Need help with relativity question: Has "Dingle's Question" ever been answered?

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
The rate of change of direction of the linear vel vectors is the same at both the points.
Why ya'll dont savvy the linear vel of a rotating body is beyond me.

Here's my answer.

Put a ball on the end of a string. hold the string over your head and spin the ball around in a circle.

When you want to see what the velocity looks like when it's linear (ignoring the effect of gravity for this illustration), let go of the string.

That's the difference.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


The rates of change of the direction of the velocity vectors are the same, but the magnitudes of the velocity vectors are not. At the equator the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity is a real number, while, at the pole, the magnitude is 0. And, if you'll recall, velocity is proportional to the rate of change of the passage of time (Δt). So, the location with the greater velocity has a larger Δt, which translates into a slower proper time for the clock at the equator.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

The rates of change of the direction of the velocity vectors are the same, but the magnitudes of the velocity vectors are not. At the equator the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity is a real number, while, at the pole, the magnitude is 0. And, if you'll recall, velocity is proportional to the rate of change of the passage of time (Δt). So, the location with the greater velocity has a larger Δt, which translates into a slower proper time for the clock at the equator.

Incorrect. Rate of change of time would be time accel.
But you are right about proper time on equator

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
The rate of change of direction of the linear vel vectors is the same at both the points.
Why ya'll dont savvy the linear vel of a rotating body is beyond me.

Here's my answer.

Put a ball on the end of a string. hold the string over your head and spin the ball around in a circle.

When you want to see what the velocity looks like when it's linear (ignoring the effect of gravity for this illustration), let go of the string.

That's the difference.

edit on 27-9-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Lol. wiki you are hilarious

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


A constant rate of change of time is a constant velocity, not acceleration. Otherwise, time would slow to a stop for any reference frame in constant motion, and, to keep time constant, we would have to constantly accelerate.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

A constant rate of change of time is a constant velocity, not acceleration. Otherwise, time would slow to a stop for any reference frame in constant motion, and, to keep time constant, we would have to constantly accelerate.

Bit gobbledygooky there.
Dist travelled per unit time in a given direction is velocity would be a better way to put it.
Stoppage of time when encountered in any expt is a threshold, where reality will change.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by masterp

 

The OP hasn't had to accept or reject that has the answer, because it hasn't been suggested...because that's not the answer. Did you read, and understand, what Dingle's question is asking?

Yes Sir. The question is "which of two clocks in uniform relative motion runs faster", and my reply is "either, depending on the viewer's position".

Originally posted by masterp
Yes Sir. The question is "which of two clocks in uniform relative motion runs faster", and my reply is "either, depending on the viewer's position".

That's a "no sir".

You have cited someone else's rephrasing of the question.

The next section of the OP cites Dingle's question in Dingles own words. Specifically he talks about a clock at the equator and at the pole which is not the situation that the pdf author McCausland paraphrased. Read that.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

The rates of change of the direction of the velocity vectors are the same, but the magnitudes of the velocity vectors are not. At the equator the magnitude of the instantaneous velocity is a real number, while, at the pole, the magnitude is 0. And, if you'll recall, velocity is proportional to the rate of change of the passage of time (Δt). So, the location with the greater velocity has a larger Δt, which translates into a slower proper time for the clock at the equator.

Cool, time travel turn top. You know walking out from the center toward the edge of a spinning turntable until one reaches time escape velocity. That's from a sci-fi B movie made is the 60's I watched on TV as a kid.

Anyway, you said I could pick your brain anytime so I have some simple questions.

Why is it the faster an object travels across space the slower through time it goes? That is, "What is space time relevant to that makes the relationship between the two function is concert they way they do?" Is it something beyond this 3 or 4 D.world that makes the dynamic happen? Like the faster I pedal my bike the faster I go, but I need a surface to make it happen otherwise the wheels turning wouldn't move me nor the bike. Plus you need gravity to hold the wheels to the surface. So what makes the mechanics of the space time continuum work? Here's a better analogy, a drive wheel which could be one of the wheels on a push cart that runs progressively lower geared ratios turning a flywheel mounted inside the cart. The fly wheel representing time of course. Where's the surface the cart is riding on?

