the velocities are the same because time is slowed down from the frame of the travelers but not so for the observer, v = d / t
keep in mind this is an extreme example, and although time dilation is the most commonly spoken about dilation mass also increases as one approaches the speed of light. the regression for the amount of force to overcome intertia to increase speed is such that one can never reach 1c. also if you tried to enter a worm hole in time via a black hole time would slow down.
@matt876mma time dilation isn't a "maybe", this has been proven in a lab. In fact, a perfect example is GPS satellites. They need to compensate for time differences as it travels around the planet. As Richard Feynman once said, "people can believe these absurd stories of how the universe was created, but the reality is that its much weirder than that."
I dont believe this time dilation theory. It's way too bruce willis science fictiony for me. If i travelled the speed of light for a few hours. Thats just means i'm fast dont mean i've travelled in the future or i will age more slowly, and things on the outside will age must faster. I need more solid proof before i believe in this.
...so how does this validate Carl Sagan's video explanation of time dilation, in which a boy travels at almost a speed of light for a few minutes, only to return to his friends, finding out they have aged decades. So this is where I'm confused... It seems to say it is only the observers perception that makes it appear to be moving slower, whereas the theory also explains time DOES slow down. Can somebody please clear this up for me??
The one where the boy travels at the speed of light and one stays on earth involves Acceleration and Deceleration, and is much harder to explain. Look up for the Twin Paradox.
I still find this confusing! So I understand that the red pulse would appear to move across (forward) to an observer's point of view, and that the observer would also in fact be seeing it move at the exact same speed as the pilot does. Yet, the red pulse would PERCIEVED to be moving slower, due to the forward motion the observer sees, right?
@g0t2 that wouldn't matter it's a lazer and light isn't affected by wind and they are not shooting diagonaly they shoot straight down but this video explanes it wrong
I understand the pulse of light hitting the mirror because it's also moving in a forward direction but why would a stationary observer see the pulse move slower just because it is a longer distance. Wouldnt the stationary observer just see the pulse travel even faster over that amount of diagonal distance?
@HYBRIID No, because light has this peculiar property that it's velocity appears absolutely the same for every observer, whatever speed has the observer in relation to the source of the light (for instance a light bulb or anything, any source). You may go at 80% if the speed of light and see a light emitting source (like a futuristic car!) going at 60% of the speed of light, the light emitted from the car will still travel respective to you a "c" (300.000 km/h)
@g0t2 xD I've never taken physics. I'm only 13. xD I will at the end of this year though! I'm psyched. It looks awesome. Wouldn't the laser head straight up though? Then the ships would continue on,
no, it will take the exact same amount of time from any perspective.
The forward momentum of the ship is going to keep the pulse of light moving forward even with the two ships. I dont understand what's so confusing about that.
That doesn make sense to me.. So i see their time move slower and they see mine time move slower too? Lets say one day runs on that asteroid and their clock ticks just once.. Now they see mine clock in same fashion? So i build a house in a month... On their clock on ship passes 31 seconds.. But from their point of view time my time is even thousand times slower than their clocks.. so they see me build a house in miliseconds?
That doesn't work. If the space ship were shooting straight down as in the video, it would miss as the spaceship flew ahead of hit. It would have to shoot diagonally forward for that to work, being the same thing that the observer saw.
@luckyluc009 Why? The Top ship is always right on top of the bottom ship. Since they are moving at the same speed, it is as if they are not even moving at all from their perspectives.
@luckyluc009 Somebody didn't do well on their classical physics course. Or played too much Super Mario World game (in which the physics in the game was incorrect). Joking btw. Anyways there is no force from wind because we are in vacuum so no need to shoot diagonally.
In the video it shows the pulse being reflected straight back to the emitter on the ship. Who said the photon had to go back to the origin point on the vessel? In fact, the faster the ships go, the less likely it is to return to that point because if the ships are travelling fast enough, hitting point C would require exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. Wouldnt the light beam just be reflected back to point A, or a point between A & C (point D)?
imo this is the best example of an explanation on the internet :)
however... even though the light looks like it is going in a diagonal path, that's because you're looking at it from the wrong point of view.
the diagonal path being longer WOULD be the case IF the light beam was between two still ships, but because the ships are moving, it is our perception of the light beams that appears different, not time itself.
^-- just my theory... and since the neutrinos, people like theories more
@therealjordiano Einstein states "there is no absolute rest or in motion" both a relative to each other. therefor both observers are at rest and in motion depending on their perspective.
can someone explained it to me?.. it means that if i would travel the speed of the light i would see the light more later.. but it means that if iam in the space traveling by speed c iam not getting older? beacuse i saw it in the different video.. how can the light acts to the time??
The effect in this video is entirely within the realm of special relativity, which deals with uniform motion. Non-uniform motion (acceleration) is the province of general relativity, and, by treating gravity as an acceleration, GR is consequently a theory of gravity.
Yes, it really is time dilation. Perspective doesn't matter. Suppose the two spaceships were moving directlly away from you. When the pulse returns to the first ship, you'd note that the ship was farther away from you than when the pulse was emitted, and correctly calculate the same diagonal path for the light as at any other orientation.
@pseudorandomly I already knoew this after reading a lot, but I couldnt exacly get the tiny bit . Your answer is perfect, while mooving away we would see the beam after... Great way of explaining mate thanks!
This video is correct, but the explanation is a bit too abstract. Suppose the pilot of the ship that fired the laser beam measures the reflected pulse as returning in 1 second. The asteroid observer sees that same pulse taking a diagonal path, and therefore sees the pulse traverse a longer distance. Since light always travels at the same speed, the asteroid observer measures, say, 3 seconds. But like the pilot, he sees the ship clock advance only 1 second.
If two ships are traveling at close to the speed of light than the emitted beam from a first ship would miss the mirror on the second ship? If it did not miss it as it was showed in this clip and pilot measured that beam traveled 186000 miles per second than the guy on the asteroid would also measure that it was traveling 186000 miles per second but at different viewing angle not at a longer distance.
View it this way: suppose a person is bouncing a ball off the highway as the car he's riding in moves at 60 mph (ignore the fact that air friction and the roadway would drag the ball backwards). To the person in the car, the ball is traveling straight up and down; but to you, standing on the side of the road, the ball is moving forward at 60 mph as well as moving up and down. Thus, you measure a longer travel distance for the ball than the person in the car.
wait wait wait... so if two rocket ships were traveling at the speed of light then the light that the ship emitted down to the other ship will never reach the other ship because it cannot exceed the speed of light?
