speed of light

[John Russell]

Hello guys and gals,
I'm not a mathematician, but in reviewing Einstein's theory that if you go the speed of light,(or close to it), then 1 year would pass for you, and 30,000 for your twin brother on earth(or something like that). If this is true, then I have a paradox of sorts.
Let's say that I am on top of a building 50ft. high. If I drop a baseball to the ground, and then run at the speed of light around the world seven times, I would still have plenty of time left to catch the ball before it hit.
If this is true, isn't it correct to say that time goes SLOWER (for the ball), at least in common sense terms? Would I miss catching the ball because too much time has elapsed?(for the ball) What if I expand the height of the ball and how many times I go around the world?
P.S.
I'm not questioning Einstein's theory, I just wonder....will I catch the ball,or would the ball have hit the ground a year or so ago?

John

[BMAONE23]

Interesting question!!!

I am uncertain as to the proposed time dialations involved with light speed or FTL speed travel but I believe they are only in the realm of Theory as they cannot be prooved or disprooved by us (yet). (I personally think that the only thing limited to travel at the speed of light is light itself. Even though sound cannot travel faster than its speed limit, we can and we can still talk between travelers in the same craft at that speed.) I think we will surpass the Light Limit one day.

Presuming that the ball would fall at 32' per second, per second; It would hit the ground in approximately 1.21825 seconds. If you traveled at 24000mps, you could make 1 trip around the earth and have time to stop, locate and catch the ball which would still be 18' above the ground at the time you stopped. At 186,000mps you could make 8 full trips and the ball should still be approx 10' off the ground when you stopped but you would have about 1/10 second to locate the ball and align your catch. So I wouldn't recommend more than 7 trips to allow for enough spotting time.

[ckam]

isn't it correct to say that time goes SLOWER

it isn't, because time does not go anywhere, it just *IS*, 4th coordinate. do 3 meters go anywhere? again, where can 2 seconds go, slower or faster? it is just a number, it doesn't go anywhere. in your example, it is the ball what goes slower than light, nothing else.

[harry]

Hello All

Speed of light is a method of communication.

You have relative time compared to actual time.

If you are moving away from earth at the speed of light than the time communicated would remain constant. The actual time never changes.

If you traveled 2 C than you start recording relative time in the past. But! the actual time never changes.

[ckam]

The actual time never changes.

one thing that does not change is interval between two events. if by "actual time" you mean the time measured by agent who travelled from event 1 straight to event 2, than yes actual time would be constant, but the problem is that there could be no such an agent (when "actual time"^2 is negative). on the other hand, there is always interval (in theory).

[harry]

Hello All


Basically I mean, it does not matter how fast or slow you are going.
When both A and B meet their age diffrence is zero.

[ckam]

When both A and B meet their age diffrence is zero.

sorry to disappoint you but this was proven wrong experimentally dozen of times already.

[harry]

Hello Cham

Mate you cannot diappoint me

Just show me the evidence.

Most of the experiments I saw were proven wrong.

Unless you ad hoc the ideas.

[ckam]

how about lifespans of muons flying at near-c in colliders?
again, I heared they have actually took atomic clock on plane board once and matched them to another clock-in-sync before and after... cant be bothered to look it up, but you have many friends like google, msn or yahoo

[ckam]

you are lucky. I was interested to see if I actually remember this correctly and did the search.

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Keating and Hafele experiment, NPL featured in a BBC Horizon programme that involved flying a single caesium atomic clock from London to Washington and then back again. The timekeeping properties of atomic clocks had improved very significantly over the 25 years since the original experiment, and as a result relativistic effects would be observable following much shorter clock trips... On return to NPL the travelling clock was predicted to have gained 39.8 ns, including an additional geometric factor. This compared remarkably well with a measured gain of 39.0 ns. We estimated the uncertainty due to clock instabilities and noise to be around ±2 ns.

[BMAONE23]

ckam,
It would be interesting to see if there would be any difference between times of two different clocks flown in a circumnavigational path but in opposing vectors.

