Einstein's Theory of Relativity & Time: Questions Answered

[lostglutton]

I'm not a physics major, nor do I understand a great deal of math, but a question that's been on my mind that I can't fully understand/accept is in regards to how I've interpreted Einsteins theory of relativity and its bearing on time.

Is Einsten saying or implying that as we approach the speed of light, that time and or aging slows down? Many science fiction movies have implied that if one could reach the speed of light one would never age. I can accept this sorta, but then someone said to me once that if they were to get in a ship going the speed of light to venus and then back, that by the time they came back to Earth I'd be long dead. But if venus is 38 million kilometers away, and the speed of light is roughly 300 million kilometers per second, that would mean they would be back in approximately 253 seconds from leaving, which to me would mean I've only experienced him being away that long, and he's experienced being away 253 seconds as well. Is this not correct? Because this same person said, no, if you had 2 synced clocks, one on Earth and one on the ship, they would not match when the rocket returned. I don't see how this could be.

 

[Mentz114]

But if venus is 38 million kilometers away, and the speed of light is roughly 300 million kilometers per second, that would mean they would be back in approximately 253 seconds from leaving, which to me would mean I've only experienced him being away that long, and he's experienced being away 253 seconds as well. Is this not correct? Because this same person said, no, if you had 2 synced clocks, one on Earth and one on the ship, they would not match when the rocket returned. I don't see how this could be.

I'm not sure if your calculation is correct - but it is true that their clocks and ages will differ when the traveller gets back. It is called the 'clock' or 'twin' paradox ( but is not a causal paradox). If you do a search you'll find millions of words have been written about it, some of them here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

 

[HallsofIvy]

I'm not a physics major, nor do I understand a great deal of math, but a question that's been on my mind that I can't fully understand/accept is in regards to how I've interpreted Einsteins theory of relativity and its bearing on time.

Is Einsten saying or implying that as we approach the speed of light, that time and or aging slows down?

First, the reason its called "relativity" is that you can only talk about "approach the speed of light" relative to some reference point which we take to be "stationary". A person who is "stationary" would observe a person moving close to the speed of light (relative to him) moving and living slower- if he were able to see a clock on that space ship, he would observe it moving slower than his own. Of course people in the ship would not observe any change in themselves.

Many science fiction movies have implied that if one could reach the speed of light one would never age. I can accept this sorta, but then someone said to me once that if they were to get in a ship going the speed of light to venus and then back, that by the time they came back to Earth I'd be long dead. But if venus is 38 million kilometers away, and the speed of light is roughly 300 million kilometers per second, that would mean they would be back in approximately 253 seconds from leaving, which to me would mean I've only experienced him being away that long, and he's experienced being away 253 seconds as well. Is this not correct? Because this same person said, no, if you had 2 synced clocks, one on Earth and one on the ship, they would not match when the rocket returned. I don't see how this could be.

There are two points here- If a person goes near the speed of light, since venus itself is (approximately) stationary relative to us, the person on the ship would observe the distance from Earth to venus as contracted, so he would calculate that it would take less than 253 seconds. It would not be at all surprising to him that his clock read less than 253 seconds- he did not actually travel 300 million kilometers. To the person on earth, the traveler would have traveled 300 million kilometers, and taken 253 seconds for the trip. But since he observes that time has slowed for the traveler, he is also not at all surprised that the travelers clock reads less than 253 seconds. The two agree that the traveler's clock should read less than the "stay-at-home" clock, but for very different reasons.

 

[lostglutton]

There are two points here- If a person goes near the speed of light, since venus itself is (approximately) stationary relative to us, the person on the ship would observe the distance from Earth to venus as contracted, so he would calculate that it would take less than 253 seconds. It would not be at all surprising to him that his clock read less than 253 seconds- he did not actually travel 300 million kilometers. To the person on earth, the traveler would have traveled 300 million kilometers, and taken 253 seconds for the trip. But since he observes that time has slowed for the traveler, he is also not at all surprised that the travelers clock reads less than 253 seconds. The two agree that the traveler's clock should read less than the "stay-at-home" clock, but for very different reasons.

