Traveling at light speed: would you percieve slower time or just be effected by it?

a reply to: Box of Rain

You asked about accelerating towards C. The dilation will increase as the velocity increases.

originally posted by: Vector99

When it comes to travelling at and accelerating to light speed, there is no pedantic. There is or isn't. And there isn't.

Yes, there is, Vector. It's a classic "Can't see the forest for the trees" issue. You are willfully not understanding the OP's question so you can make your quite pedantic point that is largely irrelevant to the OP's issue. The OP was asking about time dilation and the perception of the passage of time, something you don't even address. The fact that the OP did not address the issue QUITE like you demand is beside the point. It's like taking him to task for misusing a semi-colon or, in your case, pointing out the VERY important issue that you misspelled "traveling" in your post. WHY did you misspell "traveling," Vector? Don't you know it has only one "L"? You used two "Ls" which is completely wrong!!! THAT'S what I am addressing. How do you feel about my pointing it out? Does that upset you? Are you rolling your eyes?

Well, Vector, that's the essence of the issue here. You're trying to make a big point out of nothing.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Box of Rain

You asked about accelerating towards C. The dilation will increase as the velocity increases.

OK, but I was just confused over why you wrote:

"What is the rate of acceleration? Humans are very susceptible to inertia. Particles are another story."

The effect of time dilation doesn't "care" if the particles are just a bunch of random particles, or if they make up a human, or if they make up an apple.

a reply to: schuyler

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Xeven

Like Phage said, time is relative to the observer. For you time would pass normally, you wouldn't be aware of the time dilation.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Ghost147


I thought it would seem to age you slower?

To your twin it would, to you it would be life as usual. Time is relative to the observer.[

originally posted by: Vector99
To put it simply, we don't know what an accelerated speed would look like, but we do know that acceleration slows down time. We have measured this phenomena with satellites and have mapped it to a specific calculation. Well, actually it was Einstein, we just proved him right,

edit on 13-2-2016 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Box of Rain

Aren't we talking about our perception of time dilation?

originally posted by: Xeven
They say if you travel at light speed for a year and come back, 10 years will have passed on Earth (or something like that). Would I perceive 10 years or one? I realize traveling at high speed slows time in relation to atoms and our environment and I would age slower than people on Earth. Would that also change our perception of how much time passed or would it "feel" like 10 years.

I think there could be a difference and it might just feel like 10 years even though I age slower...Anyone know?

If you were travelling at a speed that balanced to 1 year for you equals 10 earth years, you would only experience one year, while earth would experience 10 years.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Box of Rain

Aren't we talking about our perception of time dilation?

We are talking about time dilation.

Going back to the OP's question -- i.e., a person accelerating on a spaceship approaching the speed of light for whom time is moving at a slower pace compared to a person on earth (1 year for the space traveler for every 10 years for the people on Earth).

Time would be completely normal to the person on the spaceship. Everything would be completely normal. While 10 years are passing back on Earth, only one year would be passing for him, and he would be completely accurate in saying only one year has passed.

In his frame of reference, only one year has passed. His clocks would tell him a year has passed, his hourglass would show him that a year's worth of sand has passed through the middle of it, an orange he may have had would have only rotted as much as it would in one year, any paper he had would have only "yellowed" as much as it would in one year -- and that's because only one year actually did pass for his frame of reference.

If he never returned to Earth, he would have no idea that time was moving differently between his frame of reference and earth's frame of reference. Which frame of reference (his or Earth's) is correct? BOTH are.


