open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Is light really the fastest?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Author Topic

0seeker0
Gallente
Posted - 2004.12.31 15:11:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: 0seeker0 on 31/12/2004 18:47:44
Edited by: 0seeker0 on 31/12/2004 18:45:54
when a space ship moves at 99% of the speed of light, a stationary observer will see the ship as being shorter that its rest dimesions; See this linky for more numbers

So, while we see time as being very distinct from space, the laws they obey are not so different, and so time can be considered a true dimension.

Best regards,
San.

P.s i will be happily suprised if some other folk dont see flaws in what i have written and indeed i would like them to be pointed out, but i do think i have got most of it right. If anything isnt clear please do say so and ill either plead ignorance or try and explain further.


0seeker0
Gallente
Posted - 2004.12.31 15:38:00 - [152]
 

Edited by: 0seeker0 on 31/12/2004 15:39:17
Originally by: Rod Blaine
We have however measured particles that were in one spot at one point, in another spot a second later. The problem with these particles being that the distance between the two spots in larger then can be travelled by speed of light in that one second.


Interestingly, bog standard familiar electrons do this as a matter of course. Remember in school you saw pictures of atoms like solar systems, and there were electrons following orbits? (according to laws i cant quite remember as i didnt much care for chemistry) Well, if an electron moves from one orbit to another, it, um, doesnt! it just stops being in one orbit and appears again at the other orbit...

Pretty wierd huh?

san.


Prince Yellow
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2004.12.31 21:43:00 - [153]
 

Edited by: Prince Yellow on 31/12/2004 21:49:13
"Time is relative to the one who is measuring it. It's speed of flowing however seems contant to us where it is not.

My year 2004 might have actually been a small bit shorter then yours for example:

Let's use the twins-example of relativistic speed and its effect on time.

(blatant plug form the linky i posted earlier):"

So if time can be sped up or slowed down with someone or something going a speed, wouldn't it be protional to the change in a person's speed, leaving us with a "speed of time"?

Example: Person going 100 MPH ages just slightly less than normal, but slightly more than a person going 200 MPH. And a person going 300 MPH ages even less, yet, there is some correlation between the time distortions for all 3 people? And this change in time distortions is the "speed of time".

Edit:

I looked at your link Seeker and saw the graph, this is exactly what I'm asking about it though.

0seeker0
Gallente
Posted - 2004.12.31 21:56:00 - [154]
 

Edited by: 0seeker0 on 31/12/2004 21:57:58
Originally by: Prince Yellow
Edited by: Prince Yellow on 31/12/2004 21:49:13
"Time is relative to the one who is measuring it. It's speed of flowing however seems contant to us where it is not.

My year 2004 might have actually been a small bit shorter then yours for example:

Let's use the twins-example of relativistic speed and its effect on time.

(blatant plug form the linky i posted earlier):"

So if time can be sped up or slowed down with someone or something going a speed, wouldn't it be protional to the change in a person's speed, leaving us with a "speed of time"?

Example: Person going 100 MPH ages just slightly less than normal, but slightly more than a person going 200 MPH. And a person going 300 MPH ages even less, yet, there is some correlation between the time distortions for all 3 people? And this change in time distortions is the "speed of time".

Edit:

I looked at your link Seeker and saw the graph, this is exactly what I'm asking about it though.



Your kinda right, but it is much more magnificant, whether i spelt t right or wrong,

San.

edit; but your not really right,

san.

Stregone
Caldari
Elite United Corp
Antigo Dominion
Posted - 2004.12.31 22:47:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Prince Yellow
Edited by: Prince Yellow on 31/12/2004 21:49:13
"Time is relative to the one who is measuring it. It's speed of flowing however seems contant to us where it is not.

My year 2004 might have actually been a small bit shorter then yours for example:

Let's use the twins-example of relativistic speed and its effect on time.

(blatant plug form the linky i posted earlier):"

So if time can be sped up or slowed down with someone or something going a speed, wouldn't it be protional to the change in a person's speed, leaving us with a "speed of time"?

Example: Person going 100 MPH ages just slightly less than normal, but slightly more than a person going 200 MPH. And a person going 300 MPH ages even less, yet, there is some correlation between the time distortions for all 3 people? And this change in time distortions is the "speed of time".

Edit:

I looked at your link Seeker and saw the graph, this is exactly what I'm asking about it though.

It is all relative. You can't measure a speed of time because it depends on what frame of reference you measure it from. And who is to say which frame is THE frame that everything else in the universe is relative to?

Keep in mind the observer next to the track measuring the train's speed is standing on a spot on the surface of the planet, which is moving around the earth's axis, which is moving around the sun, which is moving around the galaxy, which is moving through the universe. There is no ultimate frame of reference.

Prince Yellow
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2005.01.01 12:52:00 - [156]
 

Originally by: Stregone
Originally by: Prince Yellow
Edited by: Prince Yellow on 31/12/2004 21:49:13
"Time is relative to the one who is measuring it. It's speed of flowing however seems contant to us where it is not.

My year 2004 might have actually been a small bit shorter then yours for example:

Let's use the twins-example of relativistic speed and its effect on time.