I hear what you are saying in the second quote but I just can't grasp it for some reason. Here's another example. Say this same trip happened, but what took place during the trip is this. Two brothers try to test out the theory while this trip happens. One brother gets on the ship, while the other stays on earth. These two have practiced counting to one together and then writing down a slash mark on a piece of paper at the exact time. They do this flawlessly 100% of the time. Now as soon as the ship starts its light speed travel the brothers start counting to one and writing down a slash mark on a paper. Would they not both have the same amount of slash marks by the time the ship had returned? I can see no way it could be different. If you say otherwise, please explain how.

As I see this, the brothers are acting like entangled particles, and if this is the case their movements are happening simultaneously at a set interval which would remain constant no matter how fast the object one of them is on is traveling.

 

[DaveC426913]

I hear what you are saying in the second quote but I just can't grasp it for some reason. Here's another example. Say this same trip happened, but what took place during the trip is this. Two brothers try to test out the theory while this trip happens. One brother gets on the ship, while the other stays on earth. These two have practiced counting to one together and then writing down a slash mark on a piece of paper at the exact time. They do this flawlessly 100% of the time. Now as soon as the ship starts its light speed travel the brothers start counting to one and writing down a slash mark on a paper. Would they not both have the same amount of slash marks by the time the ship had returned? I can see no way it could be different. If you say otherwise, please explain how.

As I see this, the brothers are acting like entangled particles, and if this is the case their movements are happening simultaneously at a set interval which would remain constant no matter how fast the object one of them is on is traveling.

The brother who got in a spaceship and accelerated away form Earth and then back to Earth would have fewer ticks. He really does age slower, no illusion about it.


"Relativity" actually means "relativity of simultaneity". It is the simultaneity of events that is relative to the observer. Their ideas of when events occur will differ. There is no concept more fundamental to relativity than this.

 

[lostglutton]

The brother who got in a spaceship and accelerated away form Earth and then back to Earth would have fewer ticks. He really does age slower, no illusion about it.


"Relativity" actually means "relativity of simultaneity". It is the simultaneity of events that is relative to the observer. Their ideas of when events occur will differ. There is no concept more fundamental to relativity than this.

I have no qualms about the possibility he may age, I can let in the fact that perhaps time travel has an effect on the aging process, but with the entangled particles (brothers) I don't see how the ticks would differ given they are both acting simultaneously at the same interval.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no qualms about the possibility he may age, I can let in the fact that perhaps time travel has an effect on the aging process, but with the entangled particles (brothers) I don't see how the ticks would differ given they are both acting simultaneously at the same interval.

Because
1] 'entangled' has no meaning in the context of macroscopic brothers.

2] entanglement has nothing to do with how two entangled entities might experience time.

If you performed this experiment in a context where entangement does mean something, say a pair of entangled electrons, and you could somehow accelerate one of them in a particle accelerator without destroying the entanglement, I see no reason why the electrons could not age separately (though don't quote me on that).

3] How could you agree that they age at different rates yet you cannot agree that their ticks would be different? This is an illogical conclusion. Time actually passes at a different rate in the two frames. Everything (ev-ry-thing) occurs at a different rate. Biological processes, heart rates, neurons firing, atoms decaying, mechanical clocks, ticks on paper.

And finally:

I don't see how the ticks would differ given they are both acting simultaneously at the same interval.

4] You used the word simultaneously, right? I'll say it again: Relativity" actually means "relativity of simultaneity". It is "the simultaneity of events" that is relative to the observer (meaning each one has their own - equally valid - take on when events are simultaneous - including any seconds that pass). Their ideas of when events occur will differ. There is no concept more fundamental to relativity than this.

 

[lostglutton]

Because 'entangled' has no meaning in this context.

Forgive me with my child like curiosity and perhaps naivety, but from what I understand of entanglements is no mater what the distance apart an object is it will move exactly at the same moment the other one does or change in some way at the exact moment the other one does. What difference would it make if these particles where traveling at a speed while this occurrence took place.