And this concept applies to all things not just light so any movements within the ship slows down because there's something stopping them from exceeding the speed of light?
@ven0IVI You do? I don't really get why the forward motion changes it. Just because the two ships are moving, shouldn't it take the light the same amount of time to pass between the two ships? They are the same distance apart and the light is travelling the same speed as it usually would. Yes the path appears different (diagonal) from a different perspective. But I don't see how a different perspective necessarily changes time passed. No?
someone help me understand this please. i thought that the speed of light was uneffected by the speed of the object emitting the light. if that is so, then there would be no forward motion imparted to the light emitted from the top space ship. with no forwad motion, the light would miss the lower space ship and not reflect back. what am i missing??
@bruceblazo Yes, the speed of the light is unaffected; however, your conclusion that the forward velocity must therefore be 0 is only correct when the system is viewed from a frame of reference with the same velocity as the two ships (SFR)
From the Asteroid's Frame of Reference (AFR) the ships & light have forward motion; however, this "extra" distance (D) from the AFR is counter-balanced by "extra" time (T) elapsing in the AFR relative to the SFR. T increases along with D so that c is constant
If the ships were 1 light second apart and the observer was 1 light second away from them then, by the time you saw the light the ships would be gone. So nothing to see.
The simple idea that light has a finite speed when travelling through no medium intrigues me. Anything less than instantaneous indicates friction.
@toffa66 All three aren't moving at the same speed. The ships are moving close to the speed of light.. the light is moving.. well, the speed of light (faster than the ships).
Well Ok. But then the distance between the two ships becomes very important, because if the distance is to big the light will miss the receiver. A beam of light travels in a straight line. That to is false in the illustration given in this Youtube theory. In this video the light travels in two direction 1. Towards the receiver. 2 and in the same direction as both ships are traveling. I think the owner have to brush up a bit on this theory. Because its far from accurate.
@toffa66 Notice the amount of times the narrator says "the observer sees", or "from his perspective". It's not news that a beam of light travels in a straight line, but the whole point of this is the "effect". That being said, this isn't as much a theory as it is an effect. This is what is perceived under the given circumstances, not what is theorized to be perceived... because that doesn't really make any sense.
@Rudy4President : What the observer would see is very well explained if you do the geometry with the illustration. The observer would see the light pass behind the ship. Draw a "right triangle" between the 2 ships with sides A,B and C and see for your self. By doing this you would also see what distance the receiving ship must have to the other ship that sends the signal, to be able to receive the signal.
@toffa66 Both spacecrafts are moving at the same speed. With this in mind, imagine you're dribling a ball inside one of those spacecrafts; the ball will always get back to your hand , like the laser to the transmitter, no matter how fast or slow you're travelling.
@LeconsdAnalyse I beg to differ. If light travels at 300,000,000m/s in space then in a true vacuum it would be faster. Light is energy so light from different directions/sources have to weave through each other(impedance). True vacuum is theory only. E=MC^2 energy is mass so how can space be called a vacuum when it is full of light ?
@LeconsdAnalyse So light is not charged particles and they don't travel across space they just appear at source and destination. Well that doesn't help explain the limitation of light speed in a vacuum if it can't be there.
@LeconsdAnalyse They are travelling through the galaxy according to the vid. Plot radiating lines from all the stars and tell me the light does not interact in space. Tell me again how there is no energy in space, yet energy(light) travels through space. Tell me again how this "vacuum" has no potential given all the radiation .
@DemonAMVs we can't interpret anything above 90 fps but we also can't travel even remotely close to the speed of light like in this video. It was just a thought
What if quantum mechanics is combined in a problem with time dilation? Not that unheard of as subatomic particles can travel close to the speed of light. Take a particle that could travel forward or stationary relative to you with a 50/50 chance (using a beam splitter), and therefore would pass through time at BOTH RATES simultaneously. The math to figure that out is ridiculous, and yet therefore the particle would exist in two timeframes simultaneosly. Would this cause duplication of particles?
Could the same amount of time be perceived differently by the amount of frames per second your brain can process. For example if the average brain processes 30 fps. So a minute seems like a minute. If you could some how process 120 fps would that same minute now seem like 4 minutes? If so, wouldn't time be relative to the speed of the individual brain to process information also?
@jskron55 biological clocks are affected in the same way as physical clocks, and time itself, so therefore you personally would feel no different. You percieve the other person's time as off, not your own.
That same effect happens here with the light. Even though it is fired straight down towards the bottom mirror it already has the forward motion of the ship so it stays inline with the mirrors as they travel forward. Because the spaceship driver is traveling with the ship, at the same speed, he doesn't experience the forward motion, he just sees it going up and down. etc etc. etc. etc. EASY
Why the light doesn't miss the mirror: Imagine you're in an open top car traveling at a CONSTANT speed e. 70mph. You throw a ball STRAIGHT into the air. The ball will land STRAIGHT back down in your hand! cause you and the ball are in the car, when you release it it has the forward motion of the car (70mph), even if you throw it straight up. Therefore it stays above you just like if you're stood still. But to someone stood still on the road, they see the forward motion of the ball as it passes
Please can someone answer this question - a guy who told me he studies quantum physics said that time dilation can prove that life is predetermined.. He says that if you are on another planet that's going faster than we are (ie towards the speed of light) and from that planet you look at earth, then you'll see our future. That means, according to him that everything has already happened already.
@ldnkid in a sense, you have the power of free will, which is the ability to CHOOSE your future, or change it. who knows, maybe their future with us in it is another dimension of possiblity.
@MrSkateholic You can't choose your future when you're in jail. For example, you tell a kid that his future is bright. The next day that kid end up in jail for killing bunch of people, now he ends up in jail for the rest of his life. But he really wants to be an engineer. Well he can't...
@tommy407 but he did choose the path. in the end, i think theres only one thing that can happen, but if you think about it, you can't really choose. what happens happens, there's nothing you can do to change it now.