So does that mean when something travels across space it is actually decelerating?


I just thought of something. I bet we live much longer than any of our previous ancestors did relatively speaking due to the accelerating Universe... So if a person lived 50 years 5,000 years ago I wonder what it would be in today's terms?


Could you figure it like in dog years?


Or are all those questions too silly for the tone of this thread?


If so, just ignore me.

One more question, Prime.

If something gains mass while increasing its travel through space, and thus takes more energy to move it, why can't it simply store kinetic energy up like a freight train does for instance?


It seems like it would take less and less energy to move something faster and faster from stop to light speed. So do the laws reverse themselves at some point as velocity of an object increases?

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
One more question, Prime.

If something gains mass while increasing its travel through space, and thus takes more energy to move it, why can't it simply store kinetic energy up like a freight train does for instance?


It seems like it would take less and less energy to move something faster and faster from stop to light speed. So do the laws reverse themselves at some point as velocity of an object increases?

Of course it stores kinetic energy. So if you stop pushing it, it keeps going. But that doesn't really help you when you want to make it go faster.

Have you ever tried to push a car? It's not easy, and the bigger and heavier the car the harder it is to push.

As an object gets closer to the speed of light, the relativistic mass increase makes it harder and harder to push. There's no reversal of any laws. Rather, it's more like an exponential increase. As the velocity approaches the speed of light, the force required to accelerate it approaches infinity.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


To understand why time "physically" slows down as an object's velocity increases, we need to think in 4 dimensions.
In Special Relativity, physics is modeled in a 4-dimensional Euclidean space - that is, a "flat" space with 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension. (In General Relativity, this has to be moved to a non-locally "bendable" Minkowski or Riemannian space.)

In 4 dimensions, time is treated just like a spatial dimension, and all 4 dimensions are able to both stretch and contract. When a dimension either stretches (dilates) or contracts, it does so for just one reason - to keep the speed of light constant.
According to derivations of two of Maxwell's equations, speed of propagation of all electromagnetic radiation must, according to all observers, under all circumstances, in all reference frames, be measured to exactly equal to 299,792,458 m/s. If this were not so, EM radiation would be unable to propagate, and there would be no light.
Because light must exist, the universe bends and contorts in order to ensure its existence.

Each of the 4 dimensions will, then, either stretch or contract to keep the speed of light constant.
When we're dealing with a moving object (that is, a reference frame in constant motion), the spatial dimension in the direction of travel will contract (length contraction), and the time dimension will stretch (time dilation).

reply to post by CLPrime


Could "bends and contorts" just be "stretching" in one direction as time travels forward like a never ending Russian doll set, (each doll representing a present frame of time) and that light intersects all the dolls as a constant in all frames not expanding? That is we observe light as it exists throughout all time, liner, and we are expanding as time progresses within in a sort of time dynamic where as light simply is locked in a prism of zero time.

I'm thinking you are explaining this to me like the waves. Surface waves vs ocean current.


Maybe I'm having serious comprehension difficulties.


I'll figure out what you said, it's just going to take some "time."

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


It's like having the road stretch as you're driving along in a car.You driving is akin to you moving through time. As the road stretches, you measure the distance between each point on the road to be increasing, so the time it takes to travel the road increases. This is time dilation.
For light, the stretching of the road makes no difference. The road stretches to keep your measurement of the speed of light constant.

reply to post by CLPrime


Okay so matter is bound to Einstein's law of relativity, but light is not. Matter is locked in a paradox of sort between time and space so for matter traveling to light speed or near it is impossible. Light is freed from such a prison, and so can travel at the speed it does, but Its a constant so it can't be slowed nor sped up.

Now can light be considered locked is a zero time realm because of this? Meaning light does not truly exist in our time. Once released from matter (released by stars in the form of energies through nuclear processes) it simply defuses filling voids in space, but still all its energy exists at the same time in all time frames since its release from matter nor will it cease to exist after that point existing in all time frames to the end of time, big crunch whatever, which I personally believe is a recreation of the primeval atom. Other words light just is in the full existence of the fourth dimension. That's verses us living in the fourth dimension one slice at a time with no time depth. Existing as a complete 4th dimensional sort of sphere not as a string of connected recorded existence of matter of time past, if I could put in terms of that type of comparison.