If this is correct than exact timed interval ticks over a light speedish travel speed would happen at the same time and thus when the two entangled objects (brothers) reunite the ticks would be equal.

 

[DaveC426913]

Forgive me with my child like curiosity and perhaps naivety, but from what I understand of entanglements is no mater what the distance apart an object is it will move exactly at the same moment the other one does or change in some way at the exact moment the other one does. What difference would it make if these particles where traveling at a speed while this occurrence took place.

If this is correct than exact timed interval ticks over a light speedish travel speed would happen at the same time and thus when the two entangled objects (brothers) reunite the ticks would be equal.

This is a misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement has a far, far more subtle and nuanced effect on particles than any such gross properties as position and movement. For example, if one (fermionic) particle is spin up the other must be spin down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept".

 

[lostglutton]

This is a misunderstanding of entanglement. Entanglement has a far, far more subtle and nuanced effect on particles than any such gross properties as position and movement. For example, if one (fermionic) particle is spin up the other must be spin down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Concept".

Perhaps this may be true, but I was original using the entanglement word to hopefully convey the synchronicity these brothers shared, but I may of brought more confusion. I still don't see how two brothers synced to an identical action would change this sync wether they were going 1 mph or a million, the action they synced is always at the same interval, wether you want to call it a second interval or a nanosecond interval it never changes. How does the speed of an object they are on change this sync?

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps this may be true, but I was original using the entanglement word to hopefully convey the synchronicity these brothers shared, but I may of brought more confusion. I still don't see how two brothers synced to an identical action would change this sync wether they were going 1 mph or a million, the action they synced is always at the same interval, wether you want to call it a second interval or a nanosecond interval it never changes. How does the speed of on object they are on change this sync?

Because special relativity, which is one of the most thoroughly tested theories in the history of science demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that the passage of time is dependent on relative velocity between the frames of reference.

There is no such thing as 'synced' when two frames of reference have a relative velocity.

One second on Earth by brother one will not match up with one second on the spaceship by brother two. If they trained telescopes on each other, they would actually see the other as moving in slow motion. The greater their relative velocity, the greater the discrepancy they would observe. One might see the other diligently (yet painfully slowly) counting off a tick mark every 2 seconds or 2 minutes or 2 hours if their relative velocity were high enough.

At .99999999999c, one brother would observe the other brother to be virtually frozen - making a glacially slow movement to mark a tick on his paper every 2.5 days.

 

[lostglutton]

Because special relativity, which is one of the most thoroughly tested theories in the history of science demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that the passage of time is dependent on relative velocity between the frames of reference.

There is no such thing as 'synced' when two frames of reference have a relative velocity.

One second on Earth by brother one will not match up with one second on the spaceship by brother two. If they trained telescopes on each other, they would actually see the other as moving in slow motion. The greater their relative velocity, the greater the discrepancy they would observe. One might see the other diligently (yet painfully slowly) counting off a tick mark every 2 seconds or 2 minutes or 2 hours if their relative velocity were high enough.

At .99999999999c, one brother would observe the other brother to be virtually frozen - making a glacially slow movement to mark a tick on his paper every 2.5 days.

I guess I'll just have to take your word for it, because I still don't see how if it takes one brother one rotation of the sun to do 1000 ticks, that the other brother would not do 1000 of his own during that same rotation since his body is moving identically as fast as before (theoretically) even though he's on a object moving away from Earth at x amount of speed. In my mind he may be 1 billion miles away by the time the sun rotates once, but still he only did 1000 ticks.

I imagine the way this was proved was some instrument of time measurement was put on a earthly object moving at a certain speed, perhaps a plane going 500 mph and another was stationary on the ground and when the two clocks were matched again after the plane went some distance there was a difference of some sort. That measured difference was made into an equation that then was further multiplied to see what that would look like at speeds we can't theoretically reach and the conclusion was made that objects traveling at distances approaching light speed would age at a certain rate. (in fact I'm going to start looking this up).