Let's say we created a new Earth and new solar system, and put everyone but you (sorry!) on that new Earth, and then accelerated that new Earth and solar system toward a velocity that is a large percentage of the speed of light, relative to the velocity of the old Earth -- a percentage of light speed so that (say) one year passes for them for every two years that passes for you back on old Earth. In that scenario, the people on the new Earth would not notice a difference. To them everything would be just as it was before. If they never had any contact with you or your frame of reference, they would have no idea that time for you in your frame of reference is passing twice as fast as it is for them in their frame of reference.

a reply to: Box of Rain

that's what i've been saying hehe, I was just entertaining the what if ?'s

a reply to: Xeven

It will all depends on which energy you use to do it.Space energy can be 'Waved',space can be broken down into waves of time,like a small wave in a small pond on a light windy day.The small wave goes to the next and the next and the next wave.the small time in between those waves can be distorted in away in which time and aging would not matter if its done correctly.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xeven

I think there could be a difference and it might just feel like 10 years even though I age slower

It would feel like ten years. You would not age slower.
Time is relative, for you time would pass at a normal rate but you would "see" time passing faster on Earth. If you never returned to Earth, you would never know the difference.

I would believe it would depend if you where moving towards or away from your reference.

a reply to: Xeven

According to Einstein theories you would experience one year on the spaceship compared to the earthlings which would experience 10 years whilst you were gone.

But there is a problem with that logic.

The people on earth would see time slow down on the spaceship that was travelling at speed of light away from the earth
The people on the spaceship would also see time slow down on the earth that was travelling at speed of light away from the spaceship

The net gain/loss equals zero.

Before Einstein came out with his theories, Jules Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz postulated that time slows down against an aether which today we would call spacetime. So for the earth and spaceship, the relative speed against the milky way for example would determine how time flows, So if the spaceship was travelling at a faster pace through our galaxy than the earth then its tick rate would slow down.

originally posted by: Phage
Doesn't matter. If you leave any particular frame of reference you have traveled from it, its motion is not relevant. Relative to Earth (your original frame of reference), you have departed and are traveling.

How can one ever know whether he is leaving the 'frame of reference' or whether the 'frame of reference' is leaving him?
Or they are leaving each other?
Or any of the infinite alternatives within that?

So I forget if we covered this in grade nine or ten physics, but there is one thing from reading the replies that needs mentioning. The mass does increase as you approach C, this changes the gravity of the mass moving with speed. This is why atomic clocks slow down even on aircraft flying 500km/h. It is the gravity increasing that slows everything down. It is also why astronauts on the space station age faster. Even though relative to us they are travelling quicker, their gravity is weaker and allows their molecules to travel quicker. A strong enough gravity will slow the molecules, meaning reactions like oxidization and decay of material slows. There is an equation for the change in mass in relation to the speed but I would have to go unpack some physics books to get it. There is also an equation to figure out how much time will slow in relation to the percentage of C that mass is travelling at.
When a ship leaves earth and is moving close to C the observer from earth will never see the ship where it actually is, as the light from the object has to travel back. Hypothetically if a ship instantly accelerated to 1C and landed 1 light year away then returned, the observer from earth would watch the ship take off and land, instantly after landing the ship would be returning to earth. The light from the ship landing would be travelling back to earth the same speed as the ship is travelling. According to another equation if two ships passed at .7C and .8C head on then they would still only see the other ship approaching at 1C. I am sorry if my information is incorrect as I am going from memory and it has been years since high school.

Cheers, Nuts

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Phage
Doesn't matter. If you leave any particular frame of reference you have traveled from it, its motion is not relevant. Relative to Earth (your original frame of reference), you have departed and are traveling.

How can one ever know whether he is leaving the 'frame of reference' or whether the 'frame of reference' is leaving him?
Or they are leaving each other?
Or any of the infinite alternatives within that?

Leaving an inertial frame of reference involves acceleration. You can measure this acceleration locally.

For the twin paradox there are two points of view. First twin accelerating away, feels acceleration. Earth with the second twin is in free fall in a homogeneous gravitational field away from first twin, feels no acceleration. The result for both cases is the same, the time is passing slower for the first twin relative to the second.

