G
Guest
Guest
why should Gordon travel through time? :cheese:
Superstring Theory in Half-life 2 *Possible spoiler*
- Thread starter PrimalGod
- Start date
B
BigE
Guest
You have really no idea what you're talking about have you?
It would take you 4.3 years to travel 4.3 lightyears in distance when travelling at the speed of light. But you would not get there instantaneously. Ofcourse not, it would take you 4.3 years. You'd be 4.3 years older. Though, when looking back at Earth with a really huge telescope, you would see the Earth you left 4.3 years ago.
That doesn't mean no time has passed though. Seeing something from the past does not mean you actually are in the past.
MrD
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes it would take you 4.3 years to get there but the traveller experiences no passing of time. You would NOT be 4.3 years older you would be the same age. Everyone else would be 4.3 years older.
It may seem absolutely crazy but I think this has been proven with jets and atomic clocks or something.
Alas it is you BigE who has no idea what you are talking about.
"People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistant illusion." -Albert Einstein
Einstein's own field equations were used by many many people to show that time travel could still be possible and still play by the rules. Basically, the only type of time travel that would work is a type that creates Close Timelie Curves. An example of this is if you are a young inventer and you are trying to invent a time machine. One day, a older stranger gives you funds and the neccisary component to complete your time machine. Then years later as a old man, you go back in time to give yourself funds and the missing parts. This self-fulfilling time loop doesn't violate the rules of causality. Everything has a "World Line". Every partical, every thing. You have World Lines, I have World lines. They have always existed. When we die, our bodies will decompose and the individual particles will go their seperate ways and become other things, but there is a linear timeline of there existance that can always be traced. They do not end, ever. When you create a Closed Timeline Curve, it only makes the World Lines loop, therefore not ending them like any other type of time travel would. Of course this idea is still heavily debated about...
Einstein's own field equations were used by many many people to show that time travel could still be possible and still play by the rules. Basically, the only type of time travel that would work is a type that creates Close Timelie Curves. An example of this is if you are a young inventer and you are trying to invent a time machine. One day, a older stranger gives you funds and the neccisary component to complete your time machine. Then years later as a old man, you go back in time to give yourself funds and the missing parts. This self-fulfilling time loop doesn't violate the rules of causality. Everything has a "World Line". Every partical, every thing. You have World Lines, I have World lines. They have always existed. When we die, our bodies will decompose and the individual particles will go their seperate ways and become other things, but there is a linear timeline of there existance that can always be traced. They do not end, ever. When you create a Closed Timeline Curve, it only makes the World Lines loop, therefore not ending them like any other type of time travel would. Of course this idea is still heavily debated about...
B
BigE
Guest
If I'm so uninformed, then would you mind explaining the following to me?
When you travel 4.3 lightyears at lightspeed, do you not experience time because your cells won't get older?
Or do you just warp there like it's right next door?
I'm confused? How can you both travel somewhere taking 4.3 years and getting there instantly?
That really doesn't make any sense. There's nothing special about lightspeed except for that it will probably never be reached by any form of matter. It still takes time to get somewhere? So how exactly does it not? I'm pretty sure you can't tell me, can you?
I was just thinking maybe the end of halflife2 is the beginning of half life 1... what if half life 1 is you going back to stop everything thats why you were late that day because you were just steping out of the portal.. only someone who new what they were doin could of been able to survive all that neway, so maybe at the end of hallife 2 you are sent back in time to half life 1 to stop all that an then there wont be any combine or something i dunno an dmaybe half life 3 is a remake or actually the real halflife 2 and half life 2 really half life 1..i dunno
J
JtM
Guest
If you were to travel at the speed of light for whatever amount of time you would still experience the trip for that amount of time it's just that everyone else wouldn't have.
So lets say there is an outpost orbiting the nearest star, with a few people living there. Lets say they know you will be leaving earth (at the speed of light) at 4:30 pm. At 4:30 pm (the same day) you crash into the star. For the people at the outpost, it took little to no time for you to arrive at the star. Ofcourse you still had to wait 4.3 years to get there.
