Time...? Sound waves, and light waves...?

[Neogaia777]

Say traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light was possible for a minute, then let's say you traveled to the nearest star system, which is four light years away, and then let's say it would only take you ten minutes to get there, and then you were going to travel back to earth afterwards also, which would take you another ten minutes, etc...

Time does not change, and does not run any faster or slower for anyone in this instance, but it is, or would only be, only the images generated by the light that changes, etc, much like sound waves if you were able to listen to them traveling at speeds faster than the speed of sound, etc, but let's take in the case of light first, etc, in the case of light, as you traveled away from earth to the nearest star system, the images you would see from leaving earth, if you were able to view them as you traveled away from earth, etc, would immediately start to go backwards, etc, and backwards very fast in this case, etc, and once you arrived at the nearest star ten minutes later, earth or our solar system would have gone backwards very fast, four years minus ten minutes, in the space of the ten minutes it took you to get to the or that nearest star, etc, while as you were traveling toward the nearest star, those images would be moving forward very fast, four years forward minus the ten minutes it took you to get there, etc, and the total time elapsed would be ten minutes, etc, and ten minutes for any and all and each, etc, and then, as you left that nearest star and traveled back to earth, and did so immediately, and let no time elapse, etc, as you traveled away from that star, the images would immediately start to go backwards very fast, and when you arrived back at earth, you would view that star system, from that position, earths position, anyway, you would now (or then) view that star four years ago, minus the grand total of twenty minutes total of the actual time elapsed, from the time you initially started this whole trek, etc, and as you approached earth leaving that star sytem, etc, the images as you approached earth leaving that star system, would go forward very fast four years plus the twenty minutes of actual time elapsed when you arrived back there (at earth, etc), and a total time of only twenty minutes would have been all that elapsed for any and all and either one either way, etc...

So that time never changed or went any differently for anyone, no one aged faster or slower, cause it was only the images generated by the light that were changing the whole entire time, etc...

We can travel at faster than the speed of sound, and if you were able to listen to the sound waves or sounds, as you went faster than the speed of sound, either toward them or away from them, etc, the same thing would happen, etc, And in the case or moving away from them, or ahead of them, etc, people would either be talking, or the music would be playing, slower, or would stop, or even go or be talking backwards depending on how fast you were moving away from it/them, but then as you traveled back towards them again, would go faster, and maybe even very much faster, and maybe even starting from backwards from the time you left or went ahead of them, etc, so that, when you arrived back from where you started, the only time that would have actually elapsed, is the time it took you to travel only, and that would be for everyone everywhere, etc...

Anyway, just a thought...?

Comments...?

God Bless!

Oh, and, P.S., maybe in light of this you can picture it at different speeds maybe, etc...?

Just a thought...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... stuff ...

Comments...?

Hard to be specific because the language was rather incoherent and ambiguous (what does 'the images go backwards very fast' mean?).

But, in general, no. If you start from Earth, zoom away, then return to Earth, you will have aged less than if you'd stayed on Earth. For extreme examples, you might return to the far future of Earth compared to the time you left.

This is because, counterintuitively, the 'shortest' natural path through space between two points (i.e. a geodesic such as Earth's orbit) has the longest elapsed time compared with paths that involve a longer route to meet up again with the object on the geodesic.

With regard to sound, moving relative to a sound source will speed up the sound as you move towards it or slow down the sound as you move away, but will not reverse the sound. It's the Doppler effect.

 

[Neogaia777]

With regard to sound, moving relative to a sound source will speed up the sound as you move towards it or slow down the sound as you move away, but will not reverse the sound. It's the Doppler effect.

It would if you could hear it moving either towards it or away from it at faster than the speed of sound, and it is also the same with images generated by light, or light waves, etc, if you could see them moving faster than them either towards or away from them, etc...

But the actual time elapsed does not change, etc, for anyone, etc, only the waves, etc... It is just relative to position, etc... Time, etc... But does not actually change, or flow at different rates or speeds for anyone, etc... Just the images or waves of either light or sound, etc...

Can go backwards if you are traveling away from them faster than them, etc, but when you travel back, or as you travel back, to or towards them again, etc, they catch right back up, etc, leaving either you, or them, or anyone, with only the time it took you travel having actually elapsed for anyone, anywhere, etc...