@ldnkid Not really. Time would be going slower for the person on the faster planet so a few minutes to them might be a few decades to us. In that respect they would see our future yes but its not like some kind of magic mirror they are looking through they basically just waited until the future happened except, because they were travelling near the speed of light, they only had to wait a few minutes
Through relativity theory of Einstein of over one century, it hold with strength - as a conspiracy a general activity of intellectual stultify of the planetary population. From relativity theory proceed the notion of: singularity, big bang, black holes and holes of worm. From 1905 and till now 2011, disciples of to Einstein, preach with contumely, as scientific elements of high class these theoretical confusions, these absurdities from which they had made a business.
Is this calibration that needs to be done on GPS a true physical phenomena of "time dilation" or just a relative delay of information due to position and velocity. Think of the eye, we see a light, but we can't say with 100% certeinty the position of the source of the light, unless we are very very close to the source.
@locoyo386 It is a true physical phenomenon. GPS sat elites work by using very accurate clocks. They continually transmit there times to GPS receivers in cars, phones, etc. The receivers use the time codes to calculate where they are in relation to the satellites. The satellites move fast enough to experience time dilation so they computers need to compensate for that when sending out their signals.
@TimothyFaust Yeah, they have to re-adjust their signal because their signal is not 'true time'. It is a signal that conveys the information of what time the clocks read. This information has to travel back to earth, and the distance that it travels is far enough that when the signal gets there, the delay in time is observed. But it is not a delay of "true time" but rather a delay of information due to the distance from when it was sent.
@TimothyFaust Think of it this way. Does the clcok change with respect to mechanical occurance that dictates the time on the clock? Yes. This is how the clocks project a number everytime this event happens. the signal from the actual event to the display is not very far at all, thus the time is very accurate, but not 100% accurate. Now think of the signal used to send the numerical time information.
@TimothyFaust This signal now has to travel a longer distance, however the signal it's not changing as it travels through space for the distance that the transmitter is sending it back to earth. Example, at 3:00 pm the signal that represent the numerical value of time of 3:00pm has to travel back to earth. This signal does not change as it travels, thus think of it as the actual number 3:00 pm traveling back to earth. Time continues to elapse during this travel time.
@TimothyFaust When the numerical value of 3:00pm reaches earth, some time has elapsed already, thus it will not be 3:00pm anymore when the signal reaches earth.. This gives the perception of time slowing down for the person sending the signal.
@locoyo386 GPS works be measuring the distance between the satellite and the receiver based on the time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver from the satellite. In order for this to be accurate, the clock aboard the satelite needs to be corrected for it's slowing relative to th observers on the earth.
@TimothyFaust If the source is further away from us, say a distace of '2c', then we can't really say with certeinty that we know the true location of the source since the actual physical event is seperated forom us a distance further then we can see. Meaning that the we would not know with certeintity if the sun is still there simply beacsue we can see the light emmited from the sun.
Wow, people's heads are exploding.. This video is perfectly correct. A good way to think of it is that the two ships form a single inertial reference frame and from the perspective of the ships, they might as well be standing still while watching the universe move past them.
When it comes to light, the observer is the only perspective that matters.
@TimothyFaust If the two ships seudoform an inertial frame, how does the perspective of a stationary person, relative to the ships, observing the event contributes to the sudoformed inertial frame? After all the stationay person is not moving along with the ships. Thus on either view, one is moving and the other is not. The ships can be moving with respect to the stationary person, or the person can be moving relative to the ships.
@locoyo386 You are correct. Each can be seen as the one who is standing still. People on the ship would see time slow down on the asteroid, and people on the asteroid would observe time slowing down on the ship. No intertial reference frame is considered superior in special relativity.
@TimothyFaust But that would not be a, what I call a 'true time dilation'. Simpy because if both can argue that the time relative to the other slowed down, then the true time is not slowed is the relative delay in information with respect to each other. If the peole on the ships see the time slow down for the people on the asteroid, and the people see time slow down for the people on the ship, then there is no true slowdown of time.
@TimothyFaust What I see as a "true time" dilations is a dilation on what I can perceive to be the "fabric of time". We only see the present, not the past nor the future. If what happens was something I would trully see it as time dilation. There would have to be a phase shift in time. Meaning that if time is really slower on the satellite, then it would be like our past. We would no longer be in phase with it, we would not see it anymore.
@locoyo386 You can consider "true time" dilation to be whatever you want, but that doesn't change the definition of a mathematically predicted model that has been confirmed experimentally.
@TimothyFaust Yes, it might be a methematically predicted model, however it does not show what trully happens physically with what we see as a time base event. Just as a mesured time base event. Meaning that it is a measurement of the event itseld and not the true time.
@locoyo386 OK, I think I get where you are confused. You think that there is some type of universal measurement of time, but time is entirely dependent on the observer.
@TimothyFaust Is that 'true time' or how it has been defined as a measure of event? That's why Esietein beleived that time is not absolute but rather relative. However, we all can say we expereince time simultaneously, simply because we don't see Einstein, Napoeon, or da Vinci anymore. Unless you can say they are still here.
@TimothyFaust Take an example of two cars moving trhough space. If they are moving at identical velocities, then they would see each other all through their movement trough space. However if one is moving slower, then it will eventually not be visslbe form the other car, as they will expereince a phase shift in space. Vissibly it will take a great distance for that to happen as the eye can see a great distance.
@TimothyFaust When it comes to time, we can't perceive a great interval of time, we only see a very very small increment of time, thus if an object is trully moving slower through time, that object would not be vissible to us anymore as we can't see in the past, if any at all.
@TimothyFaust This is not a mathematically predicted phenomena, but a rather realistic visul confirmation of observation. The only thing that validates this to be a true occurance is the delay of information through space. Meaning that I see the sun, however I do not know if it's still there simpy beacuse it takes time, even for light, to reach an observer 'me'.
@locoyo386 Well you are just completely wrong. Time dilation is defined based on the thought experiment above, and shown to be mathematically predictable according to the Lorentz Transformation function, and is observable and measurable experimentally. Special Relativity is the basis for all moder science. Just because you don't like it or understand it, doesn't make it not true.
@TimothyFaust It might be that I don't understand it. However the reason I do not understand it it's based on observation. If you are refereing to the sun example, then that example is delay of information and not a physicall phenomena in that time slows down based on relative velocity.
