2 questions

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

2 questions

Postby batmanmg » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:15 am

since time esentialy noticably slows down for the particles moving close to light speed... then velocity is a farce. becuase the idea is that velocity is position per time. but if i move close to the speed of light, time slowed down so therefor im slower. so is velocity really position per rate of time relative to the constant now?\


another. probably better question.

how does time work when it has nothing to relate to? lets say that there is a particle. and thats it.. nothing else in the universe. at all.. empty void of nothing besides this particle. its a really small particle too... its practicaly just a point... if that point were to move. at any velocity... since it has nothing to campare to then one can't really tell weither it is moving. there is the feeling of acceleration but one can't tell weither its a positive or negative acceleration... it might have been speeding up in one direction, or slowing down in the opposite direction....

since there is nothing to gauge how fast it is moving.... you can derive motion easily enough.... cuase an acceleration... and you either are moving as fast as you accelerated if you were motionless before... or you were moving before and are motionless now... all other combinations result in either moving and slowing down... moving then speeding up... or moving and then reversing direction..

how does time work in any situation? there is not gauge to go by... so isn't time velocity, position, a farce in this situation? the only thing that still remains true and the same is existance.
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby houserichichi » Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:57 am

1. There is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. Your argument is moot.

2. Particle exists in spacetime so (in a dumbed down version of reality) set up coordinate axes and measure the displacement over instants of time. In reality, however, all point-particles are field fluxuations which necessarily require time to pass so they can even exist.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby Nick » Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:54 am

houserichichi wrote:1. There is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. Your argument is moot.


I thought light was a universal frame of reference, because it's the same speed regardless.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Image
Nick
Tetronian
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby jinydu » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:34 pm

irockyou wrote:I thought light was a universal frame of reference, because it's the same speed regardless.


Then apparently you have misunderstood the definition of a "frame of reference". The speed of light is a physical constant, not a frame of reference.

You can think of a frame of reference as a coordinate system.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby batmanmg » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:47 am

1. There is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. Your argument is moot.


no such thing is such an absolute statement. if there is only one object in the universe. i would consider that object to be the universal frame of reference. and also since an object of any mass cannot travel at light speed, you confine your velocity to less than light speed. like if all of a sudden the rest of our universe instantly came into existance along with this object, it must be traveling slower than light speed.

but still very true... the second question was self defeating. but what about the first one. if time apears to be slowed down for an object traveling at a high velocity. what about the apearance of the objects velocity. since its time is slowed down, but the object has not. then measured by the objects time it is moving faster than measured by your time. or are the two uncomparable?
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby PWrong » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:28 pm

I'm sitting still, watching you fly past in your spaceship, which has a large clock on the side. I see my own clock ticking normally. I measure your speed using my clock and my giant ruler. I measure your speed to be very close to c.

Now, when I look at your clock, I notice that it is ticking slower than my own clock. This is what we mean when we say "time slows down near the speed of light". It doesn't affect the velocity of the spaceship.

Btw, I also notice that your spaceship is shorter than it should be. This is length contraction.

Does this help answer your question?
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby batmanmg » Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:16 pm

not really... these were the peramiters i already knew... its a much clearer way of putting it though.

what my question is can you also measure the velocity in terms of the clock on the side of the spaceship? if you did, would this velocity have any importance?
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm

Postby PWrong » Wed Sep 20, 2006 12:46 pm

what my question is can you also measure the velocity in terms of the clock on the side of the spaceship? if you did, would this velocity have any importance?

You could do that, but it wouldn't have any physical meaning.
User avatar
PWrong
Pentonian
 
Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Postby batmanmg » Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:02 pm

its a bit of food for thought for me though. >.< ty
batmanmg
Trionian
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:21 pm


Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron