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.
Well yes, it is. Relatively. But it's a yardstick that refuses to stay the same length. All our temporal measurements are based on our speed. If our galaxy, solar system, planet, etc. was moving faster or slower they would be different. Not much of a yardstick.Bushido216 said:Saying that "Time" is a mirage is like saying that "Distance" is a mirage. Time is a measurable thing. All we've done is come up with our own measurements.
No there isn't. The theory of relativity says so. There is no absolute yardstick we have access to. We CANNOT measure our absolute velocity by any means, or the theory is toast. Since we cannot measure our absolute velocity we cannot measure absolute time.Bushido216 said:But there is still a governing rule for Time, the point is that we have to figure out what that is.
Nope, that's the beauty of the theory of relativity. You see if light speed was constant, according to newtonian mechanics you'd have a universal yardstick. You could just say "Oh, look, the light heading at me is traveling 1.5. I must be traveling at .5 c. But this does not occur. Even if the spaceship is traveling at .5c (relative to earth) they will still measure the speed of light as c. That's the beauty of it.Bushido216 said:What you're saying is that two experiments under the same exact circumstances will produce two separate results?
There must be a rule for determining the differences in velocity measured.
Light speed is constant. That is the yardstick. As you say, you are traveling at 0.5c. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. What happens is that time slows for you relative to someone traveling 0.1c or 0.01c.ThePhoenix said:Nope, that's the beauty of the theory of relativity. You see if light speed was constant, according to newtonian mechanics you'd have a universal yardstick. You could just say "Oh, look, the light heading at me is traveling 1.5. I must be traveling at .5 c. But this does not occur. Even if the spaceship is traveling at .5c (relative to earth) they will still measure the speed of light as c. That's the beauty of it.
Which is what makes the speed of light constant. v is constant but t changes.Now here's where the fun comes in. The observers disagree on the distance, and agree on the speed. The equation for distance is d=vt. if velocity is constant, the t CANNOT be constant. Therefore time goes slower as you move faster. Both observers can state, with perfect correctness that they are at rest, and the other one is moving at .5 c, and BOTH are right. Both also get the same speed for light.
What you just showed was that time wasn't absolute, but the velocity of light is absolute.There is no absolute except time.
I thought that was what I said. While lightspeed is a yardstick it's a yardstick that can't measure anything, since the length of the object it's measuring is relative to the observer. That part of the theory directly contradicts Newtonian mechanics, and overturns it by being correctlucaspa said:Light speed is constant. That is the yardstick. As you say, you are traveling at 0.5c. No matter what your frame of reference, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. What happens is that time slows for you relative to someone traveling 0.1c or 0.01c.
Yuplucaspa said:Which is what makes the speed of light constant. v is constant but t changes.
GAH! I wrote that. My bad, that's what I get for writing at 1 AM.lucaspa said:What you just showed was that time wasn't absolute, but the velocity of light is absolute.
ThePhoenix said:I thought that was what I said. While lightspeed is a yardstick it's a yardstick that can't measure anything, since the length of the object it's measuring is relative to the observer. That part of the theory directly contradicts Newtonian mechanics, and overturns it by being correct
GAH! I wrote that. My bad, that's what I get for writing at 1 AM.
Oops, I have to second my "That's what I get for writing at 1 AM." What I meant was that under Newtonian mechanics, if the speed of light was constant it would provide a universal yardstick, which is how people often come to think of the speed of light as some yardstick that you can measure speed by. It's kind of a conflation of newtonian mechanics and the theory of relativity.lucaspa said:I know it's what you thought you said, but look at the first paragraph again. That "if light speed were constant" says the opposite. The velocity of light in a vacuum is constant. But as you say, length or time is not.
So it goes!
There you go. And it's what killed the aether. If light were being transmitted thru a medium, then the speed of light would be slightly different if you were measuring it in the direction the earth moves or away from the earth moves. These were the Michelson-Morely experiments.ThePhoenix said:Oops, I have to second my "That's what I get for writing at 1 AM." What I meant was that under Newtonian mechanics, if the speed of light was constant it would provide a universal yardstick, which is how people often come to think of the speed of light as some yardstick that you can measure speed by. It's kind of a conflation of newtonian mechanics and the theory of relativity.
Well sure, you can, but that only gives you your speed relative to some star. Some star moving in a different direction would give you a different redshift. If you assume the stars to be stationary, then you can calculate your speed, but the expanding universe suggests rather strongly that they are not. Therefore, once again, all you have is a measure of your speed relative to some other object. The theory of relativity is named because of this. You can't measure your speed without some object that is non-moving in relation to you. For instance with a car that object is the earth. To get your speed you simply use the earth as a fixed point. It's not of course. Thus you get your speed relative to the earth.lucaspa said:There you go. And it's what killed the aether. If light were being transmitted thru a medium, then the speed of light would be slightly different if you were measuring it in the direction the earth moves or away from the earth moves. These were the Michelson-Morely experiments.
Instead, the velocity stays constant but the wavelength changes. Doppler effect.
OTOH, can't we all measure our speed by a fraction of c? And you can get your fraction by watching the shift of the hydrogen emission bands, for instance? After all, isn't that how we calculate the recession of distant galaxies?
Yeah. You're right. It won't give you an absolute speed relative to light. Just the speeds of both of you relative to light.ThePhoenix said:Well sure, you can, but that only gives you your speed relative to some star. Some star moving in a different direction would give you a different redshift.
Tau Zero eh? I'll add that to my reading list. That would be a lot of fun. Though there is the eventual problem with the spaceship: How do you slow down?lucaspa said:I was thinking of Poul Anderson's book Tau Zero. It's a nice story built on a thought experiment. A spaceship has an accident and can't slow down. They are at a good fraction of c and thus their tau -- relative time dilation -- is very high. By the time they get it fixed the universe is so old that they decide to accelerate and ride out the Big Crunch (the book was written when the Crunch was still a viable idea; now we know it's false) and go thru the next Bang. That meant that they were going at .9999c relative to all the matter in the universe. But that would be due to the Crunch, not any absolute measurement.
Ramscoop and let the impacts of the interstellar hydrogen molecules do it. Also then use the hydrogen as fuel for the rockets for thrust.ThePhoenix said:Tau Zero eh? I'll add that to my reading list. That would be a lot of fun. Though there is the eventual problem with the spaceship: How do you slow down?
What do they do about micrometeorites? An impact with a dime at .9999 c is probably the equivelent of a Hiroshima or two. Do they just outrun the meteorites? Hmm, a definate must-read.lucaspa said:Ramscoop and let the impacts of the interstellar hydrogen molecules do it. Also then use the hydrogen as fuel for the rockets for thrust.
The ramscoop shunts them aside if they want it to. I'm not sure Anderson dealt with all those details; he wrote this in the 1960s or so. He also didn't deal with the problem that when the universe rebounded there was going to be a small problem since the mass (and entropy) of the spaceship and crew were not included in the new Bang. Also, if spacetime contracted, where did the ship fly around during the singularity?ThePhoenix said:What do they do about micrometeorites? An impact with a dime at .9999 c is probably the equivelent of a Hiroshima or two. Do they just outrun the meteorites? Hmm, a definate must-read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?