@TimothyFaust Another example. If you are preoccupied then all of a sudden you hear the roar of a jet plane and by the time you look up that plane is out of your sight. Would you say that the plane is now in the future since you can't see it at the time you heard it?
@locoyo386 For one thing you can speed up an atomic clock very very fast, approaching the speed of light in a particle accelerator. The moving clock measures only a small fraction of a second when several seconds have gone by for the stationary clocks.
Do you understand that light moves at the same speed regardless of who is looking at it? It is the only thing in the universe that does this, and that is the basis for relativity.
@TimothyFaust When using atomic clocks, you are still measuring an event and rlating it to a increment of time. The more consistent this event is the more accurate you can measure an increment of time. However, this methods still remains as a method that uses the lapse of an event as a measure of time. The clock uses frequency meothods as the standard for incremental time measument. Meaning that the frequency is still subject to a relative method to measure time.
@TimothyFaust " For one thing you can speed up an atomic clock very very fast, approaching the speed of light in a particle accelerator."
Are you saying that an atomic clock such as the NIST-F1 or the NIST-7 can be accelerated at very high speeds inside a particle accelerator? Would the actual "atomic clock" have to be of very very small mass? If not, would it not take a fairly large amount of energy to accelerate even an object as a simple wrist watch to very very close speed to 'c'?
@TimothyFaust What is it about the decay time, that prevents the decay from happening differently at higher speeds? Why is it an accepted fact that decay time is constant at all speeds?
@TimothyFaust "and is observable and measurable experimentally"
How can you experiment with "time" when you are not outside of time?
Sure we can experiment on how we measure time, however one has to ask the question if that is an adequate method to measure time. See every method we use to measure time is based on an event trough time, thus how can we really know if we are measuring the event or time itself? This is why the theory of space-time.
@TimothyFaust There is a true time dilation, however we can't seem to perceive it. This time dilation occurs from the transition of the past to the future. We can only see this a moment to moment occurance, however we can't seem to pin-point what this increment of time really is. Can you see what occured 1/1,000,000,000,000 or even smaller then tahat? NO. We only see moment to moment.
@TimothyFaust A true slwoing of time, even for a very very small increment of time, would imply a past. We can't perceive to see anything in the past, only that which is in the present. We can see the information from the past, but it is as a memory or as recorded oinformation. If the sallelite was trully moving slower in time, it would not be vissible to us anymore as it would be in the past.
i still didn't get it.
sniped101 10 hours ago
the velocities are the same because time is slowed down from the frame of the travelers but not so for the observer, v = d / t
keep in mind this is an extreme example, and although time dilation is the most commonly spoken about dilation mass also increases as one approaches the speed of light. the regression for the amount of force to overcome intertia to increase speed is such that one can never reach 1c. also if you tried to enter a worm hole in time via a black hole time would slow down.
tubertomp 1 week ago
Wouldn't the lazer miss the mirror as the rocket is moving near the speed of light?
baroknight 3 weeks ago
@baroknight no because the light is moving with the rockets
popshuvitskater 3 weeks ago
@baroknight I was asking myself the same question.
plix3r 3 weeks ago
@plix3r I was thinking the same thing.
sniped101 10 hours ago
@monstamunch90 of course it validates it as Sagan was validating Einstein
trfinck 4 weeks ago
@matt876mma time dilation isn't a "maybe", this has been proven in a lab. In fact, a perfect example is GPS satellites. They need to compensate for time differences as it travels around the planet. As Richard Feynman once said, "people can believe these absurd stories of how the universe was created, but the reality is that its much weirder than that."
trfinck 4 weeks ago
I dont believe this time dilation theory. It's way too bruce willis science fictiony for me. If i travelled the speed of light for a few hours. Thats just means i'm fast dont mean i've travelled in the future or i will age more slowly, and things on the outside will age must faster. I need more solid proof before i believe in this.
matt876mma 4 weeks ago
@matt876mma
Time dilation phenomenon is very real and has been scientifically proven over and over again.
ImageRaiter 1 week ago
...so how does this validate Carl Sagan's video explanation of time dilation, in which a boy travels at almost a speed of light for a few minutes, only to return to his friends, finding out they have aged decades. So this is where I'm confused... It seems to say it is only the observers perception that makes it appear to be moving slower, whereas the theory also explains time DOES slow down. Can somebody please clear this up for me??
monstamunch90 1 month ago
@monstamunch90
The one where the boy travels at the speed of light and one stays on earth involves Acceleration and Deceleration, and is much harder to explain. Look up for the Twin Paradox.
ImageRaiter 1 week ago
I still find this confusing! So I understand that the red pulse would appear to move across (forward) to an observer's point of view, and that the observer would also in fact be seeing it move at the exact same speed as the pilot does. Yet, the red pulse would PERCIEVED to be moving slower, due to the forward motion the observer sees, right?
monstamunch90 1 month ago
@g0t2 that wouldn't matter it's a lazer and light isn't affected by wind and they are not shooting diagonaly they shoot straight down but this video explanes it wrong
xetrius 1 month ago
I understand the pulse of light hitting the mirror because it's also moving in a forward direction but why would a stationary observer see the pulse move slower just because it is a longer distance. Wouldnt the stationary observer just see the pulse travel even faster over that amount of diagonal distance?
HYBRIID 1 month ago
@HYBRIID
Light travels at c for all observers.
segmentationfault 1 month ago
@HYBRIID No, because light has this peculiar property that it's velocity appears absolutely the same for every observer, whatever speed has the observer in relation to the source of the light (for instance a light bulb or anything, any source). You may go at 80% if the speed of light and see a light emitting source (like a futuristic car!) going at 60% of the speed of light, the light emitted from the car will still travel respective to you a "c" (300.000 km/h)
signorellil 1 month ago
@g0t2 xD I've never taken physics. I'm only 13. xD I will at the end of this year though! I'm psyched. It looks awesome. Wouldn't the laser head straight up though? Then the ships would continue on,
luckyluc009 1 month ago
just because it APPEARS to move less distance from the pilots seat, doesn't mean that it actually does.
That's how it appears to me at least.
Fragaholik 1 month ago
@Fragaholik That is why time is relative.
goo gl/97aB5
vuzia2 1 month ago
no, it will take the exact same amount of time from any perspective.
The forward momentum of the ship is going to keep the pulse of light moving forward even with the two ships. I dont understand what's so confusing about that.