It's logically impossible to experience a trip that took 4.3 years and not age that amount and therefore pysically impossible ;(
This is right isn't it? Otherwise prove me wrong and I'll be happy.
So lets say there is an outpost orbiting the nearest star, with a few people living there. Lets say they know you will be leaving earth (at the speed of light) at 4:30 pm. At 4:30 pm (the same day) you crash into the star. For the people at the outpost, it took little to no time for you to arrive at the star. Ofcourse you still had to wait 4.3 years to get there.
It's logically impossible to experience a trip that took 4.3 years and not age that amount and therefore pysically impossible ;(
This is right isn't it? Otherwise prove me wrong and I'll be happy.
C
CuPoJava
Guest
Wow, that has to be the funniest thing that I have ever read. How can you be so misinformed at 24 years of age? Where did you go to school?
Say you have a clock travelling at the speed of light. To an observer, the clock would appear to be ticking more slowly as it travels (say it takes 10 'ticks' to reach its destination). To the clock, time is moving normally. Since time is the same, and the speed of light is the same, it means that the distance contracts.
Muons (I believe that is the name) are created in the upper atmosphere and travel about 85% the speed of light and have a VERY short lifetime. By conventional distance=speed x time , the muon would travel 600 metres. But muons can be detected at sea level (a bit more than 600 metres away from the upper atmosphere). Using relativistic equations (of which I can't remember correctly hehe) this is possible. In summary: to us it appears that time is moving more slowly for the muon, allowing it to travel so far. To the muon, time is travelling normally, so the distance must contract for it to move so far.
(I apologise if I have said anything already posted, I last read this thread a few days ago and I'm afraid I couldn't be bothered to read all the pages hehe. I just saw a post someone said and thought I could help clarify
).
Muons (I believe that is the name) are created in the upper atmosphere and travel about 85% the speed of light and have a VERY short lifetime. By conventional distance=speed x time , the muon would travel 600 metres. But muons can be detected at sea level (a bit more than 600 metres away from the upper atmosphere). Using relativistic equations (of which I can't remember correctly hehe) this is possible. In summary: to us it appears that time is moving more slowly for the muon, allowing it to travel so far. To the muon, time is travelling normally, so the distance must contract for it to move so far.
(I apologise if I have said anything already posted, I last read this thread a few days ago and I'm afraid I couldn't be bothered to read all the pages hehe. I just saw a post someone said and thought I could help clarify
).
N
nØthing
Guest
Relativity
If you were to leave Earth on January 1st, 2003 at 4:30pm, then 4.3 years later, when you have arrived at the star, you could look back through a telescope and see Earth exactly as it was when you left it. It would be Earth as it was on January 1st, 2003 at 4:30pm.
People assume that this means that you, "Havn't travelled through the passage of time" as one person put it. They think that this means that you havn't aged at all. They also think that, logically, you MUST have arrived instantly at the star to be able to see Earth on the date you left. However, this simply isn't so.
Consider this. Light travels at a speed; it does not move instantly from place to place. Light takes roughly 8 minutes (I think) to travel from the Sun to Earth. This means that when you look at the Sun, you are not seeing the Sun in real-time. You are seeing the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. The Sun in real-time may look slightly different, but you would have to wait 8 minutes to see the changes.
The closest star from our solar system is called 'Proxima Centauri'. It is located 4.3 light-years away from Earth. This means that light emitted from Proxima Centauri will take 4.3 years to get to Earth. Now, imagine that you are looking at this Star through a telescope right now. You see the star begin to collapse and explode (not going to happen, but just imagine). The star you saw exploding would not be exploding right now, but would have exploded 4.3 years ago. Likewise, if anyone located on an outpost at the star was to look through a telescope and see Earth explode, they would be seeing Earth exploding 4.3 years ago. They would not be witnessing the event at the exact time that it happens, rather, they are seeing the event happen in the past. As another person put it, "Seeing something from the past does not mean you actually are in the past", and he is completly correct. Time is relative to the observer. This is the whole premise behind the Theory of Relativity.