I would imagine though in real world circumstances that what I purpose is not possible since i'd rip apart before reaching the type of speed we are talking about, but still

 

[Passionflower]

The brother who got in a spaceship and accelerated away form Earth and then back to Earth would have fewer ticks. He really does age slower, no illusion about it.

All clocks tick at one second per second.

When two trucks go from A to B on different roads and the first truck takes 10 miles and the second 8 miles we say that the second truck was on a shorter trip distance wise. We would not say the second trucks ODO meter went slower. In relativity the same applies time wise, the traveler took a shorter time between event A and B compared to the one who stayed at home.

 

[lostglutton]

A clocks tick at one second per second.

When two trucks go from A to B on different roads and the first truck takes 10 miles and the second 8 miles we say that the second truck was on a shorter trip distance wise. We would not say the second trucks ODO meter went slower. In relativity the same applies time wise, the traveler took a shorter time between event A and B compared to the one who stayed at home.

Im not grasping how in sync brothers would become out of sync depending on speed traveled over any given distance.

 

[Passionflower]

Im not grasping how in sync brothers would become out of sync depending on speed traveled over any given distance.

Just like there are different distances between two events so are there different elapsed times between two events. In Galilean relativity time is absolute but not in Einsteinian relativity.

 

[LeeJeffries]

For my own understanding, I understand why space and time differ if we assume c is constant, but when the "moving" clock is observed from the "stationary" point A, does that mean from point A, or from point A "if the information from the clock was given to point A instantaneously"?

i.e. is it due to light taking time to travel, and the second frame of reference moving relative to the same c that point A observes?

 

[HallsofIvy]

It means "from point A"- there is never any assumption of instaneous transmission of information in relativity.

 

[DaveC426913]

... if it takes one brother one rotation of the sun to do 1000 ticks, that the other brother would not do 1000 of his own during that same rotation since his body is moving identically as fast as before (theoretically) even though he's on a object moving away from Earth at x amount of speed. In my mind he may be 1 billion miles away by the time the sun rotates once, but still he only did 1000 ticks.

In the spaceship brother's moving frame of reference (now moving with respect to the sun), he will see the sun rotating much slower than he expects. As I said before, EVERYTHING that is not moving the same velocity as you will experience a time dilation from your perspective. Earth will take longer to go around the sun, the moon will move slower, etc.

 

[LeeJeffries]

It means "from point A"- there is never any assumption of instaneous transmission of information in relativity.

Thanks, I'm glad that is the case, it makes logical sense to me that way that if c is measured the same for both observers that from A time and distance would need to be measured differently in order for c to remain the same

 

[lostglutton]

In the spaceship brother's moving frame of reference (now moving with respect to the sun), he will see the sun rotating much slower than he expects. As I said before, EVERYTHING that is not moving the same velocity as you will experience a time dilation from your perspective. Earth will take longer to go around the sun, the moon will move slower, etc.

Even if the brothers rate of motion is not determined by him looking at the sun, but simply is, and its rate is 1000 ticks per sun rotation?

So help me understand why then if this is the case. Is it because any object that approaches speeds closer and closer to the speed of light, have items genetic/molecular/conscious make up change in some way to explain for it becoming out of sync such as these theoretical brothers, or man made clocks ticking at different intervals, or digital clocks transferring information at different intervals.

What types of objects were tested to prove this theory is consistent with all objects?

I know it must hold at least some truth because its used in GPS systems that work according to principles derived from this theory.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even if the brothers rate of motion is not determined by him looking at the sun, but simply is, and its rate is 1000 ticks per sun rotation?

The brothers rate of time passage is determined internally. Every clock, living cell, and atomic vibration will agree that time is passing at one second per second (i.e. he sees no time dilatory effects in his own frame of reference). It is when he casts his eye upon things moving with respect to him that he will notice that they are slowed down because of their motion. If the sun is moving wrt him at .9999999c then it will be changing (say, sunspots or rotation on its axis) accordingly slowly.