Fragaholik 1 month ago
technically, the observer wouldn't see anything because even close to the speed of light all he would see is 3 blurs, (2 ships and the light)
angrykillerpigeons 1 month ago
OHHHHHHHHHHHH, i get it now!
JinNOSify 2 months ago
I know that light is both a wave and a particle; now if an object gains mass as is accelerates' does light itself have mass?
examinfo 2 months ago
That doesn make sense to me.. So i see their time move slower and they see mine time move slower too? Lets say one day runs on that asteroid and their clock ticks just once.. Now they see mine clock in same fashion? So i build a house in a month... On their clock on ship passes 31 seconds.. But from their point of view time my time is even thousand times slower than their clocks.. so they see me build a house in miliseconds?
code13cz 2 months ago
best example to show that relativity
chocolatechocochoco 2 months ago
That doesn't work. If the space ship were shooting straight down as in the video, it would miss as the spaceship flew ahead of hit. It would have to shoot diagonally forward for that to work, being the same thing that the observer saw.
luckyluc009 2 months ago
@luckyluc009 Why? The Top ship is always right on top of the bottom ship. Since they are moving at the same speed, it is as if they are not even moving at all from their perspectives.
tylertubeism 2 months ago
@luckyluc009 Somebody didn't do well on their classical physics course. Or played too much Super Mario World game (in which the physics in the game was incorrect). Joking btw. Anyways there is no force from wind because we are in vacuum so no need to shoot diagonally.
g0t2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fake n gay
ri58tki69ylo584573ur 2 months ago
Comment removed
matthieusirault 2 months ago
now explain time acceleration
or the vopposute of time dialation
circle559 2 months ago
now explain time acceleration
circle559 2 months ago
anyone else wondering why they're in such a hurry?
161803 2 months ago
In the video it shows the pulse being reflected straight back to the emitter on the ship. Who said the photon had to go back to the origin point on the vessel? In fact, the faster the ships go, the less likely it is to return to that point because if the ships are travelling fast enough, hitting point C would require exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. Wouldnt the light beam just be reflected back to point A, or a point between A & C (point D)?
DeltaFoxtrotWhiskey3 2 months ago
imo this is the best example of an explanation on the internet :)
however... even though the light looks like it is going in a diagonal path, that's because you're looking at it from the wrong point of view.
the diagonal path being longer WOULD be the case IF the light beam was between two still ships, but because the ships are moving, it is our perception of the light beams that appears different, not time itself.
^-- just my theory... and since the neutrinos, people like theories more
therealjordiano 3 months ago
@therealjordiano Einstein states "there is no absolute rest or in motion" both a relative to each other. therefor both observers are at rest and in motion depending on their perspective.
methodof3 3 months ago
@methodof3 I suck at learning this new language of observers and perspective >_< sorry lol, i don't understand.. but nevermind
therealjordiano 3 months ago
λ - Lambda!
jsrpictures 3 months ago 9
ibanez bob is in the galaxy
BobbyMercy1 3 months ago
can someone explained it to me?.. it means that if i would travel the speed of the light i would see the light more later.. but it means that if iam in the space traveling by speed c iam not getting older? beacuse i saw it in the different video.. how can the light acts to the time??
fortys625 3 months ago
@NormanKi5
The effect in this video is entirely within the realm of special relativity, which deals with uniform motion. Non-uniform motion (acceleration) is the province of general relativity, and, by treating gravity as an acceleration, GR is consequently a theory of gravity.
pseudorandomly 4 months ago
@canadiandrummer54
Yes, it really is time dilation. Perspective doesn't matter. Suppose the two spaceships were moving directlly away from you. When the pulse returns to the first ship, you'd note that the ship was farther away from you than when the pulse was emitted, and correctly calculate the same diagonal path for the light as at any other orientation.
pseudorandomly 4 months ago
@pseudorandomly I already knoew this after reading a lot, but I couldnt exacly get the tiny bit . Your answer is perfect, while mooving away we would see the beam after... Great way of explaining mate thanks!
FailDrummer 3 months ago
@canadiandrummer54
This video is correct, but the explanation is a bit too abstract. Suppose the pilot of the ship that fired the laser beam measures the reflected pulse as returning in 1 second. The asteroid observer sees that same pulse taking a diagonal path, and therefore sees the pulse traverse a longer distance. Since light always travels at the same speed, the asteroid observer measures, say, 3 seconds. But like the pilot, he sees the ship clock advance only 1 second.
pseudorandomly 4 months ago
If two ships are traveling at close to the speed of light than the emitted beam from a first ship would miss the mirror on the second ship? If it did not miss it as it was showed in this clip and pilot measured that beam traveled 186000 miles per second than the guy on the asteroid would also measure that it was traveling 186000 miles per second but at different viewing angle not at a longer distance.
dadan79 4 months ago
@dadan79
View it this way: suppose a person is bouncing a ball off the highway as the car he's riding in moves at 60 mph (ignore the fact that air friction and the roadway would drag the ball backwards). To the person in the car, the ball is traveling straight up and down; but to you, standing on the side of the road, the ball is moving forward at 60 mph as well as moving up and down. Thus, you measure a longer travel distance for the ball than the person in the car.
pseudorandomly 4 months ago
can you upload a simpler version for dummies?
ignatei 5 months ago 3
@ignatei this is it. You're looking for "for retards"
Nomneenja 4 months ago
that just blew my mind
jmontis2 5 months ago
Wow awesome! Much clearer than Paulo and his lightspeed moped.
airstreamz 5 months ago
I hate how i dont understand a word in the comments.
moonstone12s34yy 6 months ago
@moonstone12s34yy Not understanding is a bad excuse, get a book or use Google and educate yourself
samething3 6 months ago
wait wait wait... so if two rocket ships were traveling at the speed of light then the light that the ship emitted down to the other ship will never reach the other ship because it cannot exceed the speed of light?
And this concept applies to all things not just light so any movements within the ship slows down because there's something stopping them from exceeding the speed of light?
I've got more question after this.
MrSupertonsky 6 months ago
So this is how babies are made?
vishuzkev 6 months ago
perfect example... never really understood it til now
ven0IVI 6 months ago 19
@ven0IVI You do? I don't really get why the forward motion changes it. Just because the two ships are moving, shouldn't it take the light the same amount of time to pass between the two ships? They are the same distance apart and the light is travelling the same speed as it usually would. Yes the path appears different (diagonal) from a different perspective. But I don't see how a different perspective necessarily changes time passed. No?
