The faster you go, the slower you age, but...

reply to post by jiggerj


no cause we would all be aging slower thus no one would be. its relative.


eta - after having read everyone's posts i guess even the answer is relative. glass half full or half empty type of thing.

good question then.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't believe in such faster-you-go/slower-you'll-age nonsense. It is derived from Einstein's Relativity thought experiment... But I tend to strongly oppose it.

This seems like a good place to ask this: If 'time' is somehow weaved into the fabric of the universe, why is 'time' not needed in Einstein's equation of E=MC2?

reply to post by jiggerj


Because as "c", in E=MC2, is the "speed of light", "speed" is already a result of space divided by time. So, in a weird kind of way, "time" is indeed represented in there.

If it were true for all things at all times ,"the faster you go the slower you age"...mice,hamsters and other small rodents should live for a very long time.

This is the part I do not understand, how can speed slow down biological processes.? chemical.? atomic.? etc

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't believe in such faster-you-go/slower-you'll-age nonsense. It is derived from Einstein's Relativity thought experiment... But I tend to strongly oppose it.

Naturally, my mainstream physicists friends will disagree with me, and say, "oh, john, you just don't understand it enough". The truth is, I understand it VERY WELL - and I still disagree with it nonetheless.

dam that's some funny stuff right there.

It was a thought experiment backed up by solid mathematics that have proved to be correct in all the testing done since he presented them. Please id love to see your attempt to prove wrong the maths and physics of one of the the most intelligent human being that's ever lived with something other than an opinion.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't believe in such faster-you-go/slower-you'll-age nonsense. It is derived from Einstein's Relativity thought experiment... But I tend to strongly oppose it.

Naturally, my mainstream physicists friends will disagree with me, and say, "oh, john, you just don't understand it enough". The truth is, I understand it VERY WELL - and I still disagree with it nonetheless.

dam that's some funny stuff right there.

It was a thought experiment backed up by solid mathematics that have proved to be correct in all the testing done since he presented them. Please id love to see your attempt to prove wrong the maths and physics of one of the the most intelligent human being that's ever lived with something other than an opinion.

I think that there is some element of time that comes from a concrete source of some kind. It holds everything in the known universe inside it and there is only one. This leads me to think that there is some part that is yet unknown but that is solid somehow, perhaps this is where Jiggerj feels something is wrong. I think that we all kind of feel it somehow. We know that there is something there, yet we cannot describe it or touch it in any way. I can sort of understand where he/she is coming from.

reply to post by swan001


Could we set our watches to C? Should be the most accurate time, right?

Did Superman age himself by traveling backwards in time in the Superman movie? How's that work?

Does the Einstein-Rosen Bridge accelerate particles of the traveler or the particles of everything in the universe or neither?

Everyone is welcome to answer the above.

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted
If it were true for all things at all times ,"the faster you go the slower you age"...mice,hamsters and other small rodents should live for a very long time.

This is the part I do not understand, how can speed slow down biological processes.? chemical.? atomic.? etc

Ah but they do! They just live for a very long time in relation to a little of your time. It's hard to say it where it doesn't sound wrong.

Perhaps time is actually relative to the heart beat of the observer...

I dont think it actually slows them down for the observer~'biological processes.? chemical.? atomic', it just breaks them free of the pattern that was existing in the comparison.

What a trip to think about!
So if one could find the center of the universe where nothing at all is moving with any speed whatsoever, could he also sit and watch time fly from his position with the same ability as one who was flying through space at light speed, while never growing old? Or would he go on about his daily chores while everything else stood still?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by swan001

 

Could we set our watches to C? Should be the most accurate time, right?

Did Superman age himself by traveling backwards in time in the Superman movie? How's that work?

Does the Einstein-Rosen Bridge accelerate particles of the traveler or the particles of everything in the universe or neither?

Everyone is welcome to answer the above.

edit on 3/14/2013 by Bleeeeep because: added more questions

No. I'm fine thank you!

Originally posted by jiggerj
Hi guys,
I was just wondering if anyone knows this: It's been said that astronauts stop aging for a few seconds when they fly out into space (or at least their aging slows down).

As has already been explained, this is false.

The aging of the astronauts on the ISS doesn't slow down, it speeds up, and this would be true of all astronauts so far.

This was explained by Phage a few posts after your post here, but you apparently still don't understand Phage's explanation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

_________________________

Well it does support what my wise,
late great-grandmother use to say
" you have to keep moving,
if you don't move you die"
_________________________

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by jiggerj

 

I don't believe in such faster-you-go/slower-you'll-age nonsense. It is derived from Einstein's Relativity thought experiment... But I tend to strongly oppose it.

This seems like a good place to ask this: If 'time' is somehow weaved into the fabric of the universe, why is 'time' not needed in Einstein's equation of E=MC2?

Than i have a question for you: Does the onboard clock slow down as well when you travel nearly the speed of light. Or is it just the ageing that slows down?

EDIT: time is; "C" the speed of light combined with distance traveled. Than you do get time.

C = 299,792,458 metres per second. In one second light have traveled 299 792 458 m.

time is relative to scale as well as relative to the velocity of the observer(s)

notice how it takes billions of years for galactic body's act on each other and nanoseconds for atoms to react to each other?

Originally posted by Biigs
time is relative to scale as well as relative to the velocity of the observer(s)

notice how it takes billions of years for galactic body's act on each other and nanoseconds for atoms to react to each other?