If he wanted to use the sun as his guide of when to make ticks, he's welcome to do so. He'd sit at his desk and dutifully make a tick every time the sun changes (rotates, spawns sunpsots) by the appropriate amount - and he'd get really really bored between ticks.

So help me understand why then if this is the case. Is it because any object that approaches speeds closer and closer to the speed of light, have items genetic/molecular/conscious make up change in some way to explain for it becoming out of sync such as these theoretical brothers, or man made clocks ticking at different intervals, or digital clocks transferring information at different intervals.

No. Time itself changes. Time and space are two sides of the same coin. They are linked by relative velocity. A large increase in movement through the spatial dimension results in a large decrease in movement throug the time dimension.

What types of objects were tested to prove this theory is consistent with all objects?

I know it must hold at least some truth because its used in GPS systems that work according to principles derived from this theory

Again, it is one of the most thoroughly verified concepts in the history of science.


Don't think of relativity as if it were simply making subtle changes to the gears of clocks or the chemistry in cells. Disabuse yourself of the notion that there is some universal time, a rate at which the universe ticks over. This is false and misleading.

Think of time and space as one thing. Movement through one direction (along a spatial axis) of spacetime inevitably affects movement through other directions (such as the time axis).

 

[lostglutton]

No. Time itself changes. Time and space are two sides of the same coin. They are linked by relative velocity. A large increase in movement through the spatial dimension results in a large decrease in movement throug the time dimension.Again, it is one of the most thoroughly verified concepts in the history of science.Don't think of relativity as if it were simply making subtle changes to the gears of clocks or the chemistry in cells. Disabuse yourself of the notion that there is some universal time, a rate at which the universe ticks over. This is false and misleading.

Think of time and space as one thing. Movement through one direction (along a spatial axis) of spacetime inevitably affects movement through other directions (such as the time axis).

Well thanks for your time and answers. I still hold a notion of time as man made, and not something that is an actual something that can change. Yes I believe things live and die and you could say that rate in between is something called time/life. I believe even the length of time/life of an object or perhaps even all objects can theoretically increase or decrease according to being in high speed motions. But this notion of time being a object of some sorts I'm still unsure of.

 

[DaveC426913]

I still hold a notion of time as man made, and not something that is an actual something that can change.

Don't. That was Newton. He's been overthrown. Einstein's legacy is to show us that the universe does not have a fixed background clock against which everything ticks. That is the very fundamental of relativity.

But this notion of time being a object of some sorts I'm still unsure of.

I never said time was an object. Time is a dimension - one of four. And the rate of passage through those four can be altered.



(Question: If time were manmade, what would cause cesium atoms and heartbeats to tick at a certain rate? They were doing this long before man invented clocks.)

 

[darkhorror]

I think the problem you are having is that you don't know understand any of the basics of relativity. Not just what happens but why. Look at the basics about light speed being constant. This is what leads to time slowing down depending on frame of reference. Since light is constant in all inertial frames then spacetime must change so that light can remain constant. Once you understand the basics it will be easier to understand.

 

[lostglutton]

Don't. That was Newton. He's been overthrown. Einstein's legacy is to show us that the universe does not have a fixed background clock against which everything ticks. That is the very fundamental of relativity.

I never said time was an object. Time is a dimension - one of four. And the rate of passage through those four can be altered.
(Question: If time were manmade, what would cause cesium atoms and heartbeats to tick at a certain rate? They were doing this long before man invented clocks.)

Answer to question: From my perspective those event are and have been taking place long before man made time, but we gave labels to those ticks. Perhaps the heartbeat one is called 1 beat per second, and the cesium atom is another.

Perhaps if i give you this question you may better understand where I come from in terms of my interpenetrating the world. I think it all started around the time I started to read about and understand Buddhism and Hinduism. I can elaborate if you don't understand these religions or concepts I draw from.

