but the earth is spinning and revolving the sun, in a galaxy that's moving, in a universe that's expanding. so isn't earth moving, in relative to something, near the speed of light?
so from our stand point is our time 'slower' when compared to some stationary planet in the "center" of the universe? assuming that planet at the center can be used as a constant for time
In 3+1, let inertial frame O` move with 3-velocity ξ = vÛ relative to inertial frame O. Where `Û` is a unit 3-vector in the direction of ξ, and `v` is the Euclidean norm of ξ (viz., v≡||ξ||).
The ending of the above clip is just saying that as far as SR is concerned, it is EQUIVALENT to view the above situation alternatively as O moving with 3-velocity ζ = -ξ relative to inertial frame O`. Since, ||ζ||=||-ξ||=||ξ||.
The point about using light is that its speed is fixed and independent of the motion of its source, and given that the distance between the upper & lower mirrors of the `clock` is also fixed, a reproduceable unit of time is defined.
The light will always move with speed `c` whether or not its source is moving. Such is not the case for the bouncing ball (in vacuum). The internal energy (and geometrical configuration) of the ball would change on each impact affecting its speed (decreasing). Moreover, according to m=m₀/√(1-v²/c²), the mass of the moving ball will be larger than its twin at rest, also affecting the speed. Using the ball, how could one define a unit of time ?
I don't understand the last part. Light moves at a constant rate so the moving clock has time going slower. I get that. So why does he perceive the stationary clock as moving slower? Shouldn't he perceive the stationary clock as moving faster.
Also, Light has to travel at an angle thus lengthening its distance. But what if the regular event is a bouncing ball? Its momentum would make it move faster than the stationary clock and they will cancel out to record the clocks moving at the same speed.
@ScotchTapeWorm He sees the stationary clock as moving slower too cause relative to him the stationary clock is moving If you had two clocks moving and one stationary then two moving clocks would have the same times relative to eachother but they both perceive the stationary one as moving slower in time because relative to them the stationary one is moving
Using a ball also wouldnt change anything because nothing makes it go faster or slower momentum just makes it keep moving from a sudden stop
@Catnipy The part where I get caught up with is, that the moving clock has its light at an angle thus taking a longer time. The stationary clocks light is vertical thus being faster. If youre in the moving clock, the light will seem like it's vertical, and the stationary clock will look like it's moving. However, light is going the same speed no matter what, so to the moving clock, the stationary one should seem faster.
@ScotchTapeWorm But the perception is relative, one looks like it's moving relative to it self and so does the other one. No matter which point of view you are at the one that appears like it's moving is always going to appear slower relative to yourself.
Uhhh, when he's using the ship analogy where does he get Six light seconds in 12 seconds? If the two beams are fired at the same time and they travel the same speed then they would get just as far in the same amount of time (if the beam isn't affected by the ships speed that is).
@monstamunch90 No, time does in fact slow down (or, dilates between `ticks`) when a material object moves with speed `v` s.t. v/c~1. Because the moving object DISTORTS spacetime.
@LeconsdAnalyse I see, so it is rather another law of physics that time actually does in fact slow down when travelling at the speed of light/near the speed of light, rather than some "illusion" from the observer's perspective. I hope I'm right this time! Thanks for helping out
@monstamunch90 The theory of SR predicts `time dilation`. It certainly is a `law`, but is not referred to as such because SR is not built upon experimental facts, but upon postulates.
@LeconsdAnalyse I see. So as of yet, we have not actually been able to experiment and see results of time dilation, however the theory of SR, with reasoning, would predict time dilation. Are there many scientists that disbelieve time dilation? Or is time dilation widely accepted among the physics/science community? Is time dilation a basis for understanding? Or a simple theory presented on the "table" of other theories?
You might start with a Google search for "muon mountain time dilation" and "time dilation airplane", each of which lead you to descriptions of important experimental results and measurements of time dilation.
@smcam3 Light travels at 186000 miles per second, the speed of light relative to everything, not only the spaceship. It 'ignores' the speed of the spaceship.
What I understand is: Light travels at the speed of light through space-time and ignores the speed of its source. It 'bends' time and space to make the speed equation equal c, the speed of light. Speed(c) = Distance/Time. 2 factors, distance and time. If Speed refers to c, then Distance and Time must change in order for c to equal c and not ac where a is greater than 0 and does not equal 1.
@smcam3 yes i was.. more in terms of shrodingers cat.. both alive and dead... yet until reality is measured or observed.. both are going on.. so whos watching both play out..or both options being on the "choosing block" for lack of a better term
Why does the second spaceship measure the beam as only traveling 6 light seconds?? The crew on the second ship know that they fired the beam at the same point as the first spaceship, so they know it has actually travelled 6 light seconds PLUS the distance they have travelled from the first spaceship, a total of 12 light seconds, and if time has dilated for them, it has travelled 12 light seconds in 6 seconds.. Twice the speed of light according to them right???
Let O represent the inertial frame of the stationary ship, and O` that of the moving ship (moving with speed `v`).
Next in 1+1, let the ships pass each other when x₁=t₁=x`₁=t`₁=0. And let the measurements be made when x₂= 12 l-s, t₂= 12 s from the point of view of O.
Time dilates because the beams move diagonally? umm...I don't buy it. Logically if time measurement is speed over distance, the only way to preserve the equation is to change one of the terms when the observer happens to also be moving. That applies if your goal is to keep all the elements of the problem understood by classical mechanics.
The primary difference between the example in the video and mine is that in my example the vertical situation remains the same as if the clock were at rest. There is no diagonal change in the flight of the photon. In the vertical space, the distance between top and bottom stays constant. Time simply slows down while the photon moves up and down, and therefore the vertical transit of the photon takes more time. A dampening field of time slowing down affects the photon.
The speed of light remains a constant on the moving clock, but the photon's transit is definitely influenced by the time slowing effect. This is akin to light flowing through water, there is an apparent slowing of speed down to 144,000 MPS, but yet light speed remains a constant. The dilation is a local dampening effect., and is real when measured.
Pockets of time density are thus formed by a moving or accelerating clock, as it begins to more closely merge with spacial branes. With Time slowing down on a local level, it takes longer for the light photons to pass through the same intervening vertical space. The dilation is due to a different source, then.
My belief is that a time localization occurs for the moving clock, as focused alignment tendencies takes over. The clock begins to merge with spacial branes. This is what slows time down.
I cant help but to think that the lights path would not be altered if it was not influenced by the clocks additional velocity. Making the the light beam move at an angle after leaving its origin would require some outside force, thus creating a speed greater than the speed of light itself. Apparently thats not possible or this vid is full of it.
@macaroni610 We are traveling through space on this planet. I notice no suggestion of speed, my relative movement is fixed. According to my position on the ground, I am not moving, even as the Earth moves in space. Why should a horizontal movement influence a fixed vertical movement, no matter how fast it is? The path of the photon is fixed vertically, moving up and down. How fast space passes through it makes no difference.
@macaroni610 The video is trying to explain time dilation, using a light clock. It does this by expanding the space through which the photon propagates.This is how time seems to slow down. They fail to realize that space itself (without being explanded in the manner suggested by the moving clock) may be what is exerting the time dilation effect. I believe it is the clocks connection with space (branes, specifically) that creates time dilation, space begins to warp.How it warps is not easy to see
As for time dilation, I believe it is entirely the consequence of accelerating mechanical, focused aligned, brane connected energy. Unfortunately, matter and most energy that we know of is focused aligned, and science knows little about the anti-aligned, gap infused ether.
Scientific explorations have mainly involved looking at focused aligned mechanical energy, and this is energy connected to a brane. The Earth is connected to branes, so this is naturally the kind of energy that is easiest to perceive, harness and examine. Branes are part of the universe at large, and we are in fact "trapped" inside them. Anti-aligned ether energy is separate, and operates on a different level of being. It exists in an erratic state, and does not inhabit a definite location.
Traveling at the speed of light would mean reaching a compressed singularity, and the notion of space would be demolished. Focusing Aligning with the brane is the key. The measurement of time is caused by entropy and separation. With additional separation comes a faster unraveling of time. Blend the ticks into one subtstance, by synchronizing with a brane, and all separation is eliminated. Time then moves at a slower rate.
@LeconsdAnalyse: When one accelerates an object, the mass will compress, tending towards singularity. If it became light, it becomes a "point" particle. Light travels infinite distance in no time, when time reaches 0 it becomes a singularity. Carl Sagan's >>>>>> video on time dilation shows how one's field of vision will contract, and that propensity would simply continue until compression down to a small point. The compression is an indication of focused alignment in action.