[Nereid]

Hello Cham

Mate you cannot diappoint me

Just show me the evidence.

Most of the experiments I saw were proven wrong.

Unless you ad hoc the ideas.

Does your PC work? Are you able to connect to The Asterisk, to write posts?

Good, then you have physical, concrete, irrefutable evidence that the world runs according to special relativity!

You don't believe me? Well, google on QED (Quantum Electrodynamics), and check out how precisely it's been tested. Then do some research on how semiconductors work, how fibre optics work, ... on many of the key components in your PC and the physical infrastructure of the internet, and learn how they "run on QED".

Then try this thought experiment: if you jump out the window of a 20 storey building, without a parachute, and calculate how long it takes to hit the footpath below, you'd not worry too much over being a millisecond out. QED, and hence the way the physical components of your PC and the internet that connects you to this site work, are over a million times more accurately tested than that.

Relativity is as "ad hoc" as that 20-storey plunge; as I'm pretty sure you'd not risk your life betting the fall was merely "ad hoc", whence the disbelief in the certainty of relativity?

[harry]

Hello Nereid

I do not think you understand relative time and actual time.

As for my comp,,,,,,,,,it needs a doctor.

You make comments as they have been proven. Its not the case.

[harry]

Hello All


Hello Nereid
Time Dilation and Twin Paradox Debunked
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/timedilation.htm

I'd like your comment

[dcmcp]

As usual, Harry is ignoring all the evidence that is less than convenient for his cause. See previous posts in this thread by ckam - time dilation has been measured, and conforms to the expectations of SR within the limits of experimental error (and necessary corrections for GR effects).

Also, if you dig a bit deeper on the link you postsed, you find

The mental picture of light as an entity travelling independently through space is therefore wrong; if one wants c to be truly invariant, there can only be a moment of emission and a moment of detection, and the 'speed' of light is simply given by the difference between the two and the distance at the instant of emission. One might ask how the light signal 'knows' what this distance is, but this would be a metaphysical question like the one how the earth knows how to react to the gravitational pull of the sun. It is just a law of nature.

which is where Smid's theory starts to fall over: right at the very beginning. I see at least three problems with this assertion. Others will probably see more.

[Nereid]

Hello Nereid

I do not think you understand relative time and actual time.

As for my comp,,,,,,,,,it needs a doctor.

You make comments as they have been proven. Its not the case.

harry, did you google on QED? What did you find?

Here's a very simple question for you: from the perspective of physics, how does your PC work? Specifically, the silicon-based chip?

From the perspective of physics, how do the lasers which encode the signals that carry your internet traffic work?

harry, these questions are not idle, nor ad hoc.

To me, one of the most astonishing, awesome things about modern physics is its breath-taking consistency, across a vast range of apparently independent phenomena.

For instance, the muon decay times ckam mentioned (an experiment which you yourself can do, with equipment you yourself can build) and the workings of semiconductors in a chip in your PC - how could they possibly be related???

Or, in a comparison that I'm pretty sure means little to you, the classical, macroscopic theory of special relativity and quantum theory - which have structures that are so very different - when combined (in QED) produce a theory that has been tested to 10 (12? 14? I forget) decimal places ... and it passes! No other theory in science has been tested to such an astonishing number of decimal places!

Or, put relativity into quantum theory and apply it to white dwarf stars ... now you can understand why electron degeneracy pressure cannot be infinite ... and you can understand a lot about neutron stars and why their degeneracy pressure is so much greater ...

Consider the alternative to this magnificent consistency ... your attempt to understand the way the universe works is broken up into a thousand tiny fragments, each phenomenon has its own, ad hoc, explanation, and none of these relate to any other. Science is reduced to stamp collecting.

So harry, please show a bit of respect to those who've taken the trouble to learn about these astonishing and beautiful patterns. Even if you yourself are unwilling or unable to take that journey, please, at the very least, defend the alternatives that you tirelessly (and repetitiously) post here.

