Re: Time.
- From: "Spoonfed" <jonathan.doolin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 15 Apr 2005 10:41:42 -0700
Len Gaasenbeek wrote:
> TIME. April
8,
> 2005.
>
> When I set my watch by means of a radio time signal at say 1 p.m., it
isn't
> possible to set it at exactly to 1 p.m. because it takes time for the
radio
> signal to reach me and it takes time for me to react to the beep.
>
> Accordingly, if I want to experience the present in lets say one
hour's
> time, in practice I can only wait for that instant to happen or look
back on
> it.
> In other words, since the present is a point in time, I can only
anticipate
> it or look back on it but can't pin point it.
>
> To get around this problem scientists use the concept of time zero or
t(o).
> For example we live in the year 2005 because that is the length of
time ago
> when Christ was born. That is to say by definition, Christ was born
at year
> zero.
>
> Next we speak of the age of a person or body. Since I was born on
April 26
> in the year 1931, it follows that I will be 74 years old this coming
April
> 26.
>
> However if I had a twin brother who moved to a planet which is one
light
> year away from the earth and I saw him on April 26, he would appear
to be
> turning 73 years old, because it would have taken his image a year to
reach
> me.
>
> Now the time at which I made the observation would be my age of 74,
i.e. it
> could be said that the observed time was 74. However the observed
age of my
> brother would be 73.
>
> Consequently there is a difference between real time and real age, as
> compared to observed time and observed age. There is also a
difference
> between the observed time and the time at which an observation is
made.
>
> Consequently for practical reasons time zero is rarely defined as the
> present, because as pointed out above, it can't be measured. This in
spite
> of the fact that all of us live in the same universal present all our
life,
> because no matter how much we may want to at times, none of us can
live in
> the past or in the future.
>
>
> In other words when I observe my twin brother to be one year younger
than I
> am, it is an optical illusion that's all. It doesn't matter if he
travelled
> to his planet at 0.1 or 0.9 c, he will appear to be one year younger
than I
> am because his home planet is one light year away from the earth.
>
> Of course the faster he travelled away from me, the slower he would
appear
> to be aging. However, after he reached his destination, he will once
more
> will appear to be aging at the normal rate.
>
> Now Relativists maintain that my twin brother REALLY ages more slowly
than I
> do as he travels away from me, because they equate observed reality
with
> actual reality. This in spite of the fact that my twin brother will
appear
> to see ME age more slowly than normal, as he travels away from me.
>
> In reality or course, since both of us live in the identical present,
each
> of us observes himself to age at the normal calendar rate,
independent of
> how fast we are travelling or where we are.
>
> For a more detailed analysis, see the second of my Selected Papers
titled:
> Frames of Reference, which you will find at my website at:
> http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek
>
> Enjoy, Len.
Hi Len.
We share a common interest, philosophy, in that we want to understand
reality, and understand it correctly, and only you can ultimately
determine whether relativity makes sense to you.
First off, your example is fine. We can set up the thought experiment
so that everything happens as you described.
Presumably your twin was born of the same mother, and in approximately
the same location. Let's say, both of you were born halfway between
Earth and Proxima Centauri, 4 light years away.
Both of you fly away in opposite directions, and when you arrive, you
look back at each other through telescopes, and each of you sees an
image, created 4 years ago, of your twin, 4 years younger than
yourself.
If a picture was taken of the situation from a camera equidistant from
the two twins (and not moving with respect to the earth and Proxima
Centauri), they would both appear the same age.
I do believe that everyone would agree that this is the case, whether
they are 'believers' or 'nonbelievers' in relativity theory.
However, the 'believers' in relativity theory would have much more to
say, depending on whether the twins underwent nonsymmetrical motions,
(if one twin left earth for Proxima Centauri and the other stayed home)
or if the camera was moving with respect to Earth and Proxima Centauri.
Or at the very least, the 'believer' in relativity sees an
incompatibility with the ideas that
{the speed of light is constant}(experimentally verified) and {time is
universal}(experimentally nonverified) at the same time.
It's very tricky, nonetheless, to work out all the details to resolve
this incompatibility.
Jonathan Doolin
www.spoonfedrelativity.com
.
- References:
- Time.
- From: Len Gaasenbeek
- Time.
- Prev by Date: Re: Pioneer 10 & 11 Spacecraft Deceleration Anomaly
- Next by Date: Re: photons
- Previous by thread: Re: Time.
- Next by thread: Re: Time.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
