Okay ..now that we've conquered gravity .....

[Gary Allan]

Hockey (okay if said in with a middle eastern or southcentral asian accent).

Since the gravity thread displayed that this board has an ample supply of cerebral firepower, let's see if we can establish an interface to those who dwell with the bottom feeders ..myself

.

You've appeared to be well on your way to conquering the 5th dimension (the suggested dimension that gravity, in fact, is) ..but I've got questions about the 4th dimension ..time. Specifically some unanswered curiosities of the theory of relativity.

We've seen demonstrated how synchronized clocks differ for objects in motion. A plane with a ceizium clock synched with one on the ground leaving NJ ..is different after a round trip to LA. The moon missions ...same thing.

Frame of referrence

This part confuses me (remember I'm a lower dweller here). In the above examples ...the stationary clock sets our frame of referrence ..but I want to expand the field here to subject it to other elements.

Suppose you have the same clock in NJ ...one on the moon and one on a sattelite in "solar stationary orbit". At ONE point in time they are all synchronized. In one year ...when they all meet up after the earth has gone around the sun ....what would be the effect of the motion/distance of the three bodies on the indicated time?

Relative to the earth ..the solar stationary clock would appear no different to an object traveling away from it and from my "bottom view" would be the same for our moon missions if they had, in fact, merely compensated for natural earth/moon movement (if the earth and the moon moved 300,000 miles back and forth-using the spacecraft as a stationary object) ...but in that scenereo ..the clock that "moves" slows. Meanwhile our clock on the moon has covered a great deal more distance obiting the earth in it's orbit around the sun.

Do any of you see my dilema here?

By the "apparent" rhetorical dogma, if we launched a clock in the opposite direction of the earth's orbit (or anywhere so it eventually ended up back on earth) ..that clock would have slowed compared to the one on the earth. Yet by the fact that the satellite is actually the stationary object ...why would it slow at all? We are, in fact the object in motion.

What I'm asking is "what" makes us the anchor in time? If I'm a spaceman on the solar stationary space station ...I claim "I'm the anchor in time. I haven't moved!". If I'm an earth dweller ..I claim "I'm the anchor in time. I haven't moved!". If I'm on Moon Base 1, I claim ."I'm the anchor in time! I haven't moved!".


All three can not have a valid claim since all three can not have the same impact upon the other two clocks when they meet up in one year. That is, the other two clocks can not have the same "relative" impact imposed upon them if you independantly use each singularly as your stationary "frame of referrence".

Now I know for the "true" extospheric intellects here ..time is merely a tool that we use to rationalize events ...we tend to focus upon the effects on "time" ..instead of focusing on the events themselves.

Any help for this humble flatlander (rolling hills of PA actually)???

 

[Neonmike22]

This is why Douglas Adams was so fond of digital watches for space travel.

 

[UncleS2]

Sorry, I can only visualize 3 dimensions.

Re: Douglas Adams- did you know the *original* BBC radio broadcasts of "HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy" are out there on the internet in MP3 format, available for listening &/or download? 12 episodes, ~6 hrs total. If interested, send me an email, I'll send you a link or two.

 

[427Z06]

From what I remember from Physics classes from the '70s, each clock's frame of reference is valid, no matter what the other clocks say, i.e., Einstein's theory of special relativity. Comparing times on the clocks and asking which time is valid is a no-no according to Einstein. However, I believe you bring up a paradox that leads some Physicists to claim that time travel isn't ruled out by the laws of the universe as we understand them today.

 

[sbc350gearhead]

Is is possible that motion or gravity (or lack thereof), simply interferes with the timekeeping mechanism? Such as a quartz crystal?

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sbc350gearhead:
Is is possible that motion or gravity (or lack thereof), simply interferes with the timekeeping mechanism? Such as a quartz crystal?

---

No it has been verified by quartz clocks, and also by the decay of certain of short lived isotopes which take a set amount of time. I believe the question you ask has no answer and is a paradox.