[harry]

Hello All

TIME

I could be wrong, but many others agree with me.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp

In SR, the Lorentz transformations apply to time, space, and mass. By contrast, in LR, they apply only to clocks, meter sticks, and momentum. This is a subtle but important distinction. For example, increasing the temperature slows a pendulum clock and increases its length, yet this does not mean that something happens to time or space. Only the attempted measures of time and space using the pendulum clock, but not time and space themselves, are affected by temperature. In a similar way, in Lorentzian relativity, only the attempted measures of the dimensions time, space, and mass are affected by speed, but not the dimensions themselves. (In general relativity we find that measures of time by clocks are also affected by gravitational potential.) So in LR, equation set relates clocks and meter sticks in the preferred frame (X,Y,Z;T) to those in any relatively moving inertial frame (x,y,z;t). Time and space themselves are simply dimensions (concepts), and cannot be changed by motion, by potential, or by any material entity.



And that, in brief, is why there is no universal speed limit in LR – nothing ever happens to time itself, just to certain types of clocks attempting to keep time. Such clocks might malfunction or stop operating altogether at speeds at or above the speed of light. But there is no slowing of time to prevent reaching such speeds. And other types of clocks exist for measuring time unaffected by speed or potential, just as many types of clocks are unaffected by temperature

Can someone provide evidence for or against?

[ckam]

I could be wrong, but many others agree with me.

By the rule of syllogism, this means that they could be wrong, too.

[ckam]

No other theory in science has been tested to such an astonishing number of decimal places

Not that there is no reason for that Consider this:

The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

together with this:

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

and you will see that the number of decimal places is now infinite (and irrelevant).

[Nereid]

Hello All

TIME

I could be wrong, but many others agree with me.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp

In SR, the Lorentz transformations apply to time, space, and mass. By contrast, in LR, they apply only to clocks, meter sticks, and momentum. This is a subtle but important distinction. For example, increasing the temperature slows a pendulum clock and increases its length, yet this does not mean that something happens to time or space. Only the attempted measures of time and space using the pendulum clock, but not time and space themselves, are affected by temperature. In a similar way, in Lorentzian relativity, only the attempted measures of the dimensions time, space, and mass are affected by speed, but not the dimensions themselves. (In general relativity we find that measures of time by clocks are also affected by gravitational potential.) So in LR, equation set relates clocks and meter sticks in the preferred frame (X,Y,Z;T) to those in any relatively moving inertial frame (x,y,z;t). Time and space themselves are simply dimensions (concepts), and cannot be changed by motion, by potential, or by any material entity.



And that, in brief, is why there is no universal speed limit in LR – nothing ever happens to time itself, just to certain types of clocks attempting to keep time. Such clocks might malfunction or stop operating altogether at speeds at or above the speed of light. But there is no slowing of time to prevent reaching such speeds. And other types of clocks exist for measuring time unaffected by speed or potential, just as many types of clocks are unaffected by temperature

Can someone provide evidence for or against?

This one is good harry, but perhaps you could explain it for us?

For example, to me, it says that relativity is the only thing which counts in any meaningful, scientific sense. Sure, you can create a philosophical world where time and space are unaffected by the speed of light! However, as this cut and paste makes clear, all such philosophical worlds are unreal (in that they cannot contain any matter).

Or, putting it another way, in the only world available to us, as scientists, relativity describes what we see, and sets limits on anything we can do (in the objective sense of being independently verifiable).

But maybe your explanation is different; if so, please provide it.

Footnote: Tom Van Flandern may not be a particularly reliable source, when it comes to understanding relativity - on that same site you can read why he thinks the speed of gravity is 20 billion c! If you take the trouble to read his case, you will soon realise that it's based on a subtle, but nonetheless fatal, misunderstanding of GR (one that's covered in standard texts which pre-date TVF's webpage, so his misunderstanding seems to be due primarily to laziness).