CFrostyTheSnowman 2 months ago
@CFrostyTheSnowman well i dont think its a big enough dilation to really change much here, but if amplified, it could be harnassed
ven0IVI 2 months ago
YAY LEARNING
Vwassel 7 months ago
damn u lazeris
Diemotherfkr 7 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
someone help me understand this please. i thought that the speed of light was uneffected by the speed of the object emitting the light. if that is so, then there would be no forward motion imparted to the light emitted from the top space ship. with no forwad motion, the light would miss the lower space ship and not reflect back. what am i missing??
bruceblazo 7 months ago
@bruceblazo Yes, the speed of the light is unaffected; however, your conclusion that the forward velocity must therefore be 0 is only correct when the system is viewed from a frame of reference with the same velocity as the two ships (SFR)
From the Asteroid's Frame of Reference (AFR) the ships & light have forward motion; however, this "extra" distance (D) from the AFR is counter-balanced by "extra" time (T) elapsing in the AFR relative to the SFR. T increases along with D so that c is constant
romantic8fanatic 7 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 7 months ago
i swear, everytime i read comments from these sorts of videos, i only read wierd shit...
FeedMoi 8 months ago
@FeedMoi I guess you are from Justin Bieber land.
colinthecolin 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colinthecolin who the fuck is Justin Bieber?
FeedMoi 7 months ago 6
@FeedMoi A little d-bag...
AyKay47 5 months ago
I saw then the Judge in His splendor,
As He stepped to His great judgment seat,
And thought of the crashing of ages,
When time and eternity meet;
For Time, who has laid many millions,
To slumber in death’s silent shade,
Shall reel at eternity’s presence,
And sleep in the tomb he has made.
Whist75 8 months ago
Comment removed
SuSiMa1lu 7 months ago
There is potential difference from the light pulse and the vacuum , or you wouldn't see it at all.
optionsnone 8 months ago
If there is nothing in its path what limits the speed of light ?
optionsnone 8 months ago
How can light travel somewhere that isn't ? A vacuum has nothing in it, light is something.
optionsnone 8 months ago
@optionsnone Or is this the first light to enter a newly formed vacuum ? If so could you cook up a more irrelevant problem ?
optionsnone 8 months ago
I really hate how these computer models are made so freaking complex. WTH?
The concept of time dilation is actually very simple to understand. People just tend to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
ammobake 8 months ago
If the ships were 1 light second apart and the observer was 1 light second away from them then, by the time you saw the light the ships would be gone. So nothing to see.
The simple idea that light has a finite speed when travelling through no medium intrigues me. Anything less than instantaneous indicates friction.
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Ok so friction is not the word for you, impedance any better?
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 8 months ago
what?
MegaRoFLL 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 9 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 9 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 9 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 9 months ago
I have a question here:
If both ships move close to the speed of light. How can the receiver, receive the light from the sender?
The receiver would never receive the light at all if all three move at the same speed.
toffa66 9 months ago
@toffa66 All three aren't moving at the same speed. The ships are moving close to the speed of light.. the light is moving.. well, the speed of light (faster than the ships).
Rudy4President 9 months ago
@Rudy4President
Well Ok. But then the distance between the two ships becomes very important, because if the distance is to big the light will miss the receiver. A beam of light travels in a straight line. That to is false in the illustration given in this Youtube theory. In this video the light travels in two direction 1. Towards the receiver. 2 and in the same direction as both ships are traveling. I think the owner have to brush up a bit on this theory. Because its far from accurate.
toffa66 9 months ago
@toffa66 Notice the amount of times the narrator says "the observer sees", or "from his perspective". It's not news that a beam of light travels in a straight line, but the whole point of this is the "effect". That being said, this isn't as much a theory as it is an effect. This is what is perceived under the given circumstances, not what is theorized to be perceived... because that doesn't really make any sense.
Rudy4President 9 months ago
@Rudy4President : What the observer would see is very well explained if you do the geometry with the illustration. The observer would see the light pass behind the ship. Draw a "right triangle" between the 2 ships with sides A,B and C and see for your self. By doing this you would also see what distance the receiving ship must have to the other ship that sends the signal, to be able to receive the signal.
toffa66 9 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 9 months ago
@toffa66 Both spacecrafts are moving at the same speed. With this in mind, imagine you're dribling a ball inside one of those spacecrafts; the ball will always get back to your hand , like the laser to the transmitter, no matter how fast or slow you're travelling.
TheMikedasBikes 9 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 10 months ago
@optionsnone What do you mean? Refraction only occurs at the interface between two different mediums.
inadaaaze 9 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 9 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 10 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 9 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse I beg to differ. If light travels at 300,000,000m/s in space then in a true vacuum it would be faster. Light is energy so light from different directions/sources have to weave through each other(impedance). True vacuum is theory only. E=MC^2 energy is mass so how can space be called a vacuum when it is full of light ?
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse So light is not charged particles and they don't travel across space they just appear at source and destination. Well that doesn't help explain the limitation of light speed in a vacuum if it can't be there.
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 8 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse Surely light leaves the sun at light speed AND expands in all directions at light speed.
If you plot radiating lines from all the stars you can see light battles through light in space(impedance), space is by no means a vacuum.
optionsnone 8 months ago 2
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse They are travelling through the galaxy according to the vid. Plot radiating lines from all the stars and tell me the light does not interact in space. Tell me again how there is no energy in space, yet energy(light) travels through space. Tell me again how this "vacuum" has no potential given all the radiation .
optionsnone 8 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 8 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 10 months ago
Comment removed
optionsnone 10 months ago
Then we can TIME TRAvEL! YES TIME TRAVEL!!!
kanopopo 10 months ago
@kanopopo We already can :) (time is slowly moving forward at 1 second per second)
phtmexplo 9 months ago
Comment removed
matto94matto 10 months ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 10 months ago
@LeconsdAnalyse For spin to have an effect there must be friction . This relates to density of medium .
optionsnone 10 months ago
why can't science be simpler... bleh
SPIKEJONES12211 10 months ago
@DemonAMVs we can't interpret anything above 90 fps but we also can't travel even remotely close to the speed of light like in this video. It was just a thought
jskron55 11 months ago
What if quantum mechanics is combined in a problem with time dilation? Not that unheard of as subatomic particles can travel close to the speed of light. Take a particle that could travel forward or stationary relative to you with a 50/50 chance (using a beam splitter), and therefore would pass through time at BOTH RATES simultaneously. The math to figure that out is ridiculous, and yet therefore the particle would exist in two timeframes simultaneosly. Would this cause duplication of particles?