Try this
Consider the twins Eartha and Stella.
Stella goes on an extended space flight to
Alpha Centauri while Eartha stays at home.
Assuming that Stella’s spaceship travels at a
speed that is comparable with the speed of
light in vacuum, then time dilation can occur.
For Eartha, Stella’s spaceship is moving away
from her hence Stella’s biological clock ticks
slower than hers. Upon Stella’s return, if
Eartha has aged 40 years, then Stella must be
younger. But if you look at this problem in
Stella’s side, it would be different. For Stella
who is looking at a glass window from the
spaceship, the earth, with Eartha on it, is
moving away from her. Eartha’s biological
clock and not her’s is the one that is ticking
slower. So upon her return, if she aged 40
years during that extended travel, then Eartha
must be younger than her. The paradoxes arise
from the seemingly symmetric roles played by
the twins in contrast with the asymmetric result
in their aging. But this paradox can be resolved when the asymmetry of the twin’s role is
noted. Eartha’s frame of reference remained
inertial throughout the entire process; Stella’s
frame on the other hand is bound to be noninertial
during times that the spaceship
accelerates or decelerates.

[ February 07, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Al ]

 

[ex_MGB]

The popular conception is to apply spatial concepts to time. For example, the thought is that time, like space, is a continuum. However, even at this point one senses a dramatic difference in that, unlike Space which extends infinitely in all directions, Time is directional.

Beyond the directional nature of Time contra Space, the other property of Time which places it in opposition to space, is that it recurs (Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence"). While an object cannot occupy two different places in space at the same time, this is not true in regards to historical events.

Our concept of historical time, "Ancient-Medieval-Modern" is derived from Joachim of Floris (c. 1145-1202) and his concept of time divided into the epochs of "Age of the Father, Age of the Son and the modern Age of the Holy Ghost). In actuality, this theory of Time as a continuum is shattered by Nietzsche's concept of time being subject to eternal recurrence.

Hmmm...why is it that after an interregnum of 2,000 years are humans again creating coliseums?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Comparing times on the clocks and asking which time is valid is a no-no according to Einstein.

---

How convenient for Einstein. Just make the rules so that your theory works (conditions and restrictions apply).

quote:

---

However, I believe you bring up a paradox that leads some Physicists to claim that time travel isn't ruled out by the laws of the universe as we understand them today.

---

This is a relatively (no pun intended) cheap experiment to perform. I mean how much could it cost to place a "solar stationary" body in space? How much to put one on the moon (or just have one orbiting the earth) ...synch them all via radio at one point in time ..allow for signal delay ..then sit back and look in a year. This would be a practical test ...that would have "some valid result". There would be no "theory" to it. No imaginary numbers ...real events occuring.

This would have to yield some valid data that would either "fix" Einsteins theory so that it works without paradoxes ...or shoot the whole thing to **** .

Let's ponder the alternatives....

Once we establish a permanent moon base ..they will have to exist on a different time base which is both faster AND slower depending on if we view them ..or they view us. Do I call my son today ..or tomorrow ..or yesterday. Do I have to call him every 5 minutes to get his day to day or week to week comments? ..or does he have to call me yesterday AND tommorow at 5 min intervals so I don't die before he gets to talk to me?? For the time being, we'll accept that it would be slower since those who have been there had their clocks measurably slowed over the duration of their journey. This had to have worked this way for some other reason than our perspective. That is, one could not decide to place the spacecrafts chronometers as the anchor in the "frame of referrence" and have the ACTUAL scenereo turn out exactly the opposite as it did. As powerful a mind as Einstein had could not change the ACTUAL event merely by changing his mind on where to apply his theory.


.......or could he?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

[ February 07, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

Comparing times on the clocks and asking which time is valid is a no-no according to Einstein.

---

How convenient for Einstein. Just make the rules so that your theory works (conditions and restrictions apply).

quote:

---

However, I believe you bring up a paradox that leads some Physicists to claim that time travel isn't ruled out by the laws of the universe as we understand them today.