This means that if you were to leave Earth (travelling at the speed of light) 2 minutes before the Earth explodes, then you (and the light that left with you) would arrive at the star 4.3 years later. The people on the outpost at the star would still witness you arriving 4.3 years later than Jan 1st, and people on Earth looking at the star could still witness you arriving 4.3 years later than Jan 1st too (if the Earth hadn't exploded, that is - lol!).
If you were to stop when you arrive at the star and wait 2 minutes, then the light which was constantly 2 light-minutes behind you (during your light speed journey) would finally be able to catch up with you. This means that two minutes later you could look through a telescope at Earth and see the Earth explode, exactly as it did 2 minutes after you left it.
Another question you could ask is, "What happens if you were to travel from Earth to the star at faster than light speeds?" Well, you wouldn't be travelling 'back in time' as people might tell you, but it means that you COULD witness events further into the past. Travelling at the speed of light means that when you reach the star, looking back, Earth will appear to be in the exact same moment as it was when you left it. If you travelled faster than light, however, then you would catch up with the light that left before you did! This means that you could see Earth as it was before you left it, but again, you must get it into your head that this is NOT travelling back in time.
If you were to travel away from a clock at the speed of light, then the hands of the clock would appear to have stopped. However, slowly increasing your speed over the speed of light would mean that the hands of the clock will then appear to run backwards, as you will be seeing the light which left the clock before you had even set off.
If you can understand everything that I have just said, then you can understand the basic principle behind Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
If you were to leave Earth on January 1st, 2003 at 4:30pm, then 4.3 years later, when you have arrived at the star, you could look back through a telescope and see Earth exactly as it was when you left it. It would be Earth as it was on January 1st, 2003 at 4:30pm.
People assume that this means that you, "Havn't travelled through the passage of time" as one person put it. They think that this means that you havn't aged at all. They also think that, logically, you MUST have arrived instantly at the star to be able to see Earth on the date you left. However, this simply isn't so.
Consider this. Light travels at a speed; it does not move instantly from place to place. Light takes roughly 8 minutes (I think) to travel from the Sun to Earth. This means that when you look at the Sun, you are not seeing the Sun in real-time. You are seeing the Sun as it was 8 minutes ago. The Sun in real-time may look slightly different, but you would have to wait 8 minutes to see the changes.
The closest star from our solar system is called 'Proxima Centauri'. It is located 4.3 light-years away from Earth. This means that light emitted from Proxima Centauri will take 4.3 years to get to Earth. Now, imagine that you are looking at this Star through a telescope right now. You see the star begin to collapse and explode (not going to happen, but just imagine). The star you saw exploding would not be exploding right now, but would have exploded 4.3 years ago. Likewise, if anyone located on an outpost at the star was to look through a telescope and see Earth explode, they would be seeing Earth exploding 4.3 years ago. They would not be witnessing the event at the exact time that it happens, rather, they are seeing the event happen in the past. As another person put it, "Seeing something from the past does not mean you actually are in the past", and he is completly correct. Time is relative to the observer. This is the whole premise behind the Theory of Relativity.
This means that if you were to leave Earth (travelling at the speed of light) 2 minutes before the Earth explodes, then you (and the light that left with you) would arrive at the star 4.3 years later. The people on the outpost at the star would still witness you arriving 4.3 years later than Jan 1st, and people on Earth looking at the star could still witness you arriving 4.3 years later than Jan 1st too (if the Earth hadn't exploded, that is - lol!).
If you were to stop when you arrive at the star and wait 2 minutes, then the light which was constantly 2 light-minutes behind you (during your light speed journey) would finally be able to catch up with you. This means that two minutes later you could look through a telescope at Earth and see the Earth explode, exactly as it did 2 minutes after you left it.
Another question you could ask is, "What happens if you were to travel from Earth to the star at faster than light speeds?" Well, you wouldn't be travelling 'back in time' as people might tell you, but it means that you COULD witness events further into the past. Travelling at the speed of light means that when you reach the star, looking back, Earth will appear to be in the exact same moment as it was when you left it. If you travelled faster than light, however, then you would catch up with the light that left before you did! This means that you could see Earth as it was before you left it, but again, you must get it into your head that this is NOT travelling back in time.