Once fused with the brane, the clock would exist in timelessness. It would go through space without resistance or friction. If one could travel at the speed of light, and looked back at the clock, one would see one continuous photon, in superposition, inhabiting many places at once. There would be no up or down, all would be one entity. The photon would be spread out among all possible avenues, and up and down "ticks" would cease to exist. There would be a smooth distribution of photonic energy.
I purport that the clock in the video would shrink, according to length contraction, and that the photon would take on more energy as the clock continued in its sideways movement.As it moved close to the brane surface, the clock would begin to synchronize with the brane fabric.Ticks that were once distinct would begin to blend into one another.This tendency would continue with increasing speed,until there would be only one tick that reverberated through all of time,the sound of one hand clapping
Clive Taylor and I don't agree on all aspects of his theory, but I agree with many of his ideas generally speaking. I think his basic notions of focused alignment energy and anti-alignment energy are very good, and I do subscribe to them. If one accepts the tennets, thinking about alignment theory is a good way to approach certain problems in science.
Branes are akin to a scaffold that they universe "grew upon". They help to focus align energy, providing a foundation. Through their influence, various niches of energy form over time. Dark energy is anti-alignment energy, and thus operates separately from the brane fabric.
Furthermore, I believe that brane theory will replace the theory of the higgs boson. In short, branes are responsible for mass and that is what they were actually seeking all along. Hopefully, when a critical level of people start thinking about alternate theories and new proposals, brane theory will be advanced beyond what it currently is now.
In case it wasn't clear, I believe that plummeting anti-alignment energy bounced off of the nadir of a brane, and that was what caused the universe to explode. I call it, "The Big Bounce" theory. I don't trust the scientific establishment on certain issues. If the higgs boson is not found, I hope people will be more open minded regarding alternate theories....
I highly suspect science has taken a wrong turn somewhere. I have seen phenomena that don't jive with current models. Nothing that I can prove, but for me the experience is enough, I am open minded. Why would one turn to the accepted scientific community, when clearly they are wrong and are in jeopardy? You can't solve a problem with the current thinking that created it, that's a useless gesture. I put up my ideas for discussion, I'm a musician not a scientist. Go ahead and steal my ideas.
Branes would keep the speed of light at a constant,basically by keeping it on a brane track.When light fuses with a brane, it would be very difficult to remove it from this state of being. Brane and light would meld and become a single entity, even if the light was diverted. Saying the constant speed of light is merely a law of the Universe does not explain it, nor does it open more possible avenues for understanding.Send me a note and I will introduce you to a website about alignment theory.
I believe there are three main states of energy in our Universe---focused aligned energy, anti-aligned energy, and complete randomness. I ran across a website while investigating my own ideas about a concept known as the Invariant. An invariant piece of matter (or atom) would be so focused aligned it would never change. It could then act like a prime material, being responsible for all other atoms in the multiverse. Branes focus align energy, so they are incredibly useful. They create order.
I believe that even sounds may be intimately connected to branes, as determined by the amount of connection exhibited by the performer. A performer can "reach" into branes using their voice or instrument, making the sound more focused aligned as a result. People have a signature connection with branes, which is why they "sound like themselves".Sounds should also be able to be utilized to temper the behavior of matter and to alter the level of connection to branes they display.
Length contraction is a consequence of matter existing closer to a brane.As matter accelerates it focuses additional kinetic energy into its predetermined, set form. The energy becomes focused aligned and the object shrinks, coming into closer contact with the deeper brane surface. Through length contraction, an object becomes more like a black hole. As time dilation increases, the object compresses and shrinks near to the level of a point, where timelessness rules.Can happen in a 2D sense also?
By making a focused alignment, one brings oneself closer to the surface of a brane. Taking energy and tightly focusing it accomplishes this feat. The process is two fold, the amount of energy and how focused it becomes. In conversational dialouges, "making a point" is the same process, one takes energy and focuses it. Light undergoes a similar process, becoming a "point particle"--energy undergoes some compression during its transition from pure energy to light photon.
The reason high energy electromagetic radiation (gamma rays, for example) creates mutations is because they exist closer to the brane surface. Telomeres, which are rich in Guanine, may function as an antenae, picking up electromagnetic energy and distributing it along DNA.Because of the density of G's in the sequence of the telomeres, they will exist closer to a brane. One way to achieve moving closer to a brane is through focus and simple repetition, repeating anythng twice creates compression.
Branes can also be used as a route to virtual immortality, once it is discovered that health is generated through the general level of connection one has to branes. Monotomic elements may exist closer to a brane. I assert that the theory of branes is incomplete, but we may see support if gravity waves are discovered.
If one fuses energy with brane fabric, (perhaps by pressurizing light sufficiently) faster than light speeds might be achieved. Also, a force field might be manifested by using a device designed to create particles that live very close indeed to the surface of a brane. By thumping the brane with these tight particles, the very form of the brane might be revealed, along witrh its rigid and strong qualities. Thus, a force field might be possible if one is able to activate a brane.
I'm not even sure if I should be watching this because I'm only 14, but I finally get it! Would that mean that if I travelled at a constant rate of 186,000 mph, then I would live forever (excluding sickness, getting murdered, etc.)? Would someone live longer (by their perception) if they travelled more than if they didn't travel in their lifetime at all?
The closer one is to the brane, the more time dilation one experiences. When one is completely fused with the brane, time stops. Once this happens, energy will travel instantly with no resistance across the brane surface. Light is clearly very closely aligned with the brane surface, and quantum entanglement (the conjoining of two atoms or photons happens close to the surface of the brane) also may use the brane to achieve instant effects.
@Texmurphy51 :The existence of a brane or branes embedded in the fabric of space explains a lot, including the collasping of the waveform by an observer (which creates time lines through measurement, aided by the brane). I think that branes might be used in the future to convey energy and information at faster than light speeds, since they are frictionless conduits.If science is stumped by the light speed barrier, it may be because they have not delved deeply enough into the rigid branes.
@Texmurphy51 I believe that branes account for almost all phenomena as we know them. They explain the speed of light being a constant, because once light is traveling via a brane it may be locked into a trajectory and then it edits out other interference. This may manifest as blue and red shifts. With increasing density, matter comes into greater contact with branes. Branes also may create synergy, allowing the formation of helium and other elements in nuclear reaction.
@Texmurphy51 If you google the terms, "alignment theory" and "Clive Taylor", you should be able to find his website. Otherwise, send me a note on youtube and I will provide an exact link.
@Texmurphy51 I expect he is a hobbyist like me, but I don't know for sure. He doesn't have any theories regarding creation, although I do. I believe that a huge pulse of anti-alignment energies were focused by a brane, descending down to it in a rapid fall. The force of this impact caused the universe to bounce. So, it was a Big Bounce, not a Bang. A Bang does not explain the impetus for the explosion, while a fall and bounce does.
@Texmurphy51 It's anti-gravitational energy, it's dark energy. The website explains it further. I suggest that a series of branes exist, and that they function to give shape and form to various energies.
@Texmurphy51 I distinguish between mechanical (focused aligned) energy and anti-aligned (ether) energy. Einstein rejected the notion of the ether, but now dark energy may turn out to by part of it. Mechanical focused aligned energy is energy connected to a brane. Dark energy exists in another domain, separate from brane reality. Dark energy may turn out to be something other than the higgs boson. It may be something else entirely. Dark energy may partially support matter in the physical world...
@Texmurphy51 What makes you think that our mathematics is even valid in the realm of anti-alignment energies? Mathematics as we know them are consistent, and 1=1=1=1=1=1. This is in fact an example of focused alignment. Apply it to anti-alignment, and the equivalence factor does not even hold up, 1 is not equal to 1. Science is therefore flummoxed by its own set of rules, rules conceived of in the mechanical, focused aligned world. Come up with new mathematics, and then you may have a chance.
@Texmurphy51 I concede that mathematics as we know it may be able to explain the structure of branes, since math was conceived of in the same vein. Dark energy (as the anti-alignment ether) may partially support the existence of matter, while simultaneously living mostly on a separate plane. Branes do account for the structure of matter (as well as much of its behavior), but are not the total energy source.
@gbgunited I simply propose that in our universe is divided into two parts---the mechanical focused aligned world, and the anti-aligned ether reality. Ether is not a new idea, Einstein thought about it back in his day. However, he rejected it.
@ryanDV87 Ether refers to energy in a potential, pre-spacetime phase. It can be brought into substantial manifestation by interaction with energy that exsists in our universe. Alignment indicates the focus or lack of focus of energy within space-time reality. Alignment can refer to inward focus (where all the arrows are pointing inward, at a specific point, in the NOW. This resembles the impulse of a raw nerve. Anti-alignment refers to a more drawn out, general distribution of energy.....