Hi there,

the word "paradox" is there for a reason. And the reason is that you cannot conciliate the two realities. Onde of the greatest thinks about Einstein's papers is their conceptual clarity. If you want to describe "time" you must use a clear way to measure it. Put simply, you must define a "watch".
We all know what watches are. At least we all know chronometers... When the twin who traveled at the speed of light returns Earth, his watch is late 10 years. There is no confusion here. The pointers move slower compared (relatively) to the watch left with the other twin. However, the human body is another watch, and we don´t know how the speed of light would affect it. The mind could be another watch, even more complex. If we follow the watches by the book, the twin in the spaceship travels 1 year while the other waited 10. Biology at the speed of light is a could be a completely different thing and we don´t know for sure what happens to enzymes, tissues and chemical reactions at that seed. What would be the influence in a living tissue of Higgs field at higher speeds? Probably the mind is a completly different story. Here on Earth the feeling of time is subjective right now and yet our thoughts can be considered timeless because we have memory. The question you asked woud give room for, at least, three different books of answers.
Cheers!
A.

a reply to: Xeven

Anyone know? Probably not personally. We can't travel at the speed of light so this is all theory. It looks good on paper though so....

a reply to: luciferslight

Why would it kill us within minutes?
Serious question. Don't hate on me.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Phage
Doesn't matter. If you leave any particular frame of reference you have traveled from it, its motion is not relevant. Relative to Earth (your original frame of reference), you have departed and are traveling.

How can one ever know whether he is leaving the 'frame of reference' or whether the 'frame of reference' is leaving him?
Or they are leaving each other?
Or any of the infinite alternatives within that?

Leaving an inertial frame of reference involves acceleration. You can measure this acceleration locally.

I cannot see how there is any real way to determine if the train is moving away from the mountain, or vice versa, as I have offered.
You say that you can 'measure this locally', to make such determinations, but I think that is arbitrary.
I think that there "is no difference other than Perspective"!

For the twin paradox there are two points of view. First twin accelerating away, feels acceleration. Earth with the second twin is in free fall in a homogeneous gravitational field away from first twin, feels no acceleration. The result for both cases is the same, the time is passing slower for the first twin relative to the second.

Now we are relying on 'feelings'?
Sorry, more arbitrary imaginings.
'Feelings' are the last things that should ever be 'believed'!
'Consensus'? That would be a fallacy!

Lets remove the distractions;
We have two spaceships sitting next to each other in a featureless empty void.
Now, start your engines!
Now tell me which is doing what?
Can someone be sitting still?
Someone moving away?
Who?
Are both moving away at the same speed?
How to tell?

I suspect that we are discussing the same thing as 'right/left/up/down';

'Point to the left'.
Easy.
Note where you are pointing.
Now turn 1 degree and point to the left.
Again note the results.
Now another degree, etc...
And another 1/4 of a degree...
Turn in every possible direction, on every possible axis!
It turns out that every direction is 'left', 'left' is a 'cloud needing a particular Perspective to have any 'direction' at all!
Now point to the 'right'!
Same drill!
Note that the exact same cloud of 'left', is also, at the same moment, a cloud of 'right'!
And a cloud of 'up'!
And a cloud of 'down'...
Do the experiment!

The only 'distinctions' that can even be called 'left' or 'right', OR 'up' and 'down'... are a matter of Perspective!

Ultimately, We are One (unchanging (motionless), all inclusive) 'Cloud'/Reality!!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: luciferslight

Why would it kill us within minutes?
Serious question. Don't hate on me.

Don't worry it won't, time is relative to the observer.

The Time Dilation at the International Space Station is 40 milliseconds per year. At the space station they live in a less distorted space time continuum. So they actually age 40 milliseconds per year faster than us on Earth. Sometimes at night you can see the International Space Station fly over. Looks like a very fast light without sound.

time2=time1 * 1/(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5

(-E=-MC^2)/(1-D(x,y,z,t,1)^2/(2.99792458*10^8)^2 )^0.5 + (E=MC^2)/(1-D(x,y,z,t,1)^2/(2.99792458*10^8)^2 )^0.5 = 0

Look what you do not see is that Time Dilation of the International Space Station is due to gravity since its speed is very low.

You would need this formula for the International Space Station

Formula Gravitional Dilation