If you were to travel away from a clock at the speed of light, then the hands of the clock would appear to have stopped. However, slowly increasing your speed over the speed of light would mean that the hands of the clock will then appear to run backwards, as you will be seeing the light which left the clock before you had even set off.
If you can understand everything that I have just said, then you can understand the basic principle behind Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
B
BigE
Guest
We can't be sure what effect it has on our atoms as there's no way we can test it. Only light can travel at lightspeed but gravitational energy seems to come close. As far as I know anyway.
Travelling at the speed of light has nothing to do with time travelling, although here is not the first time that it has been brought up. People need to go to school a little bit longer
S
SensesFail
Guest
Re: Relativity
damn, nothing, I really like your explanation...
it would be nice to travel so far out into space that you could see 50 years back in time...just need a really high powered telescope...
thats kind of creepy though...and unfortunately by no means possible with current technology...damn...
damn, nothing, I really like your explanation...
it would be nice to travel so far out into space that you could see 50 years back in time...just need a really high powered telescope...
thats kind of creepy though...and unfortunately by no means possible with current technology...damn...
MrD
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
Well even I started to question myself but here :
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Scroll down to the bit labelled "Time Dialation" and read about the quints (ie. 5 babies born identical like twins).
Oh, and the speed-of-light does have something to do with time-travel because ...
Travel at near light speed and you can go to our nearest star and back in an instant. By the time you get home everything will be nearly 9 years older! You on the other hand will not even have blinked.
S
SensesFail
Guest
thats not true at all...its all basically just a huge time zone change...
in reality...the people on the star would be seeing things on earth 4.3 years behind...
Earth Time 2003 Star Time 1998.7
Our hero departs
Earth Time 2004 Star Time 1999.7
Our hero turns one year older in his spacecraft
Earth Time 2005 Star Time 2000.7
Our hero turns one year older in his spacecraft
Earth Time 2006 Star Time 2001.7
Our hero turns one year older in his spacecraft
Earth Time 2007.3 Star Time 2003
Our hero turns 1.3 years older in his spacecraft
He gets out of his spaceship in the year 2003 on the star...
Earth Age in 2003 32 Star age in 2003 36.3
our hero basically lost 4.3 years of his life while sitting in a spaceship...
it takes 4.3 years to get to the nearest star while travelling at the speed of light...so going as fast as you possibly could (the speed of light) it would take 4.3 years to travel the distance...it would not happen instantaneous...
G
Guest
Guest
why gordon would travel through time..:dozey: ???
MrD
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
Why do some people have such a hard time grasping this concept.
If you are the observer then yes, it takes the spacecraft 4.3 years to get there. The whole point of relativity is ...
As you approach the speed of light TIME WILL SLOW DOWN relative to the observer.
Thus if you are the traveller, the actual person travelling at light speed, TIME WILL BE STATIONARY while you travel the distance.
You will not age, you will not experience the passage of time, you will emerge the other side instantaneously from your own point of view, even though it actually took you 4.3 years from the point of view of an observer.
N
nØthing
Guest
Because what you're saying is totally incorrect. Light has a speed; it is not instantaneous. Therefore, why are you saying that travelling at the speed of light will get you to your destination instantaneously?
It's complelty illogical when you actually think about it dude.
G
Guest
Guest
poor freeman........ thats what im thinking about.
AH_Viper
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2003
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 0
No MrD is right.
He did not say that it will get you to your destination instantaniously he said it will take 4.3 years or whatever BUT to that person (that is travaling at the speed of light) its almost as if they were unconious and it happened very quickly, some MIGHT say, instantaniously for lack of a better word.
N
nØthing
Guest
But that is exactly what he is saying. He states that for the traveller, it appears to take 4.3 years to reach the destination (but yet the traveller does not age for some reason, hmmmmmm), but for any other observer located anywhere in the entire universe it would appear to happen instantly.