@ryanDV87 ....all the arrows are pointing outwards, away from the center. There is also total lack of alignment, which is random alignment, no definite inward or outward tendency, just chaos. Branes may be static, rigid unchanging structures that are embedded in the fabric of space. They give energy form and act as a scaffold for structure. Planes are niches for energies, where specfic frequencies and perceptions dominate to create energy dimensions. Branes+energy may help to create planes.
I theorize that energy (the fundamentally forces that mankind has discovered so far, and that are implicitly part of E=MC2) are part of a relationship that the universe has with a brane. The universe's energy is attached to this rigid, taut brane. The closer to the brane, the more QM takes over. But dark energy may travel free of the brane, due to its anti-aligned nature. Energy as humans know it, is aligned energy, aligned with the brane.
One interesting consequence of using dark energy to power a spacecraft is that time dilation might be eliminated, since time dilation is part of gravity, the main forces, energy (as we know it). If one manipulated the molecules in a craft by applying dark energy, the tendency for time to localize around the accelerated mass might decrease, and time dilation would be diffused. I believe that the energy that science knows of so far fall under "aligned" energy, while dark energy is anti-aligned.
So in the spaceship example, the ship moving would notice the stationary ship's clock running slow, and his own running normally correct?
At the end it says 'according to him it is the other clock that is running slowly.'
Then wouldn't a GPS satellite moving at 80% speed of light notice earth's clocks running slow and its own running normal? But if it queried earth somehow and asked for the time, wouldn't it find that earths clocks were faster than it's own?
I don't get it. If both spaceships fired from the same spot, what does it matter that one is moving? the moving one would record the distance covered between where the light beam was fired (now behind itself) then both light beams would appear to have covered the same distance in the same time ????
@SingHouse I 'll answer you by a question; How does the moving ship knows that it's moving? (Suppose you can't see outside the window). According to an observer both light beams get emitted from the same spot (which is absolutely correct), but what would the moving ship show? that light travels half the distance at the same time? i.e. that light has hafl ''it's speed'' according to the stopped ship? I know it's a tricky one but Albert is right.
@TheSickleCell Yes. As long as their travel beggins from the same spot and ends at the same spot on the planet or wherever, no matter wether they beggin simultaneously or not, and as long as they follow the same path, wether it is a straight or curved line, twisted e.t.c.
Just one question: If, according to Einstein, neither of the ships would be moving in an absolute sense, but simply they're both moving relative to the other, who's to say on which ship time would move slower than the other?
@Conway79 As long as the ships are moving at a constant velocity, both ships would see themselves as stationary. Both spaceships would see the other as having slower time. So in essence unless you are outside both ships, you would see the other ship undergoing time dilation.
the spaceships fired from the same spot, it was only one spaceship which had a distance of 6 lightseconds to the beam, both beams traveled 12 lightseconds in 12 seconds, so what is this about?
if i'm wrong, then i didn't understood the video...
@masteralex62 The stationary ship sees it's own beam travel 12 light seconds in 12 seconds. The moving ship sees it's own beam travel 6 light seconds in 6 seconds according to it's own clock.
Little bit confused with the clock model and explanation how it works on 7:00...9:00. It is clear if this model stands in the moving system so that beam moves orthogonally to the direction of movement, but what would happen if you rotate this model by 90deg and the beam would move in the same direction as moving system?
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
Look at the last example, with the moving clocks and the diagonal light path.
Sure the clock ticks slower, but what is the clock measuring? The clock is measuring the interval between the light beam. The clock isn't measuring time itself. Time is not being bent, the light beam is.... >_>
the dimension they call 'time' is just the difference in the path of the light beam... time itself stays intact, just the clock shows something else.
@therealjordiano I was thinking the same thing! Whenever I hear about time dialation, I always think: What exactly is time? And if our perspective of time changes, does that necessarily mean that time, itself, is changing? Also, if moving close to the speed of light and we travel to a place and come back, why don't we age as much? Do our atoms slow up or something? What exaclty is going on to our body that would make it age slower?
@loveslashdeath Hehe exactly... My question to scientists who think that time can simply be bent, is that if it takes you 5 seconds to say 'that's awesome!' would you say it slower if you were going at 99.999% the speed of light? I somehow doubt it, and ofc using what I said in my last post xD
I cannot comprehend time as a fabric, time is just what we use to measure the space between one time to another. Just because we are going faster, shouldn't mean that seconds tick slower. :)
@therealjordiano well first it depends if your moving on earth and in space and to be logical in space you cannot talk and well yes it would dilate first it is because it is naturally slower than light and to make it simpler if an observer could see sound waves and your car was moving at the speed of light the sound waves would be slower and would seem to be just a bit ahead and technically they would not be affected by time dilation since they have no mass whatsoever
@loveslashdeath That is correct! You may consider your metabolism as an ''internal'' clock. Suppose you have a twin brother here on eath. Some day you decide to take a trip in to a planet which is 20 light years away from earth. Given the fact that your ship can travel by light speed, it will take you 20 years to get to that planet, and another 20 to get back. So, according to earth, your brother will be +40 years older than you. But due to special relativity, you won't have aged a bit.
@loveslashdeath ..and as you mentioned, travelling by light speed gets your metabolism stalled, including thinking! That is why you don't realise any time dilation, everything seems to be just fine. Therefore, on your way back to earth, you are given the impression that you had a travel in future! Accordig to earth, it took you 40 years, but according to you, it took just a few seconds. Who's right??? Both.
@therealjordiano first of all the clock is measuring solar hours or time earth goes around the sun and it changes because of the design according to the solar hours basically it is confused because it has gone back in time
@52soccerstar the clock measures the rate at which the light beam hits the two plates, which causes the clock to advance. It isn't measuring time, regardless of where it is, what speed it is going or what forces are acting on it... it is only measuring the light beam.
@therealjordiano You forgot that the light beam always travels at a constant speed, so if the clock was in motion the light beam would have to make a longer diagonal path and would therefore appear to slow down when viewed by an observer.
If you were travelling with the clock the light beam would travel in straight lines and it would appear to tick normally.
The only way this can be correct is if time has slowed down for the moving clock i.e time dilation.
@Manoo62 The light may have to take a diagonal path, but that just means that the clock is using an ineffective way of measuring time now. Clocks would use a light beam because they can accurately make the clock advance by a certain amount after each time it makes contact with one of the plates.
@therealjordiano !?!?!?!?!? so now your saying the clock isnt made accurate enought! unbelievable.
The clock isnt ever real its a though experiment!!!! its only the priciple that matters, just how dumb are you?
We have already established the light beam DOESNT slow down its constant! It ticks slower due to the diagonal path when in motion. How do you explain the fact that the clock ticks normally if you are travelling along with it genius...this should be good.....
The light beam takes longer to get between the two plates because of the diagonal path... what in that is causing time to slow down? Nothing, it does however make a clock tick slower because clocks don't measure time itself. -.- accuracy has nothing to do with it
Basically...the light takes longer to travel back and forth from the plates when in motion, the clock ticks slower, but the clock is measuring the light beam, not time. time is metaphysical and not a movable fabric imo >_>
@Manoo62 (i forgot to add) ...so if the light beam slows down.. the clock will tick slower, but time isn't ticking slower itself, because the clock isn't measuring time. We just use clocks to measure something that will measure an interval equaling a second, 60 of those intervals will make a minute... 3600 will equal an hour. But when the intervals slow down, you could put a clock which isn't affected by motion (Like a digital clock) next to the light-beam clock and it will tick as normal.
@Gunner3210 How and why? Any clocks use something to measure an interval of time equal to a second, of the interval gets affected by motion, that doesn't mean that time is dilating... imo
@therealjordiano if you'd ever actually learn mathematical explanation of relativity and Lorentz transforms, you would not have any doubts that time dilation is real. Time dilation is not some fancy idea in physics, like string theory for example, it is a fact verified numerous times in the last hundred years. Have you ever heard of a elementary particle called muon? Experiments have shown that when muon travels at high speeds, its lifetime is measured to be longer than when it's at rest.
@therealjordiano I am sure there are thousands of websites if you just google "muon lifetime". One such site is from hyperphysics, very useful resource usually intended for physics undergrads. Just type"hyperphysics muon" and that should be the first link on google. Keep in mind, however, that individual particles may last longer or shorter than this. What they're talking about here is average lifetime.
no matter how much i understand time dilation, it just blows my mind so much i cant accept it hehe (i do accept it, but just in terms of "common sense" i cant accept it lol)
@denglish5 these concepts apply to every reference frame, but the effects of relativity are really only noticeable when you have an object moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
@dcphil2743 exactly why? what's slowing things down when coming closer to the speed of light? Is there some kind of friction or something that gets heavier when you move faster?
