Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You really have to ask that?
This is exactly why I asked if you were drunk, or intoxicated right now, etc?
I'm content to go with AI's response to what I think you're asking (my underline):
What? You can't answer or think for yourself?
This is just the very beginning of some of my points, etc.
You still don't get it, the travelling observer's clock will read differently to a clock in the cosmic rest frame, did the universe age according to the travelling observer or the cosmic clock?
In my opinion, the universe never ages according to the travelers clock, etc. The traveler will age or experience time slower, and so will his clock, but his clock will have to be reset once he slows back down to relatively the same speeds as everything else in the universe again. But the rest of the universe itself didn't ever change, or experience time any differently, but only how he experienced time did when he was in motion at those speeds temporarily, etc.
Yes, I think I understand that. Everything is in motion (probably) and nothing is truly 100% at rest (probably) and therfore experiences some small (but very, very small probably) measure of time dilation, etc. But it is extremely, extremely small until you can reach speeds that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally unless it's somehow created by man trying to push a person or an object at speeds getting closer and closer to the speed of light that almost nothing else in the universe experiences normally. Therefore time dilation remains mostly insignificant in most places in the universe, and the flow rate of time is still pretty much normal, or is still pretty much the same, in most places in the universe everywhere, with a few exceptions, etc, but exceptions mainly having to do with very strong gravity that you have to be in very close proximity to mainly, etc.
Yes, I know that everything becomes "crazy" and pretty pointless to try and postulate, especially when discussing pushing a person, or a spaceship, or an object, or anything with mass or matter or physical material, at, especially speeds beyond the speed of light, etc. I'm not at all disagreeing with you there, etc, but it's also not at all what I was trying to discuss here either, etc, as I'm already aware that almost everything breaks down at that point, etc. I was mainly only speaking of theory, but also not by theorizing pushing physical matter or material beyond the speed of light, etc, but was maybe thinking of other ways we might be able to do this or get there eventually, but only strictly "in theory" only, etc. Just kind of saying "If you/me/we could, how old (or young) would the universe be there", etc, and that's all I was trying to postulate, or theorize, or was trying to say, etc. And it was mainly just meant as a mental exercise to try and show (or prove) that the universe is the same age equally everywhere, etc. (13.7-8 billion years old equally everywhere, etc).
Your millisecond of my thinking time allocated to you, expired at the end of my first post.
And just in the case that someone might choose to disagree with me about everything else in the universe not ever being in motion or ever experiencing speeds at close to the speed of light, etc, they might mention something that is near or at, or is close/near to the edge of the observable universe maybe? Moving out away from us at the speed of light with us as the center, and is why we can't see anything beyond that, etc. (46.5 billion light years out away from us in every direction with us as the center, etc).
That's nonsense!
Clearly the 5 billion year distance displacement factored into your thinking, which supposedly, according to that same thinking, was asserted by you as being 'a possible answer' and thereby could have led you to entertain a completely different age of the universe at the distant location!Neogaia777 said:
In physics an observer can be a clock like a particle which decays at a constant and predictable rate. Muons travel through spacetime at near the speed of light, a moving muon will decay at around 29 times longer relative to a stationary muon.
Clearly time dilation can be significant using the muon example.
This is supposed to be a science forum not a science fiction forum with your reference to instantaneous speeds.
Two possible answers in anyone's thinking period, but with only one right answer, and one wrong answer, etc. Yeah, guess I should have clarified that probably, etc. "Sorry", etc.
I'll have to respond to the rest of your post/reply later, but a question came up for me though that could greatly alter or change the way that I choose to reply to you later on though, and was wondering if you could maybe just quickly answer it for me maybe?
My short answer, besides the question I just now asked you (post #55 above) is that you should probably use the one that is co-moving, or that is relatively stationary along with you probably, etc. But if you wanted to use a moun as a clock in it's natural state (always moving at a constant and consistent speed close to c that wasn't ever going to be subject to fluctuate or change, etc) then you'd need to adjust it's internal increments/mechanisms or intervals at which it was measured/measuring, or was taking measurements, or was displayed, etc, so it could always measure or display your time correctly, etc. But if you were going to change or alter it's velocity ever, then you'd always need to adjust it's clock to reflect that change, etc.
The above assertion, in the OP, requires clarification.
Using stationary people, atomic clocks and muons involves spacetime locally, the universe is spacetime globally.
| Aspect | Muon as a Clock | Galaxy as a Cosmic Chronometer |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Clock | Subatomic particle decay clock | Stellar population aging clock |
| What it measures | Proper time in relativistic contexts | Expansion history of the Universe |
| Time scale | Microseconds (μs) | Billions of years (Gyr) |
| Mechanism | Muon decays with a fixed mean lifetime (~2.2 μs at rest) | Aging of stars within passive galaxies |
| Affected by Time Dilation? | Yes — lifetime increases with velocity due to special relativity | No — used in a cosmological (comoving) frame |
| Typical speed | Relativistic — close to speed of light | Recession velocity can be: Non-relativistic Relativistic Superluminal (due to expansion) |
| Cause of motion | Kinetic energy from particle interactions | Metric expansion of space, not proper motion |
| Special relativity relevance | Central — muon decay shows time dilation effects | Not directly — space itself expands, not motion through space |
| Used to test... | Special relativity | Cosmological models (e.g., H(z), dark energy evolution) |
| Measured quantity | Decay time from lab frame | Differential age of galaxies at different redshifts |
| Frame of reference | Lab frame vs particle’s frame | Comoving cosmological frame (FLRW metric) |
| Precision constraints | Quantum statistics and detector resolution | Stellar population synthesis models and redshift accuracy |
| Recession speed limits | Always < c | Can exceed c due to space expansion (does not violate relativity) |