Say for a moment you accept this reality (and its a very conceivable one that I don't think can be disproving, nor can it be proven). Everything in the entire universe/existence is one energetic object (conscious or not that is not important now). Its happening as you and I see it and its happening whether you and I can't, in ways that fit our current paradigms of science and ways that do not, none the less its all one. Its not divided, we only divide it and any other living species that experiences itself and others individually see and believe life is broken into pieces, but ultimately its one energetic occurrence. Within this occurrence, we have the phenomenon you and i call gravity, air, and to show you where my question stems from, light speed travel and time. From this ultimate perspective there is no time, its just an unfolding events and matter, or as science has dimed it, an evolution of matter over what we call time. But from the perspective of oneness I guess you could say its just taking place as one energetic existence that has no beginning and has no end.

Ok I hope your still with me. Within this all oneness perspective you have an object which leaves Earth at the speed of light with a brother on it and a brother that remains. In this theoretical situation these brothers are synced. As in doing the same thing at the same moment all the time. However current proven science says that due to the fact that one brother is approaching the speed of light, his body won't remain in sync with his brothers, which very well may be true, but why?

From this all is one perspective one can theoretically have a chart of all things that occurred during a certain event taking place within it (say the sun passing around our earth), which would at this point create a universal ticking, in which all events happening everywhere are measured against. Perhaps the human race had a total of a billion thoughts, perhaps an alien species had a billion more, and some how 2 theoretical brothers who are synced are now out of sync upon one returning from light travel. I think the current notion is one brother would of aged while the other had aged less.

What caused this discrepancy? Did the travel itself slow down his metabolic processes? Was because one brother was going at such a speed his muscles couldn't move at the synced rate and thus he didn't remain in sync. Does it have to do with the fact that as electron and/or protons reach speeds approaching light travel, they have a larger bearing effect on the larger system they are apart of (such as a human cell) or atomic clocks (which as I understand were used on planes to show this discrepancy Einstein was speaking of).

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps if i give you this question you may better understand where I come from in terms of my interpenetrating the world. I think it all started around the time I started to read about and understand Buddhism and Hinduism. I can elaborate if you don't understand these religions or concepts I draw from them.

Your conceptual experiences are providing inspiration for words you use that are scientifically poorly defined.

In this case, the poorly-defined word is 'synced'. There is no such thing.

From this all is one perspective one can theoretically have a chart of things that occurred during a certain event taking place within it (say the sun passing around our earth), which would at this point create a universal ticking going in which all events happening everywhere are measured against.

This is quite simply not true. Disabuse yourself if this notion if you wish to begin understanding modern physics.

There is no universal/objective/absolute frame in which all events can be measured as being equal. Period. Full stop. This is the very thing that makes Einstein's revelation so profound.

What caused this discrepancy?

Simplistically: the sum of his movement through spacetime must be c. High spatial velocity results in low "temporal velocity" (Not an official term, this is a conceptual analogy).

Think of driving a car due north at 100km/h (the absolute speed limit). In doing so, I am making headway northward of 100 km for every hour travelled.

Now I turn my car due northwest. I'm still traveling at 100km/h but the headway I making in the northward direction is now a mere 70.7km for every hour traveled.

My overall velocity is unchanged (100km/h) but my velocity in one spatial dimension (the east-west dimension) has altered my velocity in another dimension (the north-south dimension).

If I needed to make a headway of 100km west for every hour traveled, how far will I have to turn my car? I'll have to turn my car due west. And if I do so, I make zero headway in the north direction.*

Space and time are but dimensions. There are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. The more I turn toward the spatial dimensions (increase my velocity in them), the slower I move through the time dimension. The sum of my velocity through all these dimensions, (equivalent to the 100km/h speed limit on the road) is the speed of light. So as my spatial velocity approaches c, the total adds to c, meaning my travel trough the time dimension approaches zero.


*addendum: note another byproduct of this analogy: it shows why we cannot exceed the speed of light. How is it possible to turn my car so far that my westward headway is 101km for every hour traveled? It is not possible. There is no amount through which I can turn my car such that my westward headway can possibly exceed 100km/h. "There no wester than due west."