@LeconsdAnalyse I'm not really into math as I'm not physicist. I just want to understand why they have such properties in layman terms. What I'm trying to seek is not what is according to the equation but rather, how did it come to behave that is according to equation. How and why does it get "heavier" in lay man's term. Usually those equations just came from our observations but as to how did they come to be is what I exactly seek.
@LeconsdAnalyse I take my hat off to those people who are not contented to such answers like those scientists who really work hard to provide answers to questions like how exactly gravity works.
This seems to me that there's something that prevents the light from exceeding the speed of light. What is it?
Looking at 7:33 does this mean it also applies to mechanical clocks? What if the clock doesn't use light as a measure of time but a swing of a pendulum?
@MrSupertonsky I'm pretty sure, based on my recent study of author stephen hawking, that the answer to your question lies in mass and the E=mc^2 einstein equation. As a mass approaches the speed of light the mass just seems to get bigger and bigger to infinity, and therefor energy is also infinite. so it's impossible to reach the speed of light.
@MrSupertonsky I think the answer is if light travels at 186 miles an hour and you are going at lets say 45 thousand miles and hour and u launch the light, you are not moving fast enough (or faster than the light) to propel it forward to move faster....0.o a test that should be tried!
@MrSunSued To my impression, it seems that the time seem to slow down or stop because if an object moves at the speed of light, then its internal structures can't move because every part of it is moving at one direction at the speed of light so it can't move in any other direction, thus it manifest no changes (zero time) within itself. So let's say we can only move 10km/s max. If I move 10km/s south then it means I can no longer move in any other direction.
pt2. So let's say I'm moving 5km/s south, I can still add 5km/s south which is 10km/s total speed going to south or I can add 5km/s west which is 10km/s going south-west. So the question is, what is that something the prevents something from exceeding the speed of light? And if my impression is right, then speed of light being relative is only true if we only consider a closed system in which that particular system as a whole moves at a certain direction at the speed of light.
@MrSunSued pt3. This also gives me an impression that only non-moving object has the normal reference to time. Because to himself, time is 1 is to 1. But for a moving object, it's a fraction of that depending on its speed. Time becomes unreliable for a moving object that it has to ask the non-moving object to know the real time.
@MrSupertonsky but we in ourselves are objects moving within the universe on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy. Almost everything is moving at different speeds within the universe. So true time as a reference to what observer? What is stationary and not expanding/moving within the universe itself?
@MrSupertonsky PT1so your impression, if i understand you, is that moving as the speed of light is the "maximum speed' anyone can obtain because the atoms are moving at the precise speed where they no longer can go any direction but one direction without causing a internal conflict of friction and imbalance thus causing them to be still and stuck moving so fast in one direction their motionless warp is not allowing them to lack of a better word "age" or the effects of time?
@MrSunSued pt2 how can we measure how fast or deep an atom really goes and if it is really only "going in one direction" or it is relative that light takes X amount of years to reach us traveling at the speed of light therefor it is time relevant even though time may move slower for a moving object than a stagnant.
i have noticed when my brain is active and alert it can think many things in a single moment, however tired, it cannot think much in minutes.
@MrSunSued pt2 final. It still does not answer that how can we know if speed of light is truly the fastest speed, if we cannot attain a faster speed, than light will never be able to be shot out moving quicker than itself to see what type of friction or elegance it flows through which ever type of atmosphere tested. or vise versa. How fast do different type of radio/stereo waves travel? could we even measure that?
@MrSunSued Yes, that's how I come with my impression after watching this vid and some few articles. I'm trying to understand things in lay man's term. I'm not sure how close my understanding is to what really those scientists want us to understand. I think they need to lay things out in a way that is easy to understand.
You can think of it as the smallest distance being closely related to the speed of light, aiming to the idea that putting an object in time=0s in a point in space than add the "smallest distance" in 1s (time=1s) the object suffered no changes, like it had no motion. Therefore it is regardless to take in consideration if you're in motion or the standing still, light doesn't depend on anything.
So wait, if my understanding is correct, then if humanity can build a space craft that can hit close to light speed, then it will seem as though no time has passed for the occupants on the ship at all if they go from, say, Earth to Alpha Centauri? Of course 4.3 light years would have passed here on Earth and the rest of the Universe, but would that time traveled seem instant, or near instant, for the occupants? This is something that needs to be taken into account for Sci Fi series.
This has been flagged as spam show
but the earth is spinning and revolving the sun, in a galaxy that's moving, in a universe that's expanding. so isn't earth moving, in relative to something, near the speed of light?
so from our stand point is our time 'slower' when compared to some stationary planet in the "center" of the universe? assuming that planet at the center can be used as a constant for time
lostaznking 5 days ago
Comment removed
lostaznking 5 days ago
great video
savingcrabsaround123 1 week ago
RE: Your 1st. Question:
In 3+1, let inertial frame O` move with 3-velocity ξ = vÛ relative to inertial frame O. Where `Û` is a unit 3-vector in the direction of ξ, and `v` is the Euclidean norm of ξ (viz., v≡||ξ||).
The ending of the above clip is just saying that as far as SR is concerned, it is EQUIVALENT to view the above situation alternatively as O moving with 3-velocity ζ = -ξ relative to inertial frame O`. Since, ||ζ||=||-ξ||=||ξ||.
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
2/2
The point about using light is that its speed is fixed and independent of the motion of its source, and given that the distance between the upper & lower mirrors of the `clock` is also fixed, a reproduceable unit of time is defined.
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
1/2
RE: Your 2nd. Question:
The light will always move with speed `c` whether or not its source is moving. Such is not the case for the bouncing ball (in vacuum). The internal energy (and geometrical configuration) of the ball would change on each impact affecting its speed (decreasing). Moreover, according to m=m₀/√(1-v²/c²), the mass of the moving ball will be larger than its twin at rest, also affecting the speed. Using the ball, how could one define a unit of time ?
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
I don't understand the last part. Light moves at a constant rate so the moving clock has time going slower. I get that. So why does he perceive the stationary clock as moving slower? Shouldn't he perceive the stationary clock as moving faster.
Also, Light has to travel at an angle thus lengthening its distance. But what if the regular event is a bouncing ball? Its momentum would make it move faster than the stationary clock and they will cancel out to record the clocks moving at the same speed.
ScotchTapeWorm 2 weeks ago
@ScotchTapeWorm He sees the stationary clock as moving slower too cause relative to him the stationary clock is moving If you had two clocks moving and one stationary then two moving clocks would have the same times relative to eachother but they both perceive the stationary one as moving slower in time because relative to them the stationary one is moving
Using a ball also wouldnt change anything because nothing makes it go faster or slower momentum just makes it keep moving from a sudden stop
Catnipy 2 weeks ago
@Catnipy The part where I get caught up with is, that the moving clock has its light at an angle thus taking a longer time. The stationary clocks light is vertical thus being faster. If youre in the moving clock, the light will seem like it's vertical, and the stationary clock will look like it's moving. However, light is going the same speed no matter what, so to the moving clock, the stationary one should seem faster.
ScotchTapeWorm 2 weeks ago
@ScotchTapeWorm But the perception is relative, one looks like it's moving relative to it self and so does the other one. No matter which point of view you are at the one that appears like it's moving is always going to appear slower relative to yourself.
Catnipy 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 2 weeks ago
Did you see the space outfit of those girls :) wow.
Pwn777 3 weeks ago
Uhhh, when he's using the ship analogy where does he get Six light seconds in 12 seconds? If the two beams are fired at the same time and they travel the same speed then they would get just as far in the same amount of time (if the beam isn't affected by the ships speed that is).
Brasharful 3 weeks ago
time dilatation kind the expansion of the time maybe..
osamasouri 1 month ago
I'm confused, so does this mean that time doesn't physically slow down? It only appears to be so to the observer?
monstamunch90 1 month ago
@monstamunch90 No, time does in fact slow down (or, dilates between `ticks`) when a material object moves with speed `v` s.t. v/c~1. Because the moving object DISTORTS spacetime.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I see, so it is rather another law of physics that time actually does in fact slow down when travelling at the speed of light/near the speed of light, rather than some "illusion" from the observer's perspective. I hope I'm right this time! Thanks for helping out
monstamunch90 1 month ago
@monstamunch90 The theory of SR predicts `time dilation`. It certainly is a `law`, but is not referred to as such because SR is not built upon experimental facts, but upon postulates.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I see. So as of yet, we have not actually been able to experiment and see results of time dilation, however the theory of SR, with reasoning, would predict time dilation. Are there many scientists that disbelieve time dilation? Or is time dilation widely accepted among the physics/science community? Is time dilation a basis for understanding? Or a simple theory presented on the "table" of other theories?
monstamunch90 1 month ago
@monstamunch90 One need not search far and wide to find that experimental proof of time dilation has been available since the 1940s. END.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Lol well thanks for helping out, I'll try and look for that experimental proof. Thanks again.
monstamunch90 1 month ago
@monstamunch90
You might start with a Google search for "muon mountain time dilation" and "time dilation airplane", each of which lead you to descriptions of important experimental results and measurements of time dilation.
pseudorandomly 3 weeks ago
@LeconsdAnalyse That's one way of sounding condescending.