---

This is a relatively (no pun intended) cheap experiment to perform. I mean how much could it cost to place a "solar stationary" body in space? How much to put one on the moon (or just have one orbiting the earth) ...synch them all via radio at one point in time ..allow for signal delay ..then sit back and look in a year. This would be a practical test ...that would have "some valid result". There would be no "theory" to it. No imaginary numbers ...real events occuring.

This would have to yield some valid data that would either "fix" Einsteins theory so that it works without paradoxes ...or shoot the whole thing to **** .

Let's ponder the alternatives....

Once we establish a permanent moon base ..they will have to exist on a different time base which is both faster AND slower depending on if we view them ..or they view us. Do I call my son today ..or tomorrow ..or yesterday. Do I have to call him every 5 minutes to get his day to day or week to week comments? ..or does he have to call me yesterday AND tommorow at 5 min intervals so I don't die before he gets to talk to me?? For the time being, we'll accept that it would be slower since those who have been there had their clocks measurably slowed over the duration of their journey. This had to have worked this way for some other reason than our perspective. That is, one could not decide to place the spacecrafts chronometers as the anchor in the "frame of referrence" and have the ACTUAL scenereo turn out exactly the opposite as it did. As powerful a mind as Einstein had could not change the ACTUAL event merely by changing his mind on where to apply his theory.


.......or could he?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler?

---

I refer you to Stephen Hawking's "The Illustrated, A Brief History in Time". He discusses this subject in depth and can obviously do it much better than I.

And Dude...have you noticed this is a Lubrication Forum?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

And Dude...have you noticed this is a Lubrication Forum?

---

...err and Dude ..have you noticed that this is the general and off topic section of the lube forum?

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

And Dude...have you noticed this is a Lubrication Forum?

---

...err and Dude ..have you noticed that this is the general and off topic section of the lube forum?

---

Yeah...I meant to stick a smiley face at the end of that last statement...probably didn't translate well without it.

 

[Gary Allan]

Just "funnin'" back

Wow ..after the gravity thread ..I expected the Poindexters here to chime in a I could glean some new insight into the unexplained. Printed text is so boring and is usually writen by someone who understands the topic too thouroughly.

Like my first computer. In the section of "How to increase available mememory" ..it stated, "Set your NOEMS (I thought this was "knomes"

) to zero in your autoexec batch file". There was no referrence to the NOEMS switch ..or how to set it anywhere else in the manual (I've long since evolved). That is, you had to be a geek to understand the geek's explanation.


I guess that this topic just requires too much prep work to make it practical for our esteemed learned membership. That is, they would have to give a condensed 4 year program before they could get to any real point worthwhile.

Thanks to all that responded.

 

[Shannow]

Al, but both of them started at a given point, of which we have no idea how fast the were travelling with respect to a point which remained motionless for the whole experiment.

The twin mess me up every time I thing I understand stuff.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
Al, but both of them started at a given point, of which we have no idea how fast the were travelling with respect to a point which remained motionless for the whole experiment.

The twin mess me up every time I thing I understand stuff.

---

Well..I know what you mean. But the difference in the twins is that when the rocket left with one of the twins (Stella)- she actually feels the acceleration whereas Eartha does not

.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

she actually feels the acceleration whereas Eartha does not

---

But that doesn't quite flush with proven physical evidence ..at least I don't think so. Our moon walkers only acellerated for a shcrt time. They were not under continuous thrust ...neither is a jet travelling from NJ to LA (accelerating, I mean)..yet both have measurable changes in elapased time.

 

[MarkC]

Maybe I'm not the brightest light in the harbor, but I don't think you can have anything be stationary, everything is moving al the time.

I've read Hawking's books, and I also heard of a theory that says maybe time is not a vector, or an arrow, moving in one direction, but is really a circle.

 

[outrun]

I would think the human biological clock is constant independent of relativity?

Based on that assumption the rate of aging is constant.

But relativity says that is not possible as the earth person had in fact aged over the traveler.

Physics can be spooky