Re: Time dilatation and a space referential
- From: "TomGee" <lvlus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Oct 2005 22:52:16 -0700
CFran wrote:
> If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you.
>
>
Yes, that's correct, according to Einstein's SR and my model of the
universe.
>
>
> But there's something that seems weird to me, if this is true (I don't
> doubt it is), then there must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
> certain speed and direction in the universe which makes time go the
> fastest, in other words, "if you go faster time goes slower for you",
> faster compared to what?
>
>
You've gotten a lot of response to that, none of which is simple and
all of which is debatable. Let me explain the way I see it.
Faster to what? Faster compared to the speed of other objects in the
universe. All objects in the universe are in motion and so there is no
one object we can say is stationary wrt the universe. Objects can be
stationary wrt each other, or not, if, and only if, they are moving at
the same speed and in the same direction. In such a case, their time
rates are the same.
If not, then they have either a different speed or are moving in
different directions, or both, and they have different time rates
because they are moving at certain speeds wrt the universe.
>
>
> Is there something like a speed zero, where time goes the fastest?
>
>
Yes, of course. If you have varying things like speed and time, and
beginnings and endings, it follows that there must be a first and last
or a slowest and a fastest.
The only things that have speed are visible objects and so they are the
things that have time as a property. If it has visible matter, we can
usually observe and measure it's speed to some degree from here to
there.
But since everything in the universe is in motion, we can find no
object to measure that has a zero speed. But if there is motion, there
is the possibility of nonmotion even though from we sit we cannot find
an object that is still wrt the universe. It may be that there are no
objects with zero speed in the universe and so we can say that wrt the
universe nothing is stationary.
>
>
> Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you throw a whole lots of
> probes in various directions and at various speeds, there will be one
> that will have it's clock running faster than the others, and it will
> be the one going the slowest (compared to a referential, well I guess).
>
>
Yes, and the reference is wrt the universe or another object. It can
be either one. Since most objects are moving at different speeds wrt
to the universe as well as wrt each other, we must be specific as to
which reference we are speaking about or we will be making incorrect
statements. We cannot simply say, "that object is moving faster".
Such a statement must have a qualifier to it which refers to one or the
other of the two refs, the universe or another object.
>
>
> Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing can go faster than c,
> ok, but, compared to what referential?
>
>
In this case, the reference is to c, the speed of light. The qualifier
is "than c" which makes the statement a correct one. To say simply,
"Nothing can go faster" is an incomplete statement because it does not
include the qualifier that tells us what "faster" refers to.
>
>
> I mean, if you throw a whole lot
> of probes at the same time from one unique moving point in any
> direction at speed c (or close), where will be the middle between all
> these probes. If you are going at half of c (once again, compared to
> what, yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a rocket that can get
> near c in the direction you're going, and another one like this in the
> opposite direction, the middle between those two rockets wont be you,
> or one rocket would go at 1.5 c.
>
>
That has to do with Einstein's principle that light moves at c to any
observers regardless of their speeds. To understand that, it is better
to imagine that space is a medium like water or air through which light
can pass at only certain speeds and light can pass at a faster speed in
the medium of space than in any other medium.
>
>
> And please explain things simply, you all know how hard it can be to
> understand/admitt all those weird relativity things, thanks.
>
>
I hope that helped you better understand what the time dilation (not
"dilatation") effect is, but if not, feel free to ask more questions.
.
- References:
- Time dilatation and a space referential
- From: CFran
- Time dilatation and a space referential
- Prev by Date: Re: a question about conservation and photons
- Next by Date: Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.
- Previous by thread: Re: Time dilatation and a space referential
- Next by thread: Re: Time dilatation and a space referential
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