TheKylemagalhaes 2 weeks ago
Why the hell would you even think about using miles? Metric is soooo much better. Thumbs up if you agree.
adityagnet 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smcam3 Light travels at 186000 miles per second, the speed of light relative to everything, not only the spaceship. It 'ignores' the speed of the spaceship.
UniverseIsAwesome 1 month ago
What I understand is: Light travels at the speed of light through space-time and ignores the speed of its source. It 'bends' time and space to make the speed equation equal c, the speed of light. Speed(c) = Distance/Time. 2 factors, distance and time. If Speed refers to c, then Distance and Time must change in order for c to equal c and not ac where a is greater than 0 and does not equal 1.
UniverseIsAwesome 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2/2
Then from the point of view of O`:
x`₂=γ(x₂-vt₂), t`₂=γ(t₂-vx₂).
Where in these units c= 1 l-s/s, and γ=1/√(1-v²). So that,
x`₂= 12√[(1-v)/(1+v)], t`₂= 12√[(1-v)/(1+v)].
Hence, x`₂= 6 l-s and t`₂= 6 s ⇒ v=3/5 l-s/s. That is, the clip assumes that O` is moving with speed v=3/5c.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
Who's watching both these happen?
motopilot322 1 month ago
@motopilot322 hi, were you referring to my comment?
smcam3 1 month ago
@smcam3 yes i was.. more in terms of shrodingers cat.. both alive and dead... yet until reality is measured or observed.. both are going on.. so whos watching both play out..or both options being on the "choosing block" for lack of a better term
motopilot322 1 month ago
Why does the second spaceship measure the beam as only traveling 6 light seconds?? The crew on the second ship know that they fired the beam at the same point as the first spaceship, so they know it has actually travelled 6 light seconds PLUS the distance they have travelled from the first spaceship, a total of 12 light seconds, and if time has dilated for them, it has travelled 12 light seconds in 6 seconds.. Twice the speed of light according to them right???
smcam3 1 month ago
1/2
Let O represent the inertial frame of the stationary ship, and O` that of the moving ship (moving with speed `v`).
Next in 1+1, let the ships pass each other when x₁=t₁=x`₁=t`₁=0. And let the measurements be made when x₂= 12 l-s, t₂= 12 s from the point of view of O.
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 1 month ago
Comment removed
UniverseIsAwesome 1 month ago
Comment removed
powergirl901 1 month ago
Time dilates because the beams move diagonally? umm...I don't buy it. Logically if time measurement is speed over distance, the only way to preserve the equation is to change one of the terms when the observer happens to also be moving. That applies if your goal is to keep all the elements of the problem understood by classical mechanics.
powergirl901 1 month ago
The primary difference between the example in the video and mine is that in my example the vertical situation remains the same as if the clock were at rest. There is no diagonal change in the flight of the photon. In the vertical space, the distance between top and bottom stays constant. Time simply slows down while the photon moves up and down, and therefore the vertical transit of the photon takes more time. A dampening field of time slowing down affects the photon.
MaceWright 2 months ago
The speed of light remains a constant on the moving clock, but the photon's transit is definitely influenced by the time slowing effect. This is akin to light flowing through water, there is an apparent slowing of speed down to 144,000 MPS, but yet light speed remains a constant. The dilation is a local dampening effect., and is real when measured.
MaceWright 2 months ago
Pockets of time density are thus formed by a moving or accelerating clock, as it begins to more closely merge with spacial branes. With Time slowing down on a local level, it takes longer for the light photons to pass through the same intervening vertical space. The dilation is due to a different source, then.
MaceWright 2 months ago
@MaceWright spew more garbage plox
BLUEGENE13 1 month ago
My belief is that a time localization occurs for the moving clock, as focused alignment tendencies takes over. The clock begins to merge with spacial branes. This is what slows time down.
MaceWright 2 months ago
I cant help but to think that the lights path would not be altered if it was not influenced by the clocks additional velocity. Making the the light beam move at an angle after leaving its origin would require some outside force, thus creating a speed greater than the speed of light itself. Apparently thats not possible or this vid is full of it.
macaroni610 2 months ago
@macaroni610 We are traveling through space on this planet. I notice no suggestion of speed, my relative movement is fixed. According to my position on the ground, I am not moving, even as the Earth moves in space. Why should a horizontal movement influence a fixed vertical movement, no matter how fast it is? The path of the photon is fixed vertically, moving up and down. How fast space passes through it makes no difference.
MaceWright 2 months ago
@macaroni610 The video is trying to explain time dilation, using a light clock. It does this by expanding the space through which the photon propagates.This is how time seems to slow down. They fail to realize that space itself (without being explanded in the manner suggested by the moving clock) may be what is exerting the time dilation effect. I believe it is the clocks connection with space (branes, specifically) that creates time dilation, space begins to warp.How it warps is not easy to see
MaceWright 2 months ago
einstein died becuase he worked this out and his brain IM-ploded
OMFGDmanrules 2 months ago
My brain exploded.
Kpatable 3 months ago
As for time dilation, I believe it is entirely the consequence of accelerating mechanical, focused aligned, brane connected energy. Unfortunately, matter and most energy that we know of is focused aligned, and science knows little about the anti-aligned, gap infused ether.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Scientific explorations have mainly involved looking at focused aligned mechanical energy, and this is energy connected to a brane. The Earth is connected to branes, so this is naturally the kind of energy that is easiest to perceive, harness and examine. Branes are part of the universe at large, and we are in fact "trapped" inside them. Anti-aligned ether energy is separate, and operates on a different level of being. It exists in an erratic state, and does not inhabit a definite location.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Traveling at the speed of light would mean reaching a compressed singularity, and the notion of space would be demolished. Focusing Aligning with the brane is the key. The measurement of time is caused by entropy and separation. With additional separation comes a faster unraveling of time. Blend the ticks into one subtstance, by synchronizing with a brane, and all separation is eliminated. Time then moves at a slower rate.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 3 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse: When one accelerates an object, the mass will compress, tending towards singularity. If it became light, it becomes a "point" particle. Light travels infinite distance in no time, when time reaches 0 it becomes a singularity. Carl Sagan's >>>>>> video on time dilation shows how one's field of vision will contract, and that propensity would simply continue until compression down to a small point. The compression is an indication of focused alignment in action.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Once fused with the brane, the clock would exist in timelessness. It would go through space without resistance or friction. If one could travel at the speed of light, and looked back at the clock, one would see one continuous photon, in superposition, inhabiting many places at once. There would be no up or down, all would be one entity. The photon would be spread out among all possible avenues, and up and down "ticks" would cease to exist. There would be a smooth distribution of photonic energy.
MaceWright 3 months ago
I purport that the clock in the video would shrink, according to length contraction, and that the photon would take on more energy as the clock continued in its sideways movement.As it moved close to the brane surface, the clock would begin to synchronize with the brane fabric.Ticks that were once distinct would begin to blend into one another.This tendency would continue with increasing speed,until there would be only one tick that reverberated through all of time,the sound of one hand clapping
MaceWright 3 months ago
Clive Taylor and I don't agree on all aspects of his theory, but I agree with many of his ideas generally speaking. I think his basic notions of focused alignment energy and anti-alignment energy are very good, and I do subscribe to them. If one accepts the tennets, thinking about alignment theory is a good way to approach certain problems in science.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Branes are akin to a scaffold that they universe "grew upon". They help to focus align energy, providing a foundation. Through their influence, various niches of energy form over time. Dark energy is anti-alignment energy, and thus operates separately from the brane fabric.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Furthermore, I believe that brane theory will replace the theory of the higgs boson. In short, branes are responsible for mass and that is what they were actually seeking all along. Hopefully, when a critical level of people start thinking about alternate theories and new proposals, brane theory will be advanced beyond what it currently is now.
MaceWright 3 months ago
In case it wasn't clear, I believe that plummeting anti-alignment energy bounced off of the nadir of a brane, and that was what caused the universe to explode. I call it, "The Big Bounce" theory. I don't trust the scientific establishment on certain issues. If the higgs boson is not found, I hope people will be more open minded regarding alternate theories....