42connorzielinski42 11 months ago
Could the same amount of time be perceived differently by the amount of frames per second your brain can process. For example if the average brain processes 30 fps. So a minute seems like a minute. If you could some how process 120 fps would that same minute now seem like 4 minutes? If so, wouldn't time be relative to the speed of the individual brain to process information also?
jskron55 11 months ago
@jskron55 biological clocks are affected in the same way as physical clocks, and time itself, so therefore you personally would feel no different. You percieve the other person's time as off, not your own.
42connorzielinski42 11 months ago
@jskron55 Our eyes cannot interpret anything above 90 FPS
DemonAMVs 11 months ago
That same effect happens here with the light. Even though it is fired straight down towards the bottom mirror it already has the forward motion of the ship so it stays inline with the mirrors as they travel forward. Because the spaceship driver is traveling with the ship, at the same speed, he doesn't experience the forward motion, he just sees it going up and down. etc etc. etc. etc. EASY
heron1991 11 months ago
Why the light doesn't miss the mirror: Imagine you're in an open top car traveling at a CONSTANT speed e. 70mph. You throw a ball STRAIGHT into the air. The ball will land STRAIGHT back down in your hand! cause you and the ball are in the car, when you release it it has the forward motion of the car (70mph), even if you throw it straight up. Therefore it stays above you just like if you're stood still. But to someone stood still on the road, they see the forward motion of the ball as it passes
heron1991 11 months ago
Thunbs up if Trollscience brought you here
wargarkaz 1 year ago
Please can someone answer this question - a guy who told me he studies quantum physics said that time dilation can prove that life is predetermined.. He says that if you are on another planet that's going faster than we are (ie towards the speed of light) and from that planet you look at earth, then you'll see our future. That means, according to him that everything has already happened already.
Please can someone explain if that's true or not!
Many thanks.
ldnkid 1 year ago
@ldnkid in a sense, you have the power of free will, which is the ability to CHOOSE your future, or change it. who knows, maybe their future with us in it is another dimension of possiblity.
MrSkateholic 1 year ago
@MrSkateholic You can't choose your future when you're in jail. For example, you tell a kid that his future is bright. The next day that kid end up in jail for killing bunch of people, now he ends up in jail for the rest of his life. But he really wants to be an engineer. Well he can't...
tommy407 11 months ago
@tommy407 but he did choose the path. in the end, i think theres only one thing that can happen, but if you think about it, you can't really choose. what happens happens, there's nothing you can do to change it now.
MrSkateholic 11 months ago
@ldnkid Not really. Time would be going slower for the person on the faster planet so a few minutes to them might be a few decades to us. In that respect they would see our future yes but its not like some kind of magic mirror they are looking through they basically just waited until the future happened except, because they were travelling near the speed of light, they only had to wait a few minutes
stevok777 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeconsdAnalyse 10 months ago
This makes more sense than that stupid clock thing that my teacher was trying to teach me
DarKnightofCydonia 1 year ago
SandustanBrasov
Through relativity theory of Einstein of over one century, it hold with strength - as a conspiracy a general activity of intellectual stultify of the planetary population. From relativity theory proceed the notion of: singularity, big bang, black holes and holes of worm. From 1905 and till now 2011, disciples of to Einstein, preach with contumely, as scientific elements of high class these theoretical confusions, these absurdities from which they had made a business.
sandustanBrasov 1 year ago
If this guy was my physics teacher maybe i would have passed my physics gcse :L
minglemonkey 1 year ago
20 ppl are on the asteroid
RedEagle182 1 year ago
Also keep in mind that time dilation is not just speculative. We actually have to correct for time dilation in GPS satellites.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust My question is;
Is this calibration that needs to be done on GPS a true physical phenomena of "time dilation" or just a relative delay of information due to position and velocity. Think of the eye, we see a light, but we can't say with 100% certeinty the position of the source of the light, unless we are very very close to the source.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 It is a true physical phenomenon. GPS sat elites work by using very accurate clocks. They continually transmit there times to GPS receivers in cars, phones, etc. The receivers use the time codes to calculate where they are in relation to the satellites. The satellites move fast enough to experience time dilation so they computers need to compensate for that when sending out their signals.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Yeah, they have to re-adjust their signal because their signal is not 'true time'. It is a signal that conveys the information of what time the clocks read. This information has to travel back to earth, and the distance that it travels is far enough that when the signal gets there, the delay in time is observed. But it is not a delay of "true time" but rather a delay of information due to the distance from when it was sent.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 Wrong. Time on the satellites actually slows down.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Think of it this way. Does the clcok change with respect to mechanical occurance that dictates the time on the clock? Yes. This is how the clocks project a number everytime this event happens. the signal from the actual event to the display is not very far at all, thus the time is very accurate, but not 100% accurate. Now think of the signal used to send the numerical time information.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust This signal now has to travel a longer distance, however the signal it's not changing as it travels through space for the distance that the transmitter is sending it back to earth. Example, at 3:00 pm the signal that represent the numerical value of time of 3:00pm has to travel back to earth. This signal does not change as it travels, thus think of it as the actual number 3:00 pm traveling back to earth. Time continues to elapse during this travel time.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust When the numerical value of 3:00pm reaches earth, some time has elapsed already, thus it will not be 3:00pm anymore when the signal reaches earth.. This gives the perception of time slowing down for the person sending the signal.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 GPS works be measuring the distance between the satellite and the receiver based on the time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver from the satellite. In order for this to be accurate, the clock aboard the satelite needs to be corrected for it's slowing relative to th observers on the earth.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust If the source is further away from us, say a distace of '2c', then we can't really say with certeinty that we know the true location of the source since the actual physical event is seperated forom us a distance further then we can see. Meaning that the we would not know with certeintity if the sun is still there simply beacsue we can see the light emmited from the sun.
locoyo386 1 year ago
Wow, people's heads are exploding.. This video is perfectly correct. A good way to think of it is that the two ships form a single inertial reference frame and from the perspective of the ships, they might as well be standing still while watching the universe move past them.