So I must ask you, why does light (which travels at the same speed as your spacecraft) not appear to us to hit its destination instantly?
Dude, just read my explaination on the previous page and you will understand.
S
SensesFail
Guest
I don't get how time would stop once you reach the speed of light...basically you're trying to say that the faster we go the slower time gets??? I think its all speculation...kind of like how people thought the world would be destroyed when man went faster than sound...
I always thought time was linear...its only your speed thats changing...the only way to distort time is throught black holes...
supposedly blackholes are supposed to have so much gravitational pull that they skew the linear lines of time in space...so time becomes distorted...if you get in a skewed time area than everything goes slower because it takes longer to travel a curved path than a straight one...
another time travel theory is wormholes (not 100% sure on this one...but this is the idea) where two black holes pull torwards each other and open a hole in space...where a person can travel from point a to point b instantaneously
when you reach the speed of light...time does not stop...you age as you would if you were going 60 mph...
N
nØthing
Guest
Word !
J
JtM
Guest
Yeah, I see it now. My explaination could not be possible, since something cannot contain a property and an absence of it. When I think about it, it's really absurd to think you could arrive at your destination instantaniously when you are travelling at a set speed. If you wanted to do that you'd need to travel faster than the speed of light, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
One a lighter note:
If you were travelling at the speed of light though you wouldn't be able to look back and see anything but a black void. Since light can't catch up to you if it's travelling in the same direction.
PS: thanks for clearing up that misconception, nothing
One a lighter note:
If you were travelling at the speed of light though you wouldn't be able to look back and see anything but a black void. Since light can't catch up to you if it's travelling in the same direction.
PS: thanks for clearing up that misconception, nothing
AH_Viper
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2003
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 0
Right, im the first to admit when im wrong, but as yet i still think im right here, hehe, so give me a min
Why, if time does not slow down as you approach the speed of light, does the clocks on space shuttles loose time when they are brought back down to earth?
If someone can explain that i will be happy.
Why, if time does not slow down as you approach the speed of light, does the clocks on space shuttles loose time when they are brought back down to earth?
If someone can explain that i will be happy.
N
nØthing
Guest
I am not completly sure on this one, but I think it is due to the fact that mass distorts the fabric of spacetime (which is gravity).
Think of the fabric of spacetime like it was the surface of a trampoline. Dropping a marble (little mass) onto the trampoline will hardly distort it at all. Dropping a bowling bowl onto the trampoline, however, will create a huge dint. Place the marble near the dint and it will fall into the dint, crashing into the bowling bowl. This is exactly what gravity is. Mass distorts the fabric of spacetime, but does it in 4 dimensions instead of just 2, like in my example.
The normal 3 dimensions are pretty easy to understand (think of a 3 demensional shape), but time (the 4th dimension) is a little harder to grasp. I havn't propely grasped it either, I just know that gravity affects time just as it affects the other 3 dimensions.
Now, as I was saying, imagine you had two clocks perfectly synchronised with each other. One is left on Earth and the other is boarded onto a space shuttle. The shuttle then flies around in an orbit around Earth for a while. Because of the fact that the clock on the shuttle will not be affected by the same gravitational force (from Earth) as the other clock, when the clock comes to land the two clocks would not be perfectly synchronised anymore. The clock in orbit would experience less of a pull of gravity than the clock stationed on Earth, and so the distortion which gravity has upon the time experienced by two clocks would not be the same.
To sum up, I don't think it has anything to do with the speed of the clocks, more to do with the different effects that gravity has on the two clocks. I am probobly completly wrong, however, so don't take my word for it.
EDIT: You know what? I have absolutley no idea what I just said. LOL!
AH_Viper
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2003
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 0
Meh, but it happens with digital clocks..... i dont see how a computer program could be affect by it, AND IF IT IS, why doesnt that mean that for human tissue that time doesnt slow down??
I mean, how can you say that if a clock is showing less time that less time has not passed for the travler.
Any link you have on this would be nice.