MaceWright 3 months ago
I highly suspect science has taken a wrong turn somewhere. I have seen phenomena that don't jive with current models. Nothing that I can prove, but for me the experience is enough, I am open minded. Why would one turn to the accepted scientific community, when clearly they are wrong and are in jeopardy? You can't solve a problem with the current thinking that created it, that's a useless gesture. I put up my ideas for discussion, I'm a musician not a scientist. Go ahead and steal my ideas.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Branes would keep the speed of light at a constant,basically by keeping it on a brane track.When light fuses with a brane, it would be very difficult to remove it from this state of being. Brane and light would meld and become a single entity, even if the light was diverted. Saying the constant speed of light is merely a law of the Universe does not explain it, nor does it open more possible avenues for understanding.Send me a note and I will introduce you to a website about alignment theory.
MaceWright 3 months ago
I believe there are three main states of energy in our Universe---focused aligned energy, anti-aligned energy, and complete randomness. I ran across a website while investigating my own ideas about a concept known as the Invariant. An invariant piece of matter (or atom) would be so focused aligned it would never change. It could then act like a prime material, being responsible for all other atoms in the multiverse. Branes focus align energy, so they are incredibly useful. They create order.
MaceWright 3 months ago
I believe that even sounds may be intimately connected to branes, as determined by the amount of connection exhibited by the performer. A performer can "reach" into branes using their voice or instrument, making the sound more focused aligned as a result. People have a signature connection with branes, which is why they "sound like themselves".Sounds should also be able to be utilized to temper the behavior of matter and to alter the level of connection to branes they display.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Length contraction is a consequence of matter existing closer to a brane.As matter accelerates it focuses additional kinetic energy into its predetermined, set form. The energy becomes focused aligned and the object shrinks, coming into closer contact with the deeper brane surface. Through length contraction, an object becomes more like a black hole. As time dilation increases, the object compresses and shrinks near to the level of a point, where timelessness rules.Can happen in a 2D sense also?
MaceWright 3 months ago
By making a focused alignment, one brings oneself closer to the surface of a brane. Taking energy and tightly focusing it accomplishes this feat. The process is two fold, the amount of energy and how focused it becomes. In conversational dialouges, "making a point" is the same process, one takes energy and focuses it. Light undergoes a similar process, becoming a "point particle"--energy undergoes some compression during its transition from pure energy to light photon.
MaceWright 3 months ago
The reason high energy electromagetic radiation (gamma rays, for example) creates mutations is because they exist closer to the brane surface. Telomeres, which are rich in Guanine, may function as an antenae, picking up electromagnetic energy and distributing it along DNA.Because of the density of G's in the sequence of the telomeres, they will exist closer to a brane. One way to achieve moving closer to a brane is through focus and simple repetition, repeating anythng twice creates compression.
MaceWright 3 months ago
Branes can also be used as a route to virtual immortality, once it is discovered that health is generated through the general level of connection one has to branes. Monotomic elements may exist closer to a brane. I assert that the theory of branes is incomplete, but we may see support if gravity waves are discovered.
MaceWright 3 months ago
If one fuses energy with brane fabric, (perhaps by pressurizing light sufficiently) faster than light speeds might be achieved. Also, a force field might be manifested by using a device designed to create particles that live very close indeed to the surface of a brane. By thumping the brane with these tight particles, the very form of the brane might be revealed, along witrh its rigid and strong qualities. Thus, a force field might be possible if one is able to activate a brane.
MaceWright 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not even sure if I should be watching this because I'm only 14, but I finally get it! Would that mean that if I travelled at a constant rate of 186,000 mph, then I would live forever (excluding sickness, getting murdered, etc.)? Would someone live longer (by their perception) if they travelled more than if they didn't travel in their lifetime at all?
chessicles99 3 months ago
Comment removed
chessicles99 3 months ago
Black holes and atomic fusion may also be examples of energy focused upon and fused with brane fabric.
MaceWright 3 months ago
The closer one is to the brane, the more time dilation one experiences. When one is completely fused with the brane, time stops. Once this happens, energy will travel instantly with no resistance across the brane surface. Light is clearly very closely aligned with the brane surface, and quantum entanglement (the conjoining of two atoms or photons happens close to the surface of the brane) also may use the brane to achieve instant effects.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright The brane is a theoretical construct as is Multiverse & any other hypothesis as to what happened pre Big Bang.
We shall see if the Higgs Boson is proven to exist, otherwise the "standard model" of our universe is incorrect.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 :The existence of a brane or branes embedded in the fabric of space explains a lot, including the collasping of the waveform by an observer (which creates time lines through measurement, aided by the brane). I think that branes might be used in the future to convey energy and information at faster than light speeds, since they are frictionless conduits.If science is stumped by the light speed barrier, it may be because they have not delved deeply enough into the rigid branes.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright "branes embedded in the fabric of space "
They are not in space but OUTSIDE space. The exists but cannot be touched, (with the possible exception of a weak interaction with gravity).
I dont know where your getting you information about brane theory but its not from those who created it.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I believe that branes account for almost all phenomena as we know them. They explain the speed of light being a constant, because once light is traveling via a brane it may be locked into a trajectory and then it edits out other interference. This may manifest as blue and red shifts. With increasing density, matter comes into greater contact with branes. Branes also may create synergy, allowing the formation of helium and other elements in nuclear reaction.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright Where are you coming up with this?
Show me some Scientific papers that speculate the conjecture you pose.
How would a brane limit the speed of light or any of the other things you claim?
Why not just say it is the nature of the laws of our universe?
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 If you google the terms, "alignment theory" and "Clive Taylor", you should be able to find his website. Otherwise, send me a note on youtube and I will provide an exact link.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright Clive Taylor?
Who is this guy & what are his credentials?
I can show you many websites with all kinds of wierd theories on creation, see Bill Gaede for example.
I am talking about the accepted scientific community.
The people who created the brane idea admit there is NO Proof and are looking for it themself.
These are all hypothesis on how our universe was created, even the "Standard Theory" is under pressure.
If they cant find the Higgs Boson, the current theory is wrong.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I expect he is a hobbyist like me, but I don't know for sure. He doesn't have any theories regarding creation, although I do. I believe that a huge pulse of anti-alignment energies were focused by a brane, descending down to it in a rapid fall. The force of this impact caused the universe to bounce. So, it was a Big Bounce, not a Bang. A Bang does not explain the impetus for the explosion, while a fall and bounce does.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright "anti-alignment energies "
What exactly is that?
I dont think you really understand physics.
What we know about the Big Bang says the forces of nature & energy did not reall exists but came into existence at that time.
What existed before Creation is UNKNOW. Its all sheer speculation so you cant compare it to any energies or spacetime that now exists.
What makes you think that a brane even exists other than your imagination.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 It's anti-gravitational energy, it's dark energy. The website explains it further. I suggest that a series of branes exist, and that they function to give shape and form to various energies.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright "I suggest that a series of branes exist"
Again, the Cosmologists who theorized this idea can only speculate because there is no way now to prove it.
The website you gave me is an IMAGINATIVE takeoff on this idea but has no mathmatics behind it.
Dark Energy theory is not even related to the Brane theory.
Dark energy is the Hyggs Boson.
You speculation is meaningless without a deep understanding of the theories.
Texmurphy51 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I distinguish between mechanical (focused aligned) energy and anti-aligned (ether) energy. Einstein rejected the notion of the ether, but now dark energy may turn out to by part of it. Mechanical focused aligned energy is energy connected to a brane. Dark energy exists in another domain, separate from brane reality. Dark energy may turn out to be something other than the higgs boson. It may be something else entirely. Dark energy may partially support matter in the physical world...
MaceWright 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 What makes you think that our mathematics is even valid in the realm of anti-alignment energies? Mathematics as we know them are consistent, and 1=1=1=1=1=1. This is in fact an example of focused alignment. Apply it to anti-alignment, and the equivalence factor does not even hold up, 1 is not equal to 1. Science is therefore flummoxed by its own set of rules, rules conceived of in the mechanical, focused aligned world. Come up with new mathematics, and then you may have a chance.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@Texmurphy51 I concede that mathematics as we know it may be able to explain the structure of branes, since math was conceived of in the same vein. Dark energy (as the anti-alignment ether) may partially support the existence of matter, while simultaneously living mostly on a separate plane. Branes do account for the structure of matter (as well as much of its behavior), but are not the total energy source.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright None of your comments make ANY sense.
gbgunited 3 months ago 2
@gbgunited I simply propose that in our universe is divided into two parts---the mechanical focused aligned world, and the anti-aligned ether reality. Ether is not a new idea, Einstein thought about it back in his day. However, he rejected it.
MaceWright 3 months ago
@MaceWright
Define your terms. What are ether, "alignment," and "planes?"
ryanDV87 2 months ago
@ryanDV87 Ether refers to energy in a potential, pre-spacetime phase. It can be brought into substantial manifestation by interaction with energy that exsists in our universe. Alignment indicates the focus or lack of focus of energy within space-time reality. Alignment can refer to inward focus (where all the arrows are pointing inward, at a specific point, in the NOW. This resembles the impulse of a raw nerve. Anti-alignment refers to a more drawn out, general distribution of energy.....
