It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have questions about Time dilation & Gravitational time dilation: Any mutually inclusive link betw

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Time dilation en.wikipedia.org... due to two frames of references having velocity differentials between the two frames traveling across space.

Here is a "Relativity Calculator" www.1728.org... all on paper. Not sure how they can make sure there are no variations when it comes to rates of increase or decreases without testing the math in reality, but I'll give full credibility to the system of calculation anyway. I'm thinking there is some compounded amortization missing, but who am I to say? It's simply this www.relativitycalculator.com... so we will keep this simple

Now for Gravitational time dilation

en.wikipedia.org...

Simply this> creationwiki.org...

For more:
Equivalence principle
en.wikipedia.org...

No for a list of my questions pertaining to both subjects:

Velocity and gravity each effect time, are they interconnected some how?

Could velocity across space and gravity be one in the same?

If so, would time occur within a frame of time reference where the frame was not moving across space and would this mean whatever was occupying that frame of time reference would have no mass thus no gravity?

Do you need movement across space to move through time? When you move across space you gain mass and mass affects time due to the gravity field it causes by depressing the fabric of space therefore they seem to be interrelated. So is the depression in the fabric in space caused by movement of matter across space?

Could depressing the fabric of space as being considered a gravity well be also considered a time well? If so, this means without movement of matter across space there is no mass contained within that matter and therefore no time could occur, but if the matter reaches the velocity of light time nears stop just the same. Could this be the mutually inclusive link between Time dilation and Gravitational time dilation?




posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
ineresting post! I'll have to give it some thought and respond but responding now so it shows up in my list!



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I think there is a difference in time dilation calculations as applied to frames of reference at constant velocity with respect to each other and frames of reference that are undergoing acceleration.


Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
Here is a "Relativity Calculator" www.1728.org... all on paper. Not sure how they can make sure there are no variations when it comes to rates of increase or decreases without testing the math in reality


The above calculations refer to frames of reference at constant velocity relative to each other, and thus do not cover accelerating frames of reference.

Gravitation is represented in Newtonian physics as an acceleration. When there is a differential in a gravitational field, the two frames of reference in the field (at different gravitational potentials) are technically frames of reference in acceleration relative to each other.

This derivative makes the equations for gravitational time dilation (accelerating frames of reference - simplified) much different than the constant-velocity model.

At least, I think that has something to do with it. Relativity is mind-blowing.

edit on 4-6-2012 by InTheFlesh1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Velocity and gravity each effect time, or the rate traveling through time rather, are they interconnected some how? I know they are different subjects.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Velocity and gravity each effect time, or the rate traveling through time rather, are they interconnected some how? I know they are different subjects.


I understand your question, but I don't know enough about it to determine if there is a mutually inclusive unifying theory.

They are probably interconnected, and could be unified, based on the fact that acceleration is the first derivative of velocity.

Since time elapses at different rates in two frames of reference moving at constant velocity relative to each other, it stands to reason that time would also elapse at different rates in two frames of reference that are accelerating relative to each other (such as frames of reference in a gravitational field). The effects of time dilation seem inevitably linked in that regard with respect to velocity and gravity.

As for specific calculations, I'd need a PhD and a larger cranium.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 

Time dilation due to velocity is derived from the axiom that speed of light is independent of a frame of reference.

Time dilation due to gravity is the above concept extended to accelerated frames of reference(gravity -> acceleration, acceleration -> time derivative of velocity).



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by moebius
 


I get the difference and how they are calculated. Any connections between the two do you think?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheFlesh1980

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 


Velocity and gravity each effect time, or the rate traveling through time rather, are they interconnected some how? I know they are different subjects.


I understand your question, but I don't know enough about it to determine if there is a mutually inclusive unifying theory.

They are probably interconnected, and could be unified, based on the fact that acceleration is the first derivative of velocity.

Since time elapses at different rates in two frames of reference moving at constant velocity relative to each other, it stands to reason that time would also elapse at different rates in two frames of reference that are accelerating relative to each other (such as frames of reference in a gravitational field). The effects of time dilation seem inevitably linked in that regard with respect to velocity and gravity.

As for specific calculations, I'd need a PhD and a larger cranium.


I think your cranium is large enough. You understand what I am asking.