Look, you are probably right, and i like the fact you show alot of muturity about the fact, most folk would just start flameing because they dont like talking to thick folk like me, this means i respect you.
However, i still dont get it
EDIT:: Reading the bottom of your post again makes even less sense and i still dont get it. Thank for trying anyway.
I mean, how can you say that if a clock is showing less time that less time has not passed for the travler.
Any link you have on this would be nice.
Look, you are probably right, and i like the fact you show alot of muturity about the fact, most folk would just start flameing because they dont like talking to thick folk like me, this means i respect you.
However, i still dont get it
EDIT:: Reading the bottom of your post again makes even less sense and i still dont get it. Thank for trying anyway.
S
SensesFail
Guest
ya, I agree with you nothing
in my eyes time is not effected by speed but time is affected by the pull of gravity...
same reason why the theory of time being distorted by black holes applies...it pulls all the gravity towards its center and consequentially affects time which is sucked inwards...
I would be really impressed if you could cite the space shuttle losing time by two credible sources...I'm not doubting you, but I've never heard of it and I would like to see what I believe...if so...then that means man has touched the edge of time travel...
also...the space shuttle isn't even going very fast
Space Shuttle: 1035 mph (atleast thats how fast the earth rotates)
Time: 3.0 x 10^8 meters per second (to lazy to convert)
but in relation to each other...the space shuttle would be like comparing a snail to a rocket headed towards the moon...
in my eyes time is not effected by speed but time is affected by the pull of gravity...
same reason why the theory of time being distorted by black holes applies...it pulls all the gravity towards its center and consequentially affects time which is sucked inwards...
I would be really impressed if you could cite the space shuttle losing time by two credible sources...I'm not doubting you, but I've never heard of it and I would like to see what I believe...if so...then that means man has touched the edge of time travel...
also...the space shuttle isn't even going very fast
Space Shuttle: 1035 mph (atleast thats how fast the earth rotates)
Time: 3.0 x 10^8 meters per second (to lazy to convert)
but in relation to each other...the space shuttle would be like comparing a snail to a rocket headed towards the moon...
N
nØthing
Guest
I didn't mean that the program was affected by it. I meant that time would be experienced slightly slower (or faster? I dunno! lol) in an orbit around Earth than it would if you were on Earth, because of the different gravitational force experienced.
I was just pointing out that it's not the speed of a the shuttle affecting the time experienced anyway. It's just the gravity of Earth, methinks.
Though really, this is my theory and I havn't read anything from any credible source to suggest that it's true.
S
SensesFail
Guest
so maybe...the closer you get to the center of the earth the faster time travels...I mean...time gets slower as gravity gets weaker...maybe time goes faster as gravity gets stronger.?.?.?:naughty:
I wish I could understand things like einstein...
I wish I could understand things like einstein...
N
nØthing
Guest
Oh me too!
I hate sort of knowing something but not fully understanding it. I can't wait to start college - lol!.In the meantime, pay a visit to http://www.badastronomy.com/.
It's a fantastic site for newbies
I learnt most of the stuff I know off there, but I really don't know jack when it comes to understanding all of it.
MrD
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
- Messages
- 636
- Reaction score
- 0
This theory was shown on a BBC television show called Tomorrows World. They took two atomic clocks, synchronised them, then flew one round the world on a jet.
Even at just a few hundred miles per hour (relative to earth's surface) the effects of Special Relativity were shown.
The clock in the jet lost a few fractions of a second (very small fractions but none the less still apparent). This correlates with the loss expected as calculated by the mathematical formulas.
That to me shows it fairly certainly.
Even at just a few hundred miles per hour (relative to earth's surface) the effects of Special Relativity were shown.
The clock in the jet lost a few fractions of a second (very small fractions but none the less still apparent). This correlates with the loss expected as calculated by the mathematical formulas.
That to me shows it fairly certainly.
N
nØthing
Guest
Well, that's stumped me. Maybe I need to read up some more - lol
R
Raechaer
Guest
As far as I know that's absolutly wrong. The faster you go the slower you age compared to a person who's not moving (or moving slower).