MaceWright 2 months ago
@ryanDV87 ....all the arrows are pointing outwards, away from the center. There is also total lack of alignment, which is random alignment, no definite inward or outward tendency, just chaos. Branes may be static, rigid unchanging structures that are embedded in the fabric of space. They give energy form and act as a scaffold for structure. Planes are niches for energies, where specfic frequencies and perceptions dominate to create energy dimensions. Branes+energy may help to create planes.
MaceWright 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MaceWright "Branes do account for the structure of matter "
Explain HOW.
"math was conceived of in the same vein"
No it was not.
"Dark energy (as the anti-alignment ether) may partially support the existence of matter"
What is that supposed to mean?
Where are you getting this stuff????
Texmurphy51 2 months ago
I theorize that energy (the fundamentally forces that mankind has discovered so far, and that are implicitly part of E=MC2) are part of a relationship that the universe has with a brane. The universe's energy is attached to this rigid, taut brane. The closer to the brane, the more QM takes over. But dark energy may travel free of the brane, due to its anti-aligned nature. Energy as humans know it, is aligned energy, aligned with the brane.
MaceWright 3 months ago
One interesting consequence of using dark energy to power a spacecraft is that time dilation might be eliminated, since time dilation is part of gravity, the main forces, energy (as we know it). If one manipulated the molecules in a craft by applying dark energy, the tendency for time to localize around the accelerated mass might decrease, and time dilation would be diffused. I believe that the energy that science knows of so far fall under "aligned" energy, while dark energy is anti-aligned.
MaceWright 3 months ago
So in the spaceship example, the ship moving would notice the stationary ship's clock running slow, and his own running normally correct?
At the end it says 'according to him it is the other clock that is running slowly.'
Then wouldn't a GPS satellite moving at 80% speed of light notice earth's clocks running slow and its own running normal? But if it queried earth somehow and asked for the time, wouldn't it find that earths clocks were faster than it's own?
claan1 3 months ago
Easy to understand.l If your just dedicated to it.
INMATE2468 4 months ago
wow i finally understant thank you!
me2goodfoyou 4 months ago
what is the speed of moving ship is it 1.5*10e8 ms-1 i.e half of 'C' ?
titudidarul 4 months ago
I don't get it. If both spaceships fired from the same spot, what does it matter that one is moving? the moving one would record the distance covered between where the light beam was fired (now behind itself) then both light beams would appear to have covered the same distance in the same time ????
SingHouse 4 months ago
@SingHouse I 'll answer you by a question; How does the moving ship knows that it's moving? (Suppose you can't see outside the window). According to an observer both light beams get emitted from the same spot (which is absolutely correct), but what would the moving ship show? that light travels half the distance at the same time? i.e. that light has hafl ''it's speed'' according to the stopped ship? I know it's a tricky one but Albert is right.
PetranTach 4 months ago
@PetranTach I think I've almost got it.... but still can't wrap my brain around it haha
SingHouse 4 months ago
Um, in the last example, can it be the case that the clock doesnt work -_-?
like some clocks or watches doesnt work well under varying gravitational force.
banzaofking 4 months ago
So in the last example, if those 2 clocks were to meet up on a planet somewhere, would the times be the same?
TheSickleCell 4 months ago
@TheSickleCell Yes. As long as their travel beggins from the same spot and ends at the same spot on the planet or wherever, no matter wether they beggin simultaneously or not, and as long as they follow the same path, wether it is a straight or curved line, twisted e.t.c.
PetranTach 4 months ago
Just one question: If, according to Einstein, neither of the ships would be moving in an absolute sense, but simply they're both moving relative to the other, who's to say on which ship time would move slower than the other?
Conway79 4 months ago
@Conway79 They're both moving relative to light?
billiamFTW 4 months ago
@Conway79 As long as the ships are moving at a constant velocity, both ships would see themselves as stationary. Both spaceships would see the other as having slower time. So in essence unless you are outside both ships, you would see the other ship undergoing time dilation.
Aviatorsmith 4 months ago
the spaceships fired from the same spot, it was only one spaceship which had a distance of 6 lightseconds to the beam, both beams traveled 12 lightseconds in 12 seconds, so what is this about?
if i'm wrong, then i didn't understood the video...
masteralex62 4 months ago
@masteralex62 The stationary ship sees it's own beam travel 12 light seconds in 12 seconds. The moving ship sees it's own beam travel 6 light seconds in 6 seconds according to it's own clock.
Aviatorsmith 4 months ago
Finally I understand.
MHGenesis 4 months ago
@MHGenesis You don't.
DerCoolbreezer 4 months ago
@DerCoolbreezer
Sometimes I'll travel at the speed of light for ~50 years to make sure that I can see you dying.
MHGenesis 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@MHGenesis At leased you proved you dont understand.
Manoo62 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this was 4 which i was looking for..:) hoping more vids 2 cm up on ds channel
123gugul123 4 months ago
Little bit confused with the clock model and explanation how it works on 7:00...9:00. It is clear if this model stands in the moving system so that beam moves orthogonally to the direction of movement, but what would happen if you rotate this model by 90deg and the beam would move in the same direction as moving system?
typedefhuman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are a truth seeker, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says. Everyone needs to see this. The Present will turn this world right-side up if it reaches enough people. You will see what I mean when you read the first page.
vividDC 4 months ago
Wait a second...
WAAAIT
Look at the last example, with the moving clocks and the diagonal light path.
Sure the clock ticks slower, but what is the clock measuring? The clock is measuring the interval between the light beam. The clock isn't measuring time itself. Time is not being bent, the light beam is.... >_>
the dimension they call 'time' is just the difference in the path of the light beam... time itself stays intact, just the clock shows something else.
therealjordiano 5 months ago
@therealjordiano I was thinking the same thing! Whenever I hear about time dialation, I always think: What exactly is time? And if our perspective of time changes, does that necessarily mean that time, itself, is changing? Also, if moving close to the speed of light and we travel to a place and come back, why don't we age as much? Do our atoms slow up or something? What exaclty is going on to our body that would make it age slower?
loveslashdeath 5 months ago
@loveslashdeath Hehe exactly... My question to scientists who think that time can simply be bent, is that if it takes you 5 seconds to say 'that's awesome!' would you say it slower if you were going at 99.999% the speed of light? I somehow doubt it, and ofc using what I said in my last post xD
I cannot comprehend time as a fabric, time is just what we use to measure the space between one time to another. Just because we are going faster, shouldn't mean that seconds tick slower. :)
therealjordiano 5 months ago
@therealjordiano well first it depends if your moving on earth and in space and to be logical in space you cannot talk and well yes it would dilate first it is because it is naturally slower than light and to make it simpler if an observer could see sound waves and your car was moving at the speed of light the sound waves would be slower and would seem to be just a bit ahead and technically they would not be affected by time dilation since they have no mass whatsoever
52soccerstar 5 months ago
@loveslashdeath That is correct! You may consider your metabolism as an ''internal'' clock. Suppose you have a twin brother here on eath. Some day you decide to take a trip in to a planet which is 20 light years away from earth. Given the fact that your ship can travel by light speed, it will take you 20 years to get to that planet, and another 20 to get back. So, according to earth, your brother will be +40 years older than you. But due to special relativity, you won't have aged a bit.
PetranTach 4 months ago
@loveslashdeath ..and as you mentioned, travelling by light speed gets your metabolism stalled, including thinking! That is why you don't realise any time dilation, everything seems to be just fine. Therefore, on your way back to earth, you are given the impression that you had a travel in future! Accordig to earth, it took you 40 years, but according to you, it took just a few seconds. Who's right??? Both.
PetranTach 4 months ago
@therealjordiano first of all the clock is measuring solar hours or time earth goes around the sun and it changes because of the design according to the solar hours basically it is confused because it has gone back in time
52soccerstar 5 months ago
@52soccerstar the clock measures the rate at which the light beam hits the two plates, which causes the clock to advance. It isn't measuring time, regardless of where it is, what speed it is going or what forces are acting on it... it is only measuring the light beam.
therealjordiano 5 months ago
@therealjordiano really well then time dilations dos seem quite improbable
52soccerstar 5 months ago
@52soccerstar well this is my theory anyway :) no problem believing otherwise
therealjordiano 5 months ago
@therealjordiano You forgot that the light beam always travels at a constant speed, so if the clock was in motion the light beam would have to make a longer diagonal path and would therefore appear to slow down when viewed by an observer.
If you were travelling with the clock the light beam would travel in straight lines and it would appear to tick normally.
The only way this can be correct is if time has slowed down for the moving clock i.e time dilation.