If two galaxies are heading towards eachother and both galaxies can observe eachother. One galaxy travels twice the speed of the other galaxy. Each observer will think that the other galaxy is traveling towards them.

Question: Will both galaxies be able to pin point the exact time of collishion, and would they agree on the time of collishion? Or would there be a time difference?

time is relative to scale as well as relative to the velocity of the observer(s)

Correct. But would the clock that travels at the speed of light slow down, or will it remain constant?

reply to post by spy66


I am NOT an expert, so please do not take this as 100% accurate, we are talking theory anyway here right

If the galaxy's speeds are constant, they would both be able to predict the collision.

If they can observe each other and they can observe 'stationary' distant objects, they would both know who is faster relative to the 'stationary' distant objects. If they are 'alone' and can see only the other, traveling towards each other, they could say that they are both moving together at 50/50 speed each or 30/70, 10/90 or even 0/100, its almost irrelevant. Unless one is moving near the speed of light, in which case the one going that fast, wouldn't be able to obverse anything since time would barley ticking.

The clock slows down because the matter its made of, the atoms, slow down, to the clock everything is always constant irrelevant of remotely observed speed. If you started two clocks, sent one at the speed of light one light year away, and then the other clock followed it at half light speed, when the second clock caught up, its time would be different (ahead) of the clock that went first.

What is a more interesting question: If i had one clock based on the timing of atoms and one the size of a solar system, based on the planetary bodies movements and we did the same experiment, would the results be the same as two identical sized clocks? Probably yes, since time, gravity and speed are all linked possibly not!

reply to post by Biigs

The clock slows down because the matter its made of, the atoms, slow down, to the clock everything is always constant irrelevant of remotely observed speed. If you started two clocks, sent one at the speed of light one light year away, and then the other clock followed it at half light speed, when the second clock caught up, its time would be different (ahead) of the clock that went first.

Ok. This is what i was looking for. If the clock that travels at the speed of light slows down. This clock will go slower than the clock that is not traveling at the speed of light. Correct? Do you see why i asked the question.


This is very important point. If a clock slows down at the speed of light. Wouldn't this clock have to run for a longer period of time to reach a 24 hour flight compared to a clock that have not slowed down?

Each clock have its own observer.

The faster clock will reach a 24 hour travel before the slower clock. Thereby the faster clock will stop first after a 24 hours travel. The slower clock must travel a bit more because hes clock haven't run 24 hours yet.

What is a more interesting question: If i had one clock based on the timing of atoms and one the size of a solar system, based on the planetary bodies movements and we did the same experiment, would the results be the same as two identical sized clocks? Probably yes, since time, gravity and speed are all linked possibly not!

I might be able to come up something interesting if we first can agree on how the clock works.

Time is a bit of an illusion to us - a clock is just a means to measure a constant change in matter movement, within a 'bubble' that the observer and the clock are in.

To the clock and observer, time will always appear to be constant, irrelevant of their speed through space. The time that has past to the first clock only varies to outside observers and their clocks.

Technically, ANY speed through space alters the local observers time compared to remote observers, the faster you go the more of a difference it makes - once you stop, your clock runs exactly as fast as any other stationary clock, albeit incorrect due to the period of speed through space.

Has any retired pilots' keepsake watches ever racked up any seconds or minutes of being 'behing' in time thus having aged slower?

Since we've known about this everyday example, I would imagine its been tested over the lifetime of at least one pilot keeping the same watch since training days or something. Nowadays, there are atomically set watches, Theyre not popular cause of the cost but I had one back in the beeper days it costed a couple hundred it snychronized with the atomic clock in Arizona or somewherabouts. Those were the days.

What do our smartphones synchonize too I mean where is the cell towers' and carriers' time coming from, the Atomic clock too? hope so!

SF

Originally posted by Biigs
Time is a bit of an illusion to us - a clock is just a means to measure a constant change in matter movement, within a 'bubble' that the observer and the clock are in.

To the clock and observer, time will always appear to be constant, irrelevant of their speed through space. The time that has past to the first clock only varies to outside observers and their clocks.

Technically, ANY speed through space alters the local observers time compared to remote observers, the faster you go the more of a difference it makes - once you stop, your clock runs exactly as fast as any other stationary clock, albeit incorrect due to the period of speed through space.

You have been write all along. I was just checking if people understood my question and time dialation.

If the person who have the normal clock reaches 24 hours travel before the slower clock reaches 24 hours.
-The person who stopes first after 24 hours must wait for the person with the slower clock to arrive after hes 24 hours are up. A few days later.

This means that the person who have the normal clock will have aged a few days compare to the person traveing with a slower clock. The person with the slower clock have only aged 24 hours.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


"The testing" was putting an atomic clock in higher orbit and compare the result with a clock on the ground. As I stated in my last thread Opposing Mainstream Physics, bosons are carrier of energy, a kind of energy which can promote hadron decay, a kind of energy which would be less present in higher orbit.

Plus, Einstein's thought experiment only includes 2 people moving at different speed from one another. In my thought experiment, I show that if a third party would be present, and the 2 other parties would move away from each other but stay at the same distance from the third party, you'd get the proof that movement is not fast-fowarding or slowing time - only your perception of it. No more than sending a tennis ball to your opponent will slow down his time - your opponent will simply receive the ball after a delay. But your and your opponent's time will both stay synchronized.