Some links that try to explain this:
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyfarley/science/physics/gallery/timedial.htm
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/1755/my_relat.html
AH_Viper
Spy
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2003
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 0
Right, i think that top link:
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyfarley/...ry/timedial.htm
explains it pretty well.
The closer to the speed of light you travel, the slower you age, or the slower time passes anyway. (proof in that link)
What we have got to think about now is, if you are infact ageing slower, does that mean that you can still think the same speed
"Do you know that you have been traveling for 100 years but only aged a day??"
Is it possible to prove that? To be honest its a stupid question because i'm pretty sure for the travler you will only nottice a day has passed.
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyfarley/...ry/timedial.htm
explains it pretty well.
The closer to the speed of light you travel, the slower you age, or the slower time passes anyway. (proof in that link)
What we have got to think about now is, if you are infact ageing slower, does that mean that you can still think the same speed
"Do you know that you have been traveling for 100 years but only aged a day??"
Is it possible to prove that? To be honest its a stupid question because i'm pretty sure for the travler you will only nottice a day has passed.
S
SensesFail
Guest
you may be right...I haven't read your links yet...because I'm so damn tired...but after I look into them I'll post my opinion...
and MrD...can you post links to your claim...I mean I can say life was sited on mars...but without proof...its just a claim...thanks for the links raechaer
H
HawkEyesMihawk
Guest
Time is relative. It's not constant. Therefore, there's no fixed universal frame of reference. This all has to do with the fact that NOTHING in the universe can exceed the speed of light.
OK, so say you're in a train that's traveling close to the speed of light (e.g. 99.999999% the speed of light). To the train traveler the frame of reference is inside the train. Within this frame of reference, you walk 5 miles per hour. Now to the train traveler it appears as if he's walking 5 miles per hour inside the train. However, to an observer, looking at the traveler from outside the train (a different frame of reference altogether, the frame of reference being the universe), the train traveler appears to hardly be moving at all. Why is that? Well, the train is traveling so close to the speed of light already. If the observer were to notice the traveler traveling 5 miles per hour within the train, he'd be exceeding the speed of light, which is impossible.
This is the reason why time is relative, and to the observer, why the traveler ages so little.
edit: You can apply the same concept to the speed of light rays from a light source within a moving frame of reference as observed from observers inside the moving frame of reference and outside it, and you can understand why time goes slower the faster you go.
OK, so say you're in a train that's traveling close to the speed of light (e.g. 99.999999% the speed of light). To the train traveler the frame of reference is inside the train. Within this frame of reference, you walk 5 miles per hour. Now to the train traveler it appears as if he's walking 5 miles per hour inside the train. However, to an observer, looking at the traveler from outside the train (a different frame of reference altogether, the frame of reference being the universe), the train traveler appears to hardly be moving at all. Why is that? Well, the train is traveling so close to the speed of light already. If the observer were to notice the traveler traveling 5 miles per hour within the train, he'd be exceeding the speed of light, which is impossible.
This is the reason why time is relative, and to the observer, why the traveler ages so little.
edit: You can apply the same concept to the speed of light rays from a light source within a moving frame of reference as observed from observers inside the moving frame of reference and outside it, and you can understand why time goes slower the faster you go.
H
HawkEyesMihawk
Guest
To complete the concept, I think might have to get into a little philosophy, asian philosophy to be exact. Everything in the universe is an ongoing process. Change is always ongoing (second law of thermodynamics). There's no such thing as constancy and substance/attribute metaphysics is simply an illusion. We can see this at the atomic level, where atoms are constantly moving, vibrating, reacting, colliding and what not. Since everything in the universe is a process, if someone were moving at near the speed of light, everything would simply slow down (this includes aging and pretty much everything else) as it would appear to an observer outside the frame of reference of the traveler. Atoms would move and react slower. Everything would slow down, because everything is a process (everything is in flux/change). Now you wouldn't notice this slowing down, because the process of you noticing would be slowed down. Think about it.
Similar threads