[Orca]

Harry, if I may, it seems that there is a pattern to the theories you are drawn to. Infinite universe in something of a steady-state; time that is static regardless of the observer; gravity that is for all intents and purposes instantaneous...

It sounds like you, like so many others over the years, are trying to hold on to older, traditional concepts of the universe that were all "dethroned" if you will by GR and QM in the early 20th century.

Is it distaste for the conclusions of GR that leads you seek alternative frameworks?

I suppose the same is true for Craterchains, and our seemingly endless debate on the relativistic effects of traveling near-light speeds (aka, his denial that such effects exist).

For some, I think it is an issue of ideology. Both GR and QM place limitations on human advancement. Some people don't believe that there are limitations; so the theories must therefore be wrong...never mind observation...

There are other ideology-driven reasons to attack GR...for instance, many Christians believe that all the universe was created in Genesis...but if this is true, how is it that objects exist that are billions of light years away? In other words, there "has to be another explanation" for the speed of light and size of the universe that jibes with Genesis. So, and I say this without any disrespect for the Christian religion in general, "Christian scientists" set out to shape theories and interperate observations in such a way that keeps in line with the bible.

Again, I think many people are set in certain views of the universe and resist science, tested theories, and observable evidence when those views are threatened.

[John Russell]

Hey Guys,

I am familiar with the theory of relativity, and time displacement(not that I understand how it works) but my question was, Will I catch the ball?(If going the speed of light?

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Nereid and orca

I do respect your words and in the last post from both of you I feel a sense of a better explanation and respect. I like that.

But! to change my opinion towards the BBT is something that I cannot do.

I cannot see the universe, the known visible universe to be 13.7 Gyrs.

Also the time difference between A and B is something that I will have to read more on.

Neried thank you for the link. I will read it as soon as I can.

As for gravity and its speed, it has not be proven. Although there are some saying its the same speed as light and some say way faster. Who do you agree with without good evidence that cannot be disputed.

As for the endless universe i can only go on the deep field images that show existing galaxy formation as we see them close. Also the high Iron content in deep field images tells us that those galaxies must have taken way more time to form compared to the BB theory of only a few hundred million years.

Smile,,,,I'm not trying to hold onto old theories.

I'm trying to learn
How stars form
How galaxies evolve
I'm trying to learn how black holes function and their importance on the form of the galaxies and how they form part of a recycling process.
I'm trying to learn how and why stars go supernova or nova and the elements they produce.
I'm trying to learn how star cores become neutron, quark or preon or what ever and how the dating of those stars change because of the changes involved.

By getting to know the parts within the universe maybe we can put the puzzle together.

So! I hope you respect the fact that I do not go with the flow. I dot pretend to know it all and infact the more I learn the less I know.

[ckam]

Hey Guys... my question was, Will I catch the ball?(If going the speed of light?

that's strange, I thought I was answering your question here but it appears your question was different. Well, what would stop you from catching it? Perhaps your brain would be too slow for that?

...the muon decay times ckam mentioned (an experiment which you yourself can do, with equipment you yourself can build)...

really? how do I do that?

[Nereid]

[snip]

...the muon decay times ckam mentioned (an experiment which you yourself can do, with equipment you yourself can build)...

really? how do I do that?

The muons are those from cosmic ray air showers, the detector is a cloud chamber (used in cosmic ray research, from the beginning). You would need to use the right amount of shielding above the detector (to slow them down, so they'll decay in the chamber. You also need to repeat the experiment at a different elevation - preferably several thousand metres difference.

You would also need to be prepared to do quite a bit of image analysis, to find the relevant decays, and analyse them.

[Edit to add: googling on "muon half-life cosmic ray" (without the quote marks) brings up quite a few webpages which describe experiments of the kind I sketched above. Not all of them will give you, directly, the relativistic effect (change in the apparent half-life of the muon due to its speed), but some do, and it's not too hard to see how some of the other could be extended to test it.]