And because of E=mc^2 this makes M-theory entirely possible.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
One more question, Prime.

If something gains mass while increasing its travel through space, and thus takes more energy to move it, why can't it simply store kinetic energy up like a freight train does for instance?


It seems like it would take less and less energy to move something faster and faster from stop to light speed. So do the laws reverse themselves at some point as velocity of an object increases?

Of course it stores kinetic energy. So if you stop pushing it, it keeps going. But that doesn't really help you when you want to make it go faster.

Have you ever tried to push a car? It's not easy, and the bigger and heavier the car the harder it is to push.

As an object gets closer to the speed of light, the relativistic mass increase makes it harder and harder to push. There's no reversal of any laws. Rather, it's more like an exponential increase. As the velocity approaches the speed of light, the force required to accelerate it approaches infinity.

So the idea of lets say using a pulse engine to gradually speed up a craft to near light speed is not feasible because the rate of energy that can be stored in the increased mass would always be at a lessor rate of increase than the rate of increase of the matter, the craft?

Alex Filippenko on one of The Universe episodes on the History channel covered this, but never talked about the difference in the rates of increase. It's where I learned the concept from. What you say sheds a different light on the subject.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by CLPrime

 

Now can light be considered locked is a zero time realm because of this? Meaning light does not truly exist in our time. ... Other words light just is in the full existence of the fourth dimension. That's verses us living in the fourth dimension one slice at a time with no time depth. Existing as a complete 4th dimensional sort of sphere not as a string of connected recorded existence of matter of time past, if I could put in terms of that type of comparison.

Pretty much. That is, according to the light. According to us, it "travels" with time just like we do.

And because of E=mc^2 this makes M-theory entirely possible.

...I'm not sure of the connection.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by CLPrime

 

Okay so matter is bound to Einstein's law of relativity, but light is not. Matter is locked in a paradox of sort between time and space so for matter traveling to light speed or near it is impossible. Light is freed from such a prison, and so can travel at the speed it does, but Its a constant so it can't be slowed nor sped up.

Now can light be considered locked is a zero time realm because of this? Meaning light does not truly exist in our time. Once released from matter (released by stars in the form of energies through nuclear processes) it simply defuses filling voids in space, but still all its energy exists at the same time in all time frames since its release from matter nor will it cease to exist after that point existing in all time frames to the end of time, big crunch whatever, which I personally believe is a recreation of the primeval atom. Other words light just is in the full existence of the fourth dimension. That's verses us living in the fourth dimension one slice at a time with no time depth. Existing as a complete 4th dimensional sort of sphere not as a string of connected recorded existence of matter of time past, if I could put in terms of that type of comparison.

And because of E=mc^2 this makes M-theory entirely possible.

No need to go in circles here.
In simplistic terms b4 the birth of the universe time ticked at an infinite pace cos gravity was infinite.
after the big implosion times pace started reducing to a point when heat and light emerged
ie they could propagate as a wave and that is also the birth of our time as we know it.
For this reason the spped of light is limited and constant.
In other words our time and light took birth at the same instant.
Visible matter as we know it followed after that, All the matter b4 that is termed as
dark matter and any energy b4 the birth of our time is dark energy.

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by CLPrime

 

And because of E=mc^2 this makes M-theory entirely possible.

...I'm not sure of the connection.

The connection is that E=mc^2 defines a complete fourth dimension, or the function of it, within our 3D space. This being used as the first stepping stone to define more including 11 M-theory.. How could a dimension with low-entropy matter content be theorized? I mean without knowing the mechanics of space time you can't begin to conceive entire dimensional planes be it the fourth or the 11th. After all how time functions is just a theory with scant information we base opinions about it on.


Anyway I was just trying to be cute at the end, "if I could put it in terms of that type of comparison." Followed by and analogy. It was just a fancy period nothing more.

Original content became irrelevant.