You are thinking in the right direction of what I am asking, and hope you keep thinking on this?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Any connections between the two do you think?

I am not sure for what connection you are looking. Both are causing time dilation?


There is the equivalence principle which says that a uniformly accelerating frame of reference(rocket) is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field(planet). Acceleration implies a velocity differential and time dilation(between rocket top and bottom) just like for the case of a planet(clock at top of a tower and bottom).

Velocity seems to be the key term here, either as constant or differential. But that is my humble opinion. Any GR specialists here? You could try www.physicsforums.com... btw.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Think of space/time like air pressure.
At sea level the pressure is about 14.7 PSI, you don't feel it but it's always pushing on you in all directions. Space/time (a.k.a gravity) is like this too, it pushing on you as well. Now if you blew up a balloon at the surface the Earth and took to the bottom of a pool, the balloon would get smaller as more pressure is pushing on it. Likewise matter gets smaller and become more dense in a strong gravitational field, this is normally called length contractions. With this length contraction comes time dilation. The percentage of time dilation is equal to length contraction. In the cause of gravity this tells us in a strong gravity field length is contacted and time is slower like a balloon under water.

The second part of this is would be to take the balloon mentioned above on a car ride. Drive your car and go as fast as it will go then hold the balloon out the window. What would happen is the balloon would squeezed by the back pressure caused from the movement through the air. This would squeeze the balloon only in direction of the movement, not from all sides like if at the bottom of the pool.

Movement through space/time (a.k.a. gravity) does the same, it cause length contraction only in the direction of movement, and the object become more dense and time dilation occurs equal the length contraction.

Mass is the measure of how much matter is in a given space, so as an object goes through length contraction more matter is compressed into a smaller space. With a the balloon above we say it’s air pressure inside the balloon goes up as it’s squeezed. The more matter is squeezed the harder it becomes to squeezed it further. (Maybe think of a dish sung, try to squeezed it in the long direction down to millimeter thick, it’s hard. )

So as matter travels through space/time its compressed in direction of travel, and become more dense, which is the same as saying it’s mass increases, and it’s time slows down. The faster you go the more your compressed, and more energy it take to move you any faster. Light is the calculated speed at which if you could go that fast matter is compressed to zero, or nothing and time stops. So how much energy does it take to squeeze matter into nothing at all….well Infinite.

Only something with no mass can go 'c'. Light has no mass thus it can

edit on 5-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Part 2 of the last post….

If for some crazy reason, you gather up all the energy in the universe and you were to cause matter to go the speed of light, it would just compress the matter into nothing and it would become energy and no longer be matter. So there would be no way to keep the matter in intake or do something crazy like travel back in time.

So is there a way to go faster than light….Yes.
Control gravity, and you can go faster than light. This is the theory behind worm holes and warp fields. Worm holes would actually be unlikely as they would require manipulating a large amount of space/time. Anybody that had the tech to do that would realize it’s easier just to manipulate a smaller amount of space around a craft. Basically Star Trek got it right and Stargate got it wrong.

So if you could manipulate gravity why would this work? Well in weak gravitational field matter expands and time speed up (see my last post). So if you were in ship traveling very very close to ‘c’ you would be compressed and time would be slowed. Now fire up your gravity manipulation device to create a weaker field around the craft and it will expand the ship back out and speed up your clocks. So now your ship is less compressed even though your very very close to ‘c’. So if you do the math with your gravity manipulation device on, the point at which your ship will compress to zero and time stops is going to be higher than ‘c’. Thus you will be able to go faster than ‘c’ and because you clock speed up too, you won’t be traveling back in time, you would still be moving forward, just maybe at a slower rate than for like the people of chilling on Earth.


edit on 5-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


Any connections between the two do you think?

I am not sure for what connection you are looking. Both are causing time dilation?


There is the equivalence principle which says that a uniformly accelerating frame of reference(rocket) is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field(planet). Acceleration implies a velocity differential and time dilation(between rocket top and bottom) just like for the case of a planet(clock at top of a tower and bottom).

Velocity seems to be the key term here, either as constant or differential. But that is my humble opinion. Any GR specialists here? You could try www.physicsforums.com... btw.