(blatant plug form the linky i posted earlier):"

So if time can be sped up or slowed down with someone or something going a speed, wouldn't it be protional to the change in a person's speed, leaving us with a "speed of time"?

Example: Person going 100 MPH ages just slightly less than normal, but slightly more than a person going 200 MPH. And a person going 300 MPH ages even less, yet, there is some correlation between the time distortions for all 3 people? And this change in time distortions is the "speed of time".

Edit:

I looked at your link Seeker and saw the graph, this is exactly what I'm asking about it though.

It is all relative. You can't measure a speed of time because it depends on what frame of reference you measure it from. And who is to say which frame is THE frame that everything else in the universe is relative to?

Keep in mind the observer next to the track measuring the train's speed is standing on a spot on the surface of the planet, which is moving around the earth's axis, which is moving around the sun, which is moving around the galaxy, which is moving through the universe. There is no ultimate frame of reference.



This is not about "frame of reference". The frame of reference would not matter when talking about change in the speed of time. What your thinking about is measuring time itself.

0seeker0
Gallente
Posted - 2005.01.02 23:38:00 - [157]
 

Edited by: 0seeker0 on 02/01/2005 23:43:12
Originally by: Prince Yellow
Originally by: Stregone
Originally by: Prince Yellow
Edited by: Prince Yellow on 31/12/2004 21:49:13
"Time is relative to the one who is measuring it. It's speed of flowing however seems contant to us where it is not.

My year 2004 might have actually been a small bit shorter then yours for example:

Let's use the twins-example of relativistic speed and its effect on time.

(blatant plug form the linky i posted earlier):"

So if time can be sped up or slowed down with someone or something going a speed, wouldn't it be protional to the change in a person's speed, leaving us with a "speed of time"?

Example: Person going 100 MPH ages just slightly less than normal, but slightly more than a person going 200 MPH. And a person going 300 MPH ages even less, yet, there is some correlation between the time distortions for all 3 people? And this change in time distortions is the "speed of time".

Edit:

I looked at your link Seeker and saw the graph, this is exactly what I'm asking about it though.

It is all relative. You can't measure a speed of time because it depends on what frame of reference you measure it from. And who is to say which frame is THE frame that everything else in the universe is relative to?

Keep in mind the observer next to the track measuring the train's speed is standing on a spot on the surface of the planet, which is moving around the earth's axis, which is moving around the sun, which is moving around the galaxy, which is moving through the universe. There is no ultimate frame of reference.



This is not about "frame of reference". The frame of reference would not matter when talking about change in the speed of time. What your thinking about is measuring time itself.


Hi yellow; i am not at home but want to briefly comment on this. Remember in my large explanation above, i said that constant movement is indistinguishable from being stationary, when external reference points are removed from the equation?

Well, so it is with speed. if you are travelling at 1/2 the speed of light in a totaly black area of space, to you, it would feel stationary. (for that matter it would feel that you were going at 1/2 the speed of light too, you just wouldnt recognise it as such)

In regards to time, when the cosmanauts in the example i linked to above come back from MIR after a year, they have gained about 3 seconds of time on us (ie relative to us).... But if they were out in the same black area of space with no contact with us, they would never experience a gain in time. Only when they come back to earth, do they submit to our standard of time. So yes, time does change in different situations and no frame of reference is necessary for that to be so. However, for the change itself to have meaning or impact, it must be measured relative to a (relatively :-)) stationary observer.

A more common example would be an aeroplane which, when flying, always has 2 speeds at the same time, sometimes differing by as much as 100mph.... Its land speed and its air speed. In every measurement of speed, What the speed is relative TO is always implicit in the number. 60 mph is meaningless on its own even though you may see it on a roadsign.. It really means 60mph relative to the earth.

Happy new year!

San.




Tadius Rhain
Amarr
Kalear Fleet Systems
Posted - 2005.01.03 15:27:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: Tyriel Nathos
Forgive me, for I'm pretty loathe to search through the whole of the internet, but most of the pages I have seen so far seem to simply accept that nothing can travel faster than light without further explaining it. Could someone then tell me - why can't anything travel faster than light?


It's not that 'stuff' is not permitted to move faster than light, it's just that light is the fastest naturally occuring thing that we have observed. This could just as easily have been an emu, but it turns out that somebody noticed light was faster.

The trick is that "stuff" in the above paragraph can't have mass. At least, we're pretty sure it can't. It seems a heck of a lot harder for stuff with mass to go faster than stuff without mass anyway...

Now, there is stuff said to be faster than the speed of light but such things require university level physics to understand satisfactorily. For example, when talking about stuff moving that fast, there is an entirely different set of physics. When things move that fast you have to ask things like 'is it actually moving?', 'what did it move through?' and 'what is it that moved?' etc. This means understanding and defining the question.

One note worthy competitor to light is gravity. The speed of gravity is not known to humans (yet), but there are theories. However, there is an experiment currently being conducted by Gravity Probe B which should tell us more about the speed of gravity. It may in fact be much, much faster than light!