Manoo62 4 months ago
@Manoo62 The light may have to take a diagonal path, but that just means that the clock is using an ineffective way of measuring time now. Clocks would use a light beam because they can accurately make the clock advance by a certain amount after each time it makes contact with one of the plates.
therealjordiano 4 months ago
@therealjordiano !?!?!?!?!? so now your saying the clock isnt made accurate enought! unbelievable.
The clock isnt ever real its a though experiment!!!! its only the priciple that matters, just how dumb are you?
We have already established the light beam DOESNT slow down its constant! It ticks slower due to the diagonal path when in motion. How do you explain the fact that the clock ticks normally if you are travelling along with it genius...this should be good.....
Manoo62 4 months ago
Comment removed
therealjordiano 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Manoo62
The light beam takes longer to get between the two plates because of the diagonal path... what in that is causing time to slow down? Nothing, it does however make a clock tick slower because clocks don't measure time itself. -.- accuracy has nothing to do with it
Basically...the light takes longer to travel back and forth from the plates when in motion, the clock ticks slower, but the clock is measuring the light beam, not time. time is metaphysical and not a movable fabric imo >_>
therealjordiano 4 months ago
@Manoo62 (i forgot to add) ...so if the light beam slows down.. the clock will tick slower, but time isn't ticking slower itself, because the clock isn't measuring time. We just use clocks to measure something that will measure an interval equaling a second, 60 of those intervals will make a minute... 3600 will equal an hour. But when the intervals slow down, you could put a clock which isn't affected by motion (Like a digital clock) next to the light-beam clock and it will tick as normal.
therealjordiano 4 months ago
@therealjordiano Even digital clocks, or any other clock for that matter, will experience time dilation.
Gunner3210 4 months ago
@Gunner3210 How and why? Any clocks use something to measure an interval of time equal to a second, of the interval gets affected by motion, that doesn't mean that time is dilating... imo
therealjordiano 4 months ago
@therealjordiano if you'd ever actually learn mathematical explanation of relativity and Lorentz transforms, you would not have any doubts that time dilation is real. Time dilation is not some fancy idea in physics, like string theory for example, it is a fact verified numerous times in the last hundred years. Have you ever heard of a elementary particle called muon? Experiments have shown that when muon travels at high speeds, its lifetime is measured to be longer than when it's at rest.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan Fair enough :S do you have any links for that btw, cos i'm quite interested to see
therealjordiano 4 months ago
@therealjordiano I am sure there are thousands of websites if you just google "muon lifetime". One such site is from hyperphysics, very useful resource usually intended for physics undergrads. Just type"hyperphysics muon" and that should be the first link on google. Keep in mind, however, that individual particles may last longer or shorter than this. What they're talking about here is average lifetime.
QuantumRuslan 4 months ago
@QuantumRuslan ok cool, thanks
therealjordiano 4 months ago
Comment removed
therealjordiano 5 months ago
mind = blown
PCgeekist 5 months ago
no matter how much i understand time dilation, it just blows my mind so much i cant accept it hehe (i do accept it, but just in terms of "common sense" i cant accept it lol)
DragonSniper7 5 months ago
Well done, iPhone. U just brutally FUCKED my mine.
crby101 5 months ago
does this apply strictly to light?
denglish5 5 months ago
@denglish5 these concepts apply to every reference frame, but the effects of relativity are really only noticeable when you have an object moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
dcphil2743 5 months ago
@dcphil2743 thankyou
denglish5 5 months ago
@dcphil2743 exactly why? what's slowing things down when coming closer to the speed of light? Is there some kind of friction or something that gets heavier when you move faster?
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I'm not really into math as I'm not physicist. I just want to understand why they have such properties in layman terms. What I'm trying to seek is not what is according to the equation but rather, how did it come to behave that is according to equation. How and why does it get "heavier" in lay man's term. Usually those equations just came from our observations but as to how did they come to be is what I exactly seek.
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 5 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I take my hat off to those people who are not contented to such answers like those scientists who really work hard to provide answers to questions like how exactly gravity works.
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
niceee
subfrostedzero 5 months ago
Comment removed
subfrostedzero 5 months ago
I was pooping and watching this on my smartphone. Best. Poop. Ever.
tobofre 5 months ago
So it is not time that slows down but our perception of distance that elongates?!
Acoontey 5 months ago
does anyone else think that the pace chips kinda look like a manta ray mixed with a dolphin
pivotcrave 6 months ago
This seems to me that there's something that prevents the light from exceeding the speed of light. What is it?
Looking at 7:33 does this mean it also applies to mechanical clocks? What if the clock doesn't use light as a measure of time but a swing of a pendulum?
MrSupertonsky 6 months ago
@MrSupertonsky I'm pretty sure, based on my recent study of author stephen hawking, that the answer to your question lies in mass and the E=mc^2 einstein equation. As a mass approaches the speed of light the mass just seems to get bigger and bigger to infinity, and therefor energy is also infinite. so it's impossible to reach the speed of light.
Ghaiyst 6 months ago
@MrSupertonsky I think the answer is if light travels at 186 miles an hour and you are going at lets say 45 thousand miles and hour and u launch the light, you are not moving fast enough (or faster than the light) to propel it forward to move faster....0.o a test that should be tried!
MrSunSued 5 months ago
@MrSunSued To my impression, it seems that the time seem to slow down or stop because if an object moves at the speed of light, then its internal structures can't move because every part of it is moving at one direction at the speed of light so it can't move in any other direction, thus it manifest no changes (zero time) within itself. So let's say we can only move 10km/s max. If I move 10km/s south then it means I can no longer move in any other direction.
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
pt2. So let's say I'm moving 5km/s south, I can still add 5km/s south which is 10km/s total speed going to south or I can add 5km/s west which is 10km/s going south-west. So the question is, what is that something the prevents something from exceeding the speed of light? And if my impression is right, then speed of light being relative is only true if we only consider a closed system in which that particular system as a whole moves at a certain direction at the speed of light.
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
@MrSunSued pt3. This also gives me an impression that only non-moving object has the normal reference to time. Because to himself, time is 1 is to 1. But for a moving object, it's a fraction of that depending on its speed. Time becomes unreliable for a moving object that it has to ask the non-moving object to know the real time.
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
@MrSupertonsky but we in ourselves are objects moving within the universe on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy. Almost everything is moving at different speeds within the universe. So true time as a reference to what observer? What is stationary and not expanding/moving within the universe itself?
pboytrif1 5 months ago
@MrSupertonsky PT1so your impression, if i understand you, is that moving as the speed of light is the "maximum speed' anyone can obtain because the atoms are moving at the precise speed where they no longer can go any direction but one direction without causing a internal conflict of friction and imbalance thus causing them to be still and stuck moving so fast in one direction their motionless warp is not allowing them to lack of a better word "age" or the effects of time?
if this is so
MrSunSued 5 months ago
@MrSunSued pt2 how can we measure how fast or deep an atom really goes and if it is really only "going in one direction" or it is relative that light takes X amount of years to reach us traveling at the speed of light therefor it is time relevant even though time may move slower for a moving object than a stagnant.
i have noticed when my brain is active and alert it can think many things in a single moment, however tired, it cannot think much in minutes.
MrSunSued 5 months ago
@MrSunSued pt2 final. It still does not answer that how can we know if speed of light is truly the fastest speed, if we cannot attain a faster speed, than light will never be able to be shot out moving quicker than itself to see what type of friction or elegance it flows through which ever type of atmosphere tested. or vise versa. How fast do different type of radio/stereo waves travel? could we even measure that?
MrSunSued 5 months ago
@MrSunSued Yes, that's how I come with my impression after watching this vid and some few articles. I'm trying to understand things in lay man's term. I'm not sure how close my understanding is to what really those scientists want us to understand. I think they need to lay things out in a way that is easy to understand.
MrSupertonsky 5 months ago
You just have to agree that you don't have the eyes for it. You're just tied to one possibility, out of infinite ones.
63Hertzi 6 months ago
You can think of it as the smallest distance being closely related to the speed of light, aiming to the idea that putting an object in time=0s in a point in space than add the "smallest distance" in 1s (time=1s) the object suffered no changes, like it had no motion. Therefore it is regardless to take in consideration if you're in motion or the standing still, light doesn't depend on anything.
63Hertzi 6 months ago
So wait, if my understanding is correct, then if humanity can build a space craft that can hit close to light speed, then it will seem as though no time has passed for the occupants on the ship at all if they go from, say, Earth to Alpha Centauri? Of course 4.3 light years would have passed here on Earth and the rest of the Universe, but would that time traveled seem instant, or near instant, for the occupants? This is something that needs to be taken into account for Sci Fi series.
Levitikai 6 months ago