Both seem to make an indention, a well, in the fabric of space. The contours, specifically "the sides" of the well so to speak of the indention/well slows time as the is translated into distance when considering the fabric of space is also the fabric of time. G-force due to increased velocity, like the balloon analogy used by Tbrooks below, and the g force created by matter making the indention. Everything wants to stay at rest, and movement disturbs the evenness of space/time affecting the ability to travel into the future as it increases distance, like traveling from one mountain peak to the next. translate time into the topography of a mountainous landscape and both time dilation and gravitational time dilation seem to share the same root cause.

That's what I am wondering?

I appreciate the info site link. I can never have enough of them.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Gravitational time dilation is a very interesting phenomenon...

My question is: people who work in airplanes, and pass a lot of time under a weaker gravitational field than people on the ground, those people age faster or slower than people who rarely flies?



edit on 5-6-2012 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Part 2 of the last post….

If for some crazy reason, you gather up all the energy in the universe and you were to cause matter to go the speed of light, it would just compress the matter into nothing and it would become energy and no longer be matter. So there would be no way to keep the matter in intake or do something crazy like travel back in time.

So is there a way to go faster than light….Yes.
Control gravity, and you can go faster than light. This is the theory behind worm holes and warp fields. Worm holes would actually be unlikely as they would require manipulating a large amount of space/time. Anybody that had the tech to do that would realize it’s easier just to manipulate a smaller amount of space around a craft. Basically Star Trek got it right and Stargate got it wrong.

So if you could manipulate gravity why would this work? Well in weak gravitational field matter expands and time speed up (see my last post). So if you were in ship traveling very very close to ‘c’ you would be compressed and time would be slowed. Now fire up your gravity manipulation device to create a weaker field around the craft and it will expand the ship back out and speed up your clocks. So now your ship is less compressed even though your very very close to ‘c’. So if you do the math with your gravity manipulation device on, the point at which your ship will compress to zero and time stops is going to be higher than ‘c’. Thus you will be able to go faster than ‘c’ and because you clock speed up too, you won’t be traveling back in time, you would still be moving forward, just maybe at a slower rate than for like the people of chilling on Earth.


edit on 5-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)




If for some crazy reason, you gather up all the energy in the universe and you were to cause matter to go the speed of light, it would just compress the matter into nothing and it would become energy and no longer be matter. So there would be no way to keep the matter in intake or do something crazy like travel back in time.



I really like what you have to say there! Do you think maybe the Primeval atom could have formed do to such a process? Maybe that could be a scenario for a Big Crunch, and could that mean also this universe recycles itself and repeats the Big Bang over and over again?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLontra
Gravitational time dilation is a very interesting phenomenon...

My question is: people who work in airplanes, and pass a lot of time under a weaker gravitational field than people on the ground, those people age faster or slower than people who rarely flies?



edit on 5-6-2012 by GLontra because: (no reason given)



They traveled a longer distance across the fabric of space that could also be the fabric of time. What do ya think?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Part 3
I’m having a slow boring day at work, so I guess I’ll just keep rambling on.

So what is this space/time stuff. Well Lord Kelvin was a physicist in the 1800’s and he came up with an idea of space as being a perfect fluid. Or a fluid with zero velocity (no friction) and is incompressible. Then he envisioned atoms as smoke ring like vortex within the fluid making a closed looped system. Basically once this smoke ring was created, the with a frictionless fluid there was nothing to stop it, and it would go on forever.

This is actually a really good description of space and even how energy might could be trapped into an atom….but there were some flaws. First atom being some ring cause some real issues how they might react to one another, then next space seem to be compressible. Comparing space/time to air press place were air is more compressed is said to have a higher air pressure, and less compress is low….so think of like this, places where the ether is more dense is a high space pressure ( high gravity field ) and place ether is less dense is a low space pressure ( low gravity field ).

We can take this concept of Lord Kelvin’s perfect fluid and tweak it to make space/time work. This would the properties of a perfect ether fluid, its velocity is zero, and is perfectly compressible. Meaning it can absorb energy but must release 100% of what is absorbed. A peace of ether is like perfect bouncy ball…and with that all things can be explained, including gravity and atoms…but my work day is over so guess that will be a topic for another day.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


Actually people in plans to go through time dialation, but its on such a tiny small scale that is goes unoticed.

