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

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Set a watch to c? But... why would you do that?




posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Correct yes.

But for a difference that big, we are talking about some pretty serious speeds.

When they blasted one of two atomic clocks on the shuttle, when it came back it was just a tiny fraction of a second incorrect.

I just did some reading about gravity and time and they are completely related. Black holes and their insane mass, slows time almost to a stop, just the same way going close to the speed of light does. If you fell into a black hole, remote observers would say "he died pretty much instantly when he dissapeared" but to you, you would never die because time would have near stopped for you - either that or you would spend an eternity dieing in slow motion.... Which does not sound fun at all! however since the time is relative, to you, you also died instantly - this is getting confusing!

So. If i had a mass of a black hole (no fat jokes please) AND i went the speed of light, would i go back in time? Probably not since once time has stopped, its stopped, also going faster increases your mass as well as slows your time down, but its fun to think about.

According to Einstein, going the speed of light gives you near infinite mass, which is why photons have no mass in the first place. If you ever did go the speed of light, would you turn yourself into a black hole?

Perhaps black holes are an example of matter which did hit the speed of light and collapsed on itself, as well as a massive star collapsing.....

Its times like this i wish i was smarter
edit on 15-3-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-3-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


From the edge of a black hole you will start to accelrate towards the center of gravity. Your time slows down as you accelerate. But as you get closer to the center of the black hole you will start to reduce speed. And time will start to move faster again.

"Time runs slower if you travel fruther from earth as well. But on earth time moves normal".


By observing our milkyway you can you see in which way the black hole moves?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

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.

So why do atomic clocks say different. You know the pair they had with one the ground and one sent up in a plane.......

FYI - to all wondering that since speed is relative who is the one that has slower time? The answer is the one who accelerated to the faster speed. So with the above clocks. The one in the plane accelerated.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Biigs
 


But as you get closer to the center of the black hole you will start to reduce speed. And time will start to move faster again.


??? why would you slow down?

speed and mass (gravity) effect time progression relative to the surroundings.

a black hole with near infinite mass would keep you accelerating till you were a fine human paste? no?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Biigs
 


From the edge of a black hole you will start to accelrate towards the center of gravity. Your time slows down as you accelerate. But as you get closer to the center of the black hole you will start to reduce speed. And time will start to move faster again.

Here's a thought. At the very instant a black hole forms time at the centre of the (ex) star is normal whereas time at the surface must, since light stops, be stopped.......hmmm So if time has stopped how can anything move ie collapse. This is the yorkshirelad theory : black holeas are not black holes but black stars. The gradient of time across the "black" star means that as atoms vibrate (ie temperature) some will move into an area of slower time. The net effect is for atoms to drift from the centre of the black star to the surface. Completely the opposite of the current theory. My solution solves the paradox of a singularity as well !



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

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.


Then I hope you don't use a GPS as that system has to be adjusted due to this and the math/science is very well established.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Biigs
 


From the edge of a black hole you will start to accelrate towards the center of gravity. Your time slows down as you accelerate. But as you get closer to the center of the black hole you will start to reduce speed. And time will start to move faster again.

Here's a thought. At the very instant a black hole forms time at the centre of the (ex) star is normal whereas time at the surface must, since light stops, be stopped.......hmmm So if time has stopped how can anything move ie collapse. This is the yorkshirelad theory : black holeas are not black holes but black stars. The gradient of time across the "black" star means that as atoms vibrate (ie temperature) some will move into an area of slower time. The net effect is for atoms to drift from the centre of the black star to the surface. Completely the opposite of the current theory. My solution solves the paradox of a singularity as well !


Light doesn't stop, so the rest of your 'theory' falls apart. Light continues to move it just is on a path following bent space that doesn't allow it to ever escape the event horizon.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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...


A clock placed on the ISS would tick a little more slowly than on Earth.

The lower the ISS, the faster it must orbit. Increased speed means a slower clock. Thus, orbiting below that 1900-mile height, speed dominates: the ISS clock ticks slower. Orbiting above 1900 miles high, gravity dominates: the ISS clock ticks faster. The ISS actually orbits only 220 miles (353 kilometers) high so the ISS clock does run slow: About 0.0000000014% slower.
usatoday30.usatoday.com...


Phage's explanation was for GPS sats. Their orbit is much higher, about 12,500 miles. The lower gravity causes the GPS clocks to run a little faster than on Earth.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


If they orbited faster, it would cancel out though, right?



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


You have to understand the weird nature of time to answer this question. The passage of time is only defined by the movement of two points in space relative to each other and the strength of the local gravity field.
I like the two clocks analogy. So put two clocks at any two points in space and if they are moving relative to one another or one is experiencing a stronger gravity field than the other, the two clocks will run slightly out of sync.
In your question, the earth is flying through space 20x faster than a rifle bullet but we are all on pretty much the same world line so we go through time the same. A clock on Pluto would run at a different rate so if you could go out there for awhile and come back you will have aged slightly more or less than people on Earth.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


nope, sorry. You can't accelerate or decelerate because time stops after you cross the event horizon. At least according to general relativity.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


If they orbited faster, it would cancel out though, right?



The question is: which effect wins out — the speed or the gravity effect? Interestingly enough, the two effects cancel if you orbit Earth at a radius of 1.5 times Earth's radius. This is pretty far out: about 1,900 miles (3,100 kilometers) high. If the space station were to orbit this high, an observer on Earth peering through his telescope would see the ISS clock and his clock agreeing.
usatoday30.usatoday.com...


I'm assuming this effect occurs at natural orbital velocity. At GPS sat orbit, adding propulsion to increase velocity may cancel the lowered gravity but I'm not positive about that. That's something I would like to know for certain.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


incorrect, the event horizon is the point where your mass and acceleration cannot escape the gravitational pull, you get smushed into dust much closer to the center.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Don't forget the speed we are traveling around the Milky way and the speed that comes from space is expanding. No wonder I feel dizzy some days



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


The clock is slower for the body transiting faster through the gravity field of everything in the common world line. Theoretically, everything in the same world line, no matter how distant, exerts a finite gravitational force on everything else.

At the event horizon of a black hole, your world line would essentially lose a dimension and become a single point.
The strength of a black hole is mathematically defined defined by surface area, not the volume. In other words there probably isn't anything "inside" as we would conceive it.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


chuckle, sip coffee, chuckle



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


EXACTLY!

if we were tp stop orbiting the sun, the sun stopped orbiting the milky way and the universe stopped expanding, would time stop for observers watching us? or would we explode or somthing?

i dont know, this is a very interesting debate i have to say im enjoying it quite thoroughly



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


You seriously think that's the only testing that's ever been done regarding that theory?

You do realize that all the GPS satellites surrounding the planet have to have their clocks re-synced every now and then because they go out of sync due to the speed they are traveling. Hell , every satellite orbiting the earth has to take into account time difference due to the speed that are going.

You see the thing with a formula is that it can be checked by transposing it.

edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by swan001
 


You seriously think that's the only testing that's ever been done regarding that theory?

You do realize that all the GPS satellites surrounding the planet have to have their clocks re-synced every now and then because they go out of sync due to the speed they are traveling. Hell , every satellite orbiting the earth has to take into account time difference due to the speed that are going.

You see the thing with a formula is that it can be checked by transposing it.

edit on 15-3-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)


i think this is incorrect, its not the speed so much as the fact they are far away, aka radio transmission delay? right?

Like the 2.somthing seconds it takes for radio to bounce form the moon and back





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join