
14 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou think the clocks were just left in an open room so anyone could go in?
Oh please, where were they, what was being done to them during this
experiement? You KNOW that time itself changes and not maybe
somehing that effects the clocks, something else maybe? That is my
question to you, just by looking at them you know what really
happened, and what didn't?
Kelly
You have NO argument other than "someone could have tampered with it" - that is all you have?
I admit, I did not do the experiment so I don't have every detail of it. You however are grasping at straws to try and suggest that a controlled experiment somehow should be ignored or somehow does not actually provide evidence of what it does because of your speculation that some other mysterious factor could have changed the clocks. Are you suggesting that those that created the experiment fudged the clocks?
The effect of time dilation due to gravity has been confirmed in other ways too - such as the fact that we use that to make sure the GPS satellites work properly. Either time dilation due to gravity works the way we predict or something is somehow tampering with those clocks EXACTLY the way the theory predicts.
Can you come up with something other than "it could have been tampered with"?
If there is another factor that is somehow changing the clocks in this way then many would be very interested in finding out what that is. The thing is, the fact that the clocks do change based on their exposure to gravity does fit the theory at hand and so it evidence that the theory is correct.
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnNo, did not say that either did I?
You think the clocks were just left in an open room so anyone could go in?
You have NO argument other than "someone could have tampered with it" - that is all you have?
I admit, I did not do the experiment so I don't have every detail of it. You however are grasping at straws to try and suggest that a controlled experiment somehow should be ignored ...[text shortened]... osure to gravity does fit the theory at hand and so it evidence that the theory is correct.
I'm saying they were put under what we could call a stress and there
was a reaction, now was that reaction due to time changing or some
thing else that actually altered the clock and left time alone?
Kelly
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf they found that something else altered the clock, then I'm sure they would have reported it.
No, did not say that either did I?
I'm saying they were put under what we could call a stress and there
was a reaction, now was that reaction due to time changing or some
thing else that actually altered the clock and left time alone?
Kelly
I'm wondering what you are suggesting might have altered the clocks. Are you suggesting there might be another force we haven't discovered yet?
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm suggesting that affecting a clock may be easier than affecting
If they found that something else altered the clock, then I'm sure they would have reported it.
I'm wondering what you are suggesting might have altered the clocks. Are you suggesting there might be another force we haven't discovered yet?
time, depending on what time is. If you say time is how it is
perceived than even if the clock was altered, you could say time was
affected because the clock was, but that would be stretching things a
bit for even this place.
Kelly
15 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThe time on the clocks flows at different rates depending on the relative velocity of the two clocks.
Right, so does time really get changed, or the material we look at
which does not mean TIME has changed at all?
Kelly
We are moving at the same speed as the stationary clock, as it is stationary relative to us. Therefore this clock shows the same time we experience.
The moving clock experiences time at a slower rate due to it's relative motion.
The rate it experiences time (relative to our "stationary" time) can be calculated using Lorentze Transformations. Lorentze transforms convert between the the Space-Time Four Vectors of two different frames of referance (things moving relative to each other).
You are right to question wether it is time actually changing, infact that very question was asked at the time when the Theory of Relativity was proposed. However, there are many many examples using different conditions and different observable quantitiyes which have all supported the theory. If, as you seem to suggest, it is not time changing then the effects you imply are happening must have the same outcome as time changing to be consistent with the massive amount of evidence.
I think you need to look into this subject more as you clearly do not have an adequate level of knowledge or understanding.
Your repeated (and ridiculas) cries of "I choose to interpret the evidience differently", "is it a 'fact'?", and "I am only leaving the word 'Theory' in place" are like a small child.
You are illustrating the point I made in my previous link, by ignoring contradictory evidence
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJayFirst, general relativity doesn't say that clocks are just affected by gravity in this way, it says that time is affected by gravity.
I'm suggesting that affecting a clock may be easier than affecting
time, depending on what time is. If you say time is how it is
perceived than even if the clock was altered, you could say time was
affected because the clock was, but that would be stretching things a
bit for even this place.
Kelly
Unless somehow gravity affects clocks in the same way that Einstein predicted that time would be affected in exactly the same amount.. hmmm...
I'm wondering if they had multiple clocks in the experiment and if all clocks be affected in the same way - even if they had different mechanisms?
Do you think that scientists haven't thought of this?