When it comes to light, the observer is the only perspective that matters.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust If the two ships seudoform an inertial frame, how does the perspective of a stationary person, relative to the ships, observing the event contributes to the sudoformed inertial frame? After all the stationay person is not moving along with the ships. Thus on either view, one is moving and the other is not. The ships can be moving with respect to the stationary person, or the person can be moving relative to the ships.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 You are correct. Each can be seen as the one who is standing still. People on the ship would see time slow down on the asteroid, and people on the asteroid would observe time slowing down on the ship. No intertial reference frame is considered superior in special relativity.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust But that would not be a, what I call a 'true time dilation'. Simpy because if both can argue that the time relative to the other slowed down, then the true time is not slowed is the relative delay in information with respect to each other. If the peole on the ships see the time slow down for the people on the asteroid, and the people see time slow down for the people on the ship, then there is no true slowdown of time.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 I am sorry that YOU wouldn't call it true time dilation, but that is the definition of time dilation and special relativity.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust What I see as a "true time" dilations is a dilation on what I can perceive to be the "fabric of time". We only see the present, not the past nor the future. If what happens was something I would trully see it as time dilation. There would have to be a phase shift in time. Meaning that if time is really slower on the satellite, then it would be like our past. We would no longer be in phase with it, we would not see it anymore.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 You can consider "true time" dilation to be whatever you want, but that doesn't change the definition of a mathematically predicted model that has been confirmed experimentally.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Yes, it might be a methematically predicted model, however it does not show what trully happens physically with what we see as a time base event. Just as a mesured time base event. Meaning that it is a measurement of the event itseld and not the true time.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 OK, I think I get where you are confused. You think that there is some type of universal measurement of time, but time is entirely dependent on the observer.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Is that 'true time' or how it has been defined as a measure of event? That's why Esietein beleived that time is not absolute but rather relative. However, we all can say we expereince time simultaneously, simply because we don't see Einstein, Napoeon, or da Vinci anymore. Unless you can say they are still here.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Take an example of two cars moving trhough space. If they are moving at identical velocities, then they would see each other all through their movement trough space. However if one is moving slower, then it will eventually not be visslbe form the other car, as they will expereince a phase shift in space. Vissibly it will take a great distance for that to happen as the eye can see a great distance.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust When it comes to time, we can't perceive a great interval of time, we only see a very very small increment of time, thus if an object is trully moving slower through time, that object would not be vissible to us anymore as we can't see in the past, if any at all.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust This is not a mathematically predicted phenomena, but a rather realistic visul confirmation of observation. The only thing that validates this to be a true occurance is the delay of information through space. Meaning that I see the sun, however I do not know if it's still there simpy beacuse it takes time, even for light, to reach an observer 'me'.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 Well you are just completely wrong. Time dilation is defined based on the thought experiment above, and shown to be mathematically predictable according to the Lorentz Transformation function, and is observable and measurable experimentally. Special Relativity is the basis for all moder science. Just because you don't like it or understand it, doesn't make it not true.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust It might be that I don't understand it. However the reason I do not understand it it's based on observation. If you are refereing to the sun example, then that example is delay of information and not a physicall phenomena in that time slows down based on relative velocity.
locoyo386 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TimothyFaust " Well you are just completely wrong." So yo are able to see even for a millonths of a second into the past?
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Another example. If you are preoccupied then all of a sudden you hear the roar of a jet plane and by the time you look up that plane is out of your sight. Would you say that the plane is now in the future since you can't see it at the time you heard it?
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust "and is observable and measurable experimentally"
How can you experiment with "time" when you are not outside of time?
Sure we can experiment on how we measure time, however one has to ask the question if that is an adequate method to measure time.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 For one thing you can speed up an atomic clock very very fast, approaching the speed of light in a particle accelerator. The moving clock measures only a small fraction of a second when several seconds have gone by for the stationary clocks.
Do you understand that light moves at the same speed regardless of who is looking at it? It is the only thing in the universe that does this, and that is the basis for relativity.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust When using atomic clocks, you are still measuring an event and rlating it to a increment of time. The more consistent this event is the more accurate you can measure an increment of time. However, this methods still remains as a method that uses the lapse of an event as a measure of time. The clock uses frequency meothods as the standard for incremental time measument. Meaning that the frequency is still subject to a relative method to measure time.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust " For one thing you can speed up an atomic clock very very fast, approaching the speed of light in a particle accelerator."
Are you saying that an atomic clock such as the NIST-F1 or the NIST-7 can be accelerated at very high speeds inside a particle accelerator? Would the actual "atomic clock" have to be of very very small mass? If not, would it not take a fairly large amount of energy to accelerate even an object as a simple wrist watch to very very close speed to 'c'?
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 No not a big physical clock like that. I am talking about using a radioactive isotope with a known decay time.
TimothyFaust 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust What is it about the decay time, that prevents the decay from happening differently at higher speeds? Why is it an accepted fact that decay time is constant at all speeds?
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust "and is observable and measurable experimentally"
How can you experiment with "time" when you are not outside of time?
Sure we can experiment on how we measure time, however one has to ask the question if that is an adequate method to measure time. See every method we use to measure time is based on an event trough time, thus how can we really know if we are measuring the event or time itself? This is why the theory of space-time.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust Without any true measurement of time, we are left with only that assumption.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust There is a true time dilation, however we can't seem to perceive it. This time dilation occurs from the transition of the past to the future. We can only see this a moment to moment occurance, however we can't seem to pin-point what this increment of time really is. Can you see what occured 1/1,000,000,000,000 or even smaller then tahat? NO. We only see moment to moment.
locoyo386 1 year ago
@TimothyFaust A true slwoing of time, even for a very very small increment of time, would imply a past. We can't perceive to see anything in the past, only that which is in the present. We can see the information from the past, but it is as a memory or as recorded oinformation. If the sallelite was trully moving slower in time, it would not be vissible to us anymore as it would be in the past.
locoyo386 1 year ago
20 people's head exploded
lsufan1234 1 year ago