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972


sorce.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


edit on 5-6-2012 by Tbrooks76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 


you should chime in over here! www.abovetopsecret.com...

try an set some records straight
edit on 5-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Tbrooks76
 

Your post actually answered a question I had about traveling near or at light speeds in regards to objects becoming more massive. I have been meaning to ask a physicist friend about this for a while, but I keep forgetting. I had wondered if an object travelling very close to the speed of light, and thus becoming incredibly massive, was in danger of somehow outweighing everything around it, and what would happen if it actually managed to reach the speed of light, would it become infinitely massive and outweigh the rest of the Universe (a scary proposition), but I suppose if it's really just getting more dense, it's more like its in danger of becoming a singularity at the speed of light, no? It's more massive in relation to its own self at lower speeds, but not in relation to the rest of the Universe.

Is that correct?
edit on 6/5/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


In General Relativity, spacetime is a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold with the signature (3, 1), having 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. The temporal dimension differs from the spatial dimensions by being associated with a negative eigenvalue (essentially, a scale factor) in the metric, along with three positive eigenvalues corresponding to the three spatial dimensions. The metric assigns a tensor value to each point in the manifold. The deviation of each point from a flat Euclidean space (that is, its curvature) is given by a Ricci tensor. which then leads to the Raychaudhuri equation, describing how matter/energy moves within a manifold having the given curvature.

When an object in a reference frame A has a velocity v relative a reference frame B, an observer in B will measure the passage of time in A to be dilated according to Special Relativity. Time in A according to A will be passing faster than time in A according to B. Conversely, time in B according to B will be passing faster than time in B according to A.
This, of course, is required in order to keep the speed of light constant in all reference frames.

When this gets extended to situations in which reference frame A has an acceleration a relative to the reference frame B (that is, when it is non-inertial), we get General Relativity.

Now, back to the manifold stuff. The Raychaudhuri equation is what leads to the fact that a gravitational field causes centripetal acceleration. Specifically, the gravitational field is a stress-energy tensor field, representing the effect of the presence of energy on the Lorentzian manifold. Keep in mind that mass is a form of energy. The result is that, not only does all matter (which has mass...even the tiniest fermions, such as quarks) have gravity, but so does all energy (including photons and the other bosons).
The stress-energy tensor affects time by having a negative eigenvalue with an absolute value greater than 1, causing a metric dilation in the temporal dimension for any reference frame exposed to a gravitational potential.

So, what happens if you remove gravity from the picture? Well, let's say you keep the 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold and the energy within it, but let's also say that energy is no longer associated with a stress-energy tensor. There is no metric curvature at any point in the manifold. This has no effect on the negative eigenvalue in the metric. No curvature leaves the eigenvalue as -1. This means that the metric of the temporal dimension is unaffected. In case that's not clear, that means that time passes without any dilation. If the energy filling the manifold has some intrinsic relative motion, then it will move through space with some velocity as it moves through time at some standard rate. If the energy doesn't have any intrinsic relative motion, then there are still other forces that will cause it interact. Depending on the composition of the energy, it will have the strong and/or the electromagnetic force to cause motion. Even this motion will involve acceleration, and that will invoke General Relativity even without any sort of gravity. Time will pass normally.

Finally, even eliminating all forces, leaving a boring, dead, static ocean of energy, time will still continue to pass unimpeded, because there will still be a negative eigenvalue associated with the metric. No matter what you do, you can't escape that.

Actually, there is one thing you can do. You can get out an eraser and either erase the negative sign before the temporal eigenvalue, creating a 4th spatial dimension -- a manifold with a (4, 0) signature, which is actually the view you're presenting -- or you can just erase the eigenvalue altogether, leaving 3 pointless spatial dimension. The choice is yours how you do it, but you can't do it by removing gravity from the picture. Or even removing all of the forces, for that matter. You actually have to take a hatchet to the structure of the manifold.

I can actually establish that it's not possible to consider time as a spatial dimension. The conservation law that you rely on to defend your predestination view -- conservation of energy -- has temporal invariance but not spatial invariance (related conservation laws with spatial symmetry are linear and angular momentum). Without the distinction between the temporal dimension and the spatial dimensions, there would be only one such conservation law: conservation of energy-momentum, which would have prevented anything other than a universe full of motionless energy from forming. Obviously, that's not the case. Obviously, your view of time is flawed.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join