Likewise, there is no amount through which a rocketship can convert temporal motion into spatial motion such that the spatial motion can exceed c. Once temporal motion is at zero, sptial motion is at max. "There's no more spatial than due spatial".

 

[lostglutton]

Your conceptual experiences are providing inspiration for words you use that are scientifically poorly defined.

In this case, the poorly-defined word is 'synced'. There is no such thing.This is quite simply not true. Disabuse yourself if this notion if you wish to begin understanding modern physics.

There is no universal/objective/absolute frame in which all events can be measured as being equal. Period. Full stop. This is the very thing that makes Einstein's revelation so profound.

Simplistically: the sum of his movement through spacetime must be c. High spatial velocity results in low "temporal velocity" (Not an official term, this is a conceptual analogy).

Think of driving a car due north at 100km/h (the absolute speed limit). In doing so, I am making headway northward of 100 km for every hour travelled.

Now I turn my car due northwest. I'm still traveling at 100km/h but the headway I making in the northward direction is now a mere 70.7km for every hour traveled.

My overall velocity is unchanged (100km/h) but my velocity in one spatial dimension (the east-west dimension) has altered my velocity in another dimension (the north-south dimension).

If I needed to make a headway of 100km west for every hour traveled, how far will I have to turn my car? I'll have to turn my car due west. And if I do so, I make zero headway in the north direction.*

Space and time are but dimensions. There are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. The more I turn toward the spatial dimensions (increase my velocity in them), the slower I move through the time dimension. The sum of my velocity through all these dimensions, (equivalent to the 100km/h speed limit on the road) is the speed of light. So as my spatial velocity approaches c, the total adds to c, meaning my travel trough the time dimension approaches zero.*addendum: note another byproduct of this analogy: it shows why we cannot exceed the speed of light. How is it possible to turn my car so far that my westward headway is 101km for every hour traveled? It is not possible. There is no amount through which I can turn my car such that my westward headway can possibly exceed 100km/h. "There no wester than due west."

Likewise, there is no amount through which a rocketship can convert temporal motion into spatial motion such that the spatial motion can exceed c. Once temporal motion is at zero, sptial motion is at max. "There's no more spatial than due spatial".

Thanks again for your info and efforts, but I'm at a mulling point where my minds open, I'm not getting something, and this new something is proven within math and theories I don't think I'll ever fully understand ( I think I read within a book on Einstein that only a handful of people in the world really understand the math of what he was saying).

I mean I won't argue water freezes at a certain temperature, because I witness it every day here in Boston. And from the little I gathered of how these theories have been proven, leaves room in my mind for a larger explanation, since it seems there is no man detectable experience that can pick up on this theory other than the billionths of seconds picked up on from some devices we created to see this distortion of time, which we further extrapolate upon to mean certain things about humans in light speed travel.

I'll continue mulling and looking into more basic things to see if what you say makes further sense. I think I'll start with this notion of time being a dimension of some sort, because I don't see time in this way currently.

Thanks again.

Orion

 

[khemist]

I mean I won't argue water freezes at a certain temperature, because I witness it every day here in Boston. And from the little I gathered of how these theories have been proven, leaves room in my mind for a larger explanation, since it seems there is no man detectable experience that can pick up on this theory other than the billionths of seconds picked up on from some devices we created to see this distortion of time, which we further extrapolate upon to mean certain things about humans in light speed travel.

You must realize that a billionth of a second is quite a bit different then no change at all. Even if it is increasingly small, the significance is huge.

 

[lostglutton]

You must realize that a billionth of a second is quite a bit different then no change at all. Even if it is increasingly small, the significance is huge.

Yes consistent billionth differences is very interesting indeed, yet I sometimes question so deeply that I can see possible larger phenomenon possibly at work that would account for this discrepancy but not necessarily mean that humans traveling at light speed would age slower than someone on earth.

Also as a result of these discussions I can accept that time may or may not be a dimension (what ever that may actually mean, I'm not sure yet).