18 Jun 08
13 edits
Originally posted by salhyeWhere did you get those numbers? The actual # of seconds differant at 99.9% of C is for each second at that velocity, 31.6 seconds goes by on earth. That velocity is about 300 km/second slower than C.
einsteins theory says if u travel at 99.9% the speed of light 4 every second goes past 4 u 19.2 hrs pass on earth
the closer u get to the speed of light the more the ratio between time for u and time for earth
Even at 0.9999999C, for each second of flight at that velocity, 31600 seconds goes by on earth, or 1 second = 8.7 hours of earth time.
If you go 31,600 LY away from earth and come back, 2 years goes by on the ship but 63,200 years goes by on earth. (At 0.9999999C) Also at that velocity, suppose your spaceship was HUGE, 31,600 Cm long (about 2 miles long) your ship has squashed down to a one Cm thick pancake! If you are 2 meters high (6 foot 7), 200 Cm, when you are going at that velocity you would be about 0.06 millimeters high, about the thickness of a human hair! Of course you see yourself as 2 meters high.
That is about 100 Kilometers per HOUR slower than the speed of light.
Still, at 0.999C, at a ratio of 30:1 or so, you could go out 30 ly and come back and only 2 years pass on the ship but when you get back home, 60 years have passed on Earth. So you leave at the age of 30 in the year 2200, and have an identical twin, you go out 30 ly and come right back, for you it's the year 2202 but when you get back home you find out it's the year 2260 and your brother is now 90 years old. And on that journey, suppose you are 2 meters high on earth, 6 foot 7, you would be about 63 millimeters tall, or about 2.5 inches tall!
18 Jun 08
2 edits
At 99.9% of the speed of light (0.999C), If you were going at that velocity say, passing earth on your way to Alpha Centauri, 4.3 light years away, and did not slow down but passed AC at 0.999 C, it would take about 50 days to pass by AC from the POV of your own shipboard clocks. Does anyone know how to calculate how far you would travel after one year of accel at one G (32 (F/S)^2)?
For non-relativistic velocities, the formula is just d=A*(T^2). However the numbers say after one year at that accel rate you would have covered over one light year which, taking relativity into account, would be wrong. Anyone know how to calculate relativistic accel, how far you would go for real at one G for one year?
I am trying to figure out how long it would take (shipboard time) to get to Alpha Centauri, 4.3 LY away, by starting off at earth with zero relative velocity and accelerating at one G, 9.8 M/S ^2 or 32 feet per second squared, then halfway there decel at one G so you arrive at AC with zero relative velocity. How can you calculate that in a relativistic framework?
27 Jun 08
Originally posted by MattPAgain, is it time or the clocks that are being changed?
The time on the clocks flows at different rates depending on the relative velocity of the two clocks.
We are moving at the same speed as the stationary clock, as it is stationary relative to us. Therefore this clock shows the same time we experience.
The moving clock experiences time at a slower rate due to it's relative motion.
The rate it experienc ...[text shortened]... ing the point I made in my previous link, by [b]ignoring contradictory evidence[/b]
KJ
28 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is time.
Again, is it time or the clocks that are being changed?
KJ
There have been lots of measurements of this, using several different methods for measuring time. For example (here are just two - there are many, many observable tests but lots of them test relativity in different ways (such as space-time distortion) that you will not understand):
1) use two atomic clocks, move one relative to us and leave the other one along. Compare the time that has elapsed on both clocks to see if there is a difference.
2) measure the distance traveled by particles with short decay times. High speed cosmic particles travel much further distances before they decay because, for them, time is running slower.
So multiple methods have been used to ensure that the only possible variable is time.
You keep ignoring my requests give an account of your understanding of all this. I asked you a while ago to give a brief account of relativity and in a different thread I asked you to explain what you understand about radiactive dating methods. Can you please respond, I would genuinly like to know what you think they are and how you think they work. I am also interesting to know what errors you seem to find in them - or at least what specific aspects of them you think need improvement and why. Thank you.
Edit: I would also like to point out that you are right to question the findings of experiment - especially when the findings have such huge implications. It is possible that the indervidual testing method effects the results in some unknown way. However, this has been ruled out in this case as the effects due to the testing method (i.e: "something about the clocks" ) cannot be responsible because all methods give consistant results whatever is being measured and however it is being measured.