Stregone
Caldari
Elite United Corp
Antigo Dominion
Posted - 2005.01.03 16:14:00 - [159]
 

The speed of gravity is known to be equal to the speed of light. If the sun suddenly popped out of existance the earth would still continue orbiting something that isn't there for approx. 8.5 minutes.

0seeker0
Gallente
Posted - 2005.01.03 18:46:00 - [160]
 

newton reconed gravity was like a string, the earth orbitting the sun via "the ether" which is the equivilent of cosmic string in this case.

einstein reconed gravity was represented by a thing that travelled at the speed of light, and this has been proved.

If the sun blew up you wouldnt feel the effects untill the explosive light reached you, and the earth would continue orbiting till that time.

The method of proving the speed of gravity relied upon the decay of our satelites (TELSAT etc) orbits. As in the orbit of planets, newton was damn near right and he was a GENIUS of his time, but he wasnt right. einstein has been proved right in terms of the speed of light and gravity at least.

San.

Tadius Rhain
Amarr
Kalear Fleet Systems
Posted - 2005.01.03 23:46:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Stregone
The speed of gravity is known to be equal to the speed of light. If the sun suddenly popped out of existance the earth would still continue orbiting something that isn't there for approx. 8.5 minutes.

Oh that's interesting, would mind backing that up with a reference?

Stregone
Caldari
Elite United Corp
Antigo Dominion
Posted - 2005.01.04 05:01:00 - [162]
 

Originally by: Tadius Rhain
Originally by: Stregone
The speed of gravity is known to be equal to the speed of light. If the sun suddenly popped out of existance the earth would still continue orbiting something that isn't there for approx. 8.5 minutes.

Oh that's interesting, would mind backing that up with a reference?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
http://www.csa.com/hottopics/gravity/overview.html

The speed of gravity is a misnomer, its more like the speed of propagation of changes of gravity. It doesn't take time for the sun to tug on earth as it orbits because gravity is already there to affect it. So, if the sun popped out of existance the dent it made in spacetime would become flat again, starting at the center and moving outward at the speed of light.

Tadius Rhain
Amarr
Kalear Fleet Systems
Posted - 2005.01.04 07:51:00 - [163]
 

"Kopeikin and Fomalont became the first two people to quantitatively measure the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature. They found that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 1.06 times the speed of light, but there was an error of plus or minus 0.21."

Interesting! I didn't know that this had happened yet. Mind you, this was presented relatively recently (Sep, 2002). These guys really pushed the envelope to do their experiment with radio telescopes on Earth Shocked.

As for the "speed of gravity"... I do understand the difference between a wave and a particle Laughing. My first post here was in reply to Tyriel's question, which I think explains the way I wrote it.

Haze Valentine
Emo Rangers
Electric Monkey Overlords
Posted - 2005.01.05 05:07:00 - [164]
 

A genuinely interesting thread. I don't personally care who has a PhD and who doesn't, just about every post made me think and, to be honest, that's all I ask.

I'm sure MrBinary sometimes wonders things that more qualified individuals are yet to generate any sort of conclusion for as well; perhaps he shall realise the error of his ways and buy some actual, physical blinkers to match the self-imposed metaphorical counterparts he seems to enjoy.

I think the nub of it all is simply that we don't know what we don't know (yet). For all we know, tomorrow somebody will point out that E=MC^2 is actually utter *******s, and the whole thing will be thrown wide open.

Until you become omnipotent, you can but wonder.


Jernau Gurgeh
Gallente
University of Caille
Posted - 2005.01.05 13:00:00 - [165]
 

I haven't read through this whole thread, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned.

There is one thing that can travel faster than light, and that is monarchy.

You see, when a king dies, his heir becomes the new monarch instantly, no matter where they are. Thus the line of succession travels at a speed greater than c.

Some physicists have speculated that monarchy is transmitted using special particles, which are called kingons. To satisfy the requirements of symmetry, an anti-particle would also be required, which has been dubbed the republicon.

(Apologies to Terry Pratchett)

Gericault m0id
Gallente Mercantile Exchange
Posted - 2005.01.05 13:23:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: MrBinary
Buncha EvE geeks trying to act smarter than one another. Classic comedy.

Some of this earths brightest minds, spend tens of thousands of dollars, and many years of thier lives studying this stuff in high end universities around the globe.

And some of you gaming geeks think you have the answer?

Yer all a bunch of looooosers. :)

Cheers,
MrBinary




Did it ever cross your mind that quite a few of these gaming geeks are the same people spending their lives at University trying to figure out whether anything can travel faster than light?

I hate people that slag others off. You're a ****ing idiot ****sucking moron Razz

0seeker0
Gallente
Posted - 2005.01.05 15:15:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: Jernau Gurgeh
I haven't read through this whole thread, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned.

There is one thing that can travel faster than light, and that is monarchy.

You see, when a king dies, his heir becomes the new monarch instantly, no matter where they are. Thus the line of succession travels at a speed greater than c.

Some physicists have speculated that monarchy is transmitted using special particles, which are called kingons. To satisfy the requirements of symmetry, an anti-particle would also be required, which has been dubbed the republicon.

(Apologies to Terry Pratchett)



LOL! i never read that one.

San.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only