Or if you traveled, and then stopped for a little while, then headed back, only that amount of actual time having only actually elapsed actually, etc...

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It would if you could hear it moving either towards it or away from it at faster than the speed of sound, and it is also the same with images generated by light, or light waves, etc, if you could see them moving faster than them either towards or away from them, etc...

What you'd see if you went faster than light is moot - you can't, the question is meaningless. If you move faster than sound, you're enclosed in a shock wave that totally disrupts the air, so no external sounds.

 

[sjastro]

It would if you could hear it moving either towards it or away from it at faster than the speed of sound, and it is also the same with images generated by light, or light waves, etc, if you could see them moving faster than them either towards or away from them, etc...

It you could travel faster than the speed of light then then your death could occur before you were born; the events might be separated in space but not in time.

​

In the unshaded region where the speed of light is exceeded causality or the sequence of events is violated.

 

[VMaeLove]

If you put a... massive... mirror a light year away from earth and had a telescope that can see the reflection.. what do you see?

 

[sjastro]

If you put a... massive... mirror a light year away from earth and had a telescope that can see the reflection.. what do you see?

If it was possible you would see the Earth 2 years into its past.
There is an astronomical phenomenon known as a light echo which very roughly simulates this condition.

 

[chilehed]

Say traveling at speeds faster than the speed of light was possible for a minute,

By this you've postulated a universe that is so fundamentally unlike ours that all bets are off; there's quite simply no way to answer any question that follows.

That aside, I think a good clue can be found in the analogy you draw to supersonic flight. I would expect that you'd generate an electromagnetic shock wave that would cause the cosmic background radiation (and all other radiation) to turn into ultra-high energy gamma rays at the skin of your ship, and turn it into raw plasma. You'd be dead a few seconds into the flight.

 

[Tolworth John]

Time does not change, and does not run any faster or slower for anyone in this instance

Sorry not true, Einstein proposed that the nearer to the speed of light one travelled the slower time would move.
This has been tested to a certain extent and atomic clocks ( that are super accurate ) have been shown to loose time when they have been transported at speed.

So traveling four light years in only ten minutes is traveling very much faster than the speed of light and time for the traveler would have slowed down greatly.

 

[Neogaia777]

Sorry not true, Einstein proposed that the nearer to the speed of light one travelled the slower time would move.
This has been tested to a certain extent and atomic clocks ( that are super accurate ) have been shown to loose time when they have been transported at speed.

So traveling four light years in only ten minutes is traveling very much faster than the speed of light and time for the traveler would have slowed down greatly.

Did those clocks actually loose time...?

What about when the clocks were re-united at the same speed, or place in time, or space-time, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

OK, since some of you are having trouble with going at beyond light speed, and since I asked if some of you could imagine this at different speeds, etc, then let's imagine it at different speeds, OK... Say half the speed of light, OK, so, to get to the nearest star, that would take you 8 years, so as you were traveling towards that star, you would see images along the way, go at about 1 and 1/3 the normal speed, (or time), as you headed forwards, or as you headed to or towards it, and when you arrived there, it would be the eight years it took you to travel there, plus the four years of images you were seeing it from, in the "quote/unquote past" before you originally began traveling there from earth as the origin point, etc, so that over the course of that eight years, you would see 12 years worth of images over the course of 8 years of your traveling there, or to or towards it, etc, and it would be that only when you stopped, that images would go at normal speeds again, etc... But as you traveled there images would be going or appearing to you faster, etc. faster than normal, etc, in this case about 1 and 1/3 times normal speed, etc, but when you stopped, they would go back to normal, etc...

And as your were traveling away from earth, at half light speed, you would see the images going slower as you traveling away from it, etc, at about 1/2 normal speed, and by the time you arrived at the nearest star, from earth as the original origin point, etc, you would have seen 4 years worth of images, from earth, over an 8 year period of time, etc...

Then when you headed back towards earth, you would see and additional 12 years worth of images happen over a 8 year period of time, and where you left from at that point, the nearest star, etc, you would see an additional 4 years worth of images, but over an 8 year period of time, etc...

So that the total amount of the images (or time) would be 16 years either way, etc, and time never changed, etc, only the images, etc...

Anyone getting what I am trying to say here...?

And I don't know if I got all the numbers or the math perfect or not, but you should still be able to get and/or see what I mean, or am trying to say, etc...?

So, do you, etc...?

That time never changed or changes, only the images, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Did those clocks actually loose time...?

What about when the clocks were re-united at the same speed, or place in time, or space-time, etc...?

God Bless!

And about the clocks, were they kept in their respective times, or places and spaces in space-time, etc, by a signal being sent either to, or else away, from them in that space or spaces and or respective place in that space-time, etc, cause that could also explain why the clocks would be off or be different, etc, but that time itself, never actually changed maybe, etc, just the deviation of the signals, etc...

Signals or images or waves, etc... And those were the only things really truly changing, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Did those clocks actually loose time...?

What about when the clocks were re-united at the same speed, or place in time, or space-time, etc...?

God Bless!

And about the clocks, were they kept in their respective times, or places and spaces in space-time, etc, by a signal being sent either to, or else away, from them in that space or spaces and or respective place in that space-time, etc, cause that could also explain why the clocks would be off or be different, etc, but that time itself, never actually changed maybe, etc, just the deviation of the signals, etc...

Signals or images or waves, etc... And those were the only things really truly changing, etc...

God Bless!

And again, in the case of the clocks, and especially if they are atomic clocks, etc, if they were at two different places in space-time, they would be off just very, very slightly, because time is relative to your space and place in space-time, etc...

Wouldn't be off by very much, but any two things in two different places in space-time, would be in two different times, etc, because of their two different places in space-time, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I guess my main question at this point is, does time actually actually slow for a thing that is moving faster away from or to or towards something else, etc...? or is it just because of their respective places in space-time, etc...?

Take the clocks again, we know that time "seems to slow down" for a clock moving faster away from another clock, etc, but what about if they are re-united, etc...?

Does that show, or still show, that time actually slowed down for that clock, etc...?

Has that kind of experiment ever been done or tested, etc...?

I'd just like to know if time itself actually did or actually does slow down or not, etc...?

Don't really care if I am right or wrong at this point or not, etc...

Does how fast you are going or moving actually slow down time, etc...?

Or is it just the signals or waves or images...? or just because of your being in two different places in space-time, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did those clocks actually loose time...?

What about when the clocks were re-united at the same speed, or place in time, or space-time, etc...?

As I said before - if two clocks at rest with respect to one another are synchronised and then one clock is sent on a trip before returning to the other clock, the clock which took the trip will show less elapsed time. This is sometimes known as the 'Twin Paradox' and is described by Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and it's been thoroughly tested.

 

[Neogaia777]

As I said before - if two clocks at rest with respect to one another are synchronised and then one clock is sent on a trip before returning to the other clock, the clock which took the trip will show less elapsed time. This is sometimes known as the 'Twin Paradox' and is described by Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, and it's been thoroughly tested.

Even when it is returned back...?

But, thanks though, I'm going to look some of this up more, thanks.

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Signals or images or waves, etc... And those were the only things really truly changing, etc...

No. Time is not absolute as Newton imagined. It varies according to your movement through space and the presence of gravitational fields.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even when it is returned back...?

Yes - that's the point. You can't accurately compare clocks unless they are close to each other. The Twin Paradox is that of identical twins, one of whom takes a rocket at high speed to a nearby star, then returns home to her twin. The returning twin finds that her sister (and, indeed, the Earth) is now much older because time has run more slowly for the travelling twin than for the homebody.

 

[Neogaia777]

No. Time is not absolute as Newton imagined. It varies according to your movement through space and the presence of gravitational fields.

How strong does a gravitational field need to be to affect time...?

And, I'm guessing it actually does slow down the faster you go at this point, either towards or away from a thing, etc...?

And we're sure that is correct, etc...?

And it's not just due to their each own respective places or spaces in space-time, etc...?

Thanks again,

God Bless!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess my main question at this point is, does time actually actually slow for a thing that is moving faster away from or to or towards something else, etc...? or is it just because of their respective places in space-time, etc...?

Time runs more slowly for the accelerated object relative to the unaccelerated one.