That's a trippy paradox. Thanks for posting!
a clock in motion runs more slowly than a stationary clock at your side:
Basically you win the race by hitting the snooze button!
Posted on 12/07/2018 12:39:21 PM PST by ETL
Making lemonade from lemons, two teams of physicists have used data from misguided satellites to put Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, the general theory of relativity, to an unexpected test.
The opportunistic experiment confirms to unprecedented precision a key prediction of the theory—that time ticks slower near a massive body like Earth than it does farther away.
As Einstein explained, gravity arises because massive bodies warp space-time. Free-falling objects follow the straightest possible paths in that curved space-time, which to us appear as the parabolic arc of a thrown ball or the circular or elliptical orbit of a satellite.
As part of that warping, time should tick more slowly near a massive body than it does farther away. That bizarre effect was first confirmed to low precision in 1959 in an experiment on Earth and in 1976 by Gravity Probe A, a 2-hour rocket-born experiment that compared the ticking of an atomic clock on the rocket with another on the ground.
In 2014, scientists got another chance to test the effect when two of the 26 satellites now in Europe’s Galileo global navigation system, like the one pictured above, were accidentally launched into elliptical orbits instead of circular ones. The satellites now rise and fall by 8500 kilometers on every 13-hour orbit, which should cause their ticking to speed up and slow down by about one part in 10 billion over the course of each orbit. Now, two teams of physicists have tracked the variations and have shown, to five times better precision than before, that they match the predictions of general relativity, they report 4 December in Physical Review Letters. That’s not bad, considering the satellites weren’t designed to do the experiment. However, another experiment set to be launched to the space station in 2020 aims to search for similar deviations with five times greater precision still.
It’s all relative ping.
OMG that is SO wrong
But it’s very imaginative, and it really is useful to theorize like that, then test.
But OMG you are SO wrong.
Why does this theory need testing?
Isn’t it about a hundred years old?
Hasn’t it obtained the status of “settled science” yet??
______________________________________________
That is why it is called a theory. Some day someone may find something that will contradict the theory and is then nullified.
Only Global Warming or man made climate change has reach the status of ‘settled science’ and therefore cannot ever again be challenged. Liberal nutcases may still have some ‘facts’ that cannot be challenged, like Guam tipping over because we send too many people out there, Neil Armstrong really landed on Mars.
After botched launch, orbiting atomic clocks confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity in the local stellar neighborhood ...
What I have recently pondered...
If time dilates the faster your velocity, then it slows the slower your velocity.
We are all traveling currently about 1.3 million miles per hour (adding up all the component velocities... Solar system in the galaxy, galaxy in the universe).
What would be different if we could apply an opposite acceleration for a time to effectively slow down to a standstill?
I’m not sure, but would suspect that a human at standstill would from his/her standpoint, still live a normal lifespan. But, to an observer say on Earth travelling 1.3 million MPH faster, the person standing still would have a clock spinning like crazy. Perhaps the standing-still person would appear to have an extremely short lifespan - but, like what? A day? An hour?
Or in the particular universe we happen to live in. :)
Ooops... by “If time dilates the faster your velocity, then it slows the slower your velocity.” I meant “If time dilates the faster your velocity, then it speeds up the slower your velocity.”
Time doesn't really "speed up". The moving clock's time only appears to speed up from an outside stationary observer's reference frame.
And what's even weirder is that this time dilation is reciprocal. ie, both clocks, the stationary and the moving, see the other clock as moving more slowly than their own. This is because each can rightfully claim to be stationary while the other is the one doing the moving.
Importantly, this is only true when the clocks are in a state of *uniform/constant* relative motion. ie, in inertia frames. Acceleration is a different matter because, then, you are adding energy into the system, in order to change from uniform/constant motion to accelerated.
I wrote: “Time doesn’t really “speed up”. The moving clock’s time only appears to speed up from an outside stationary observer’s reference frame.”
Scratch that for now. I confused myself. Will get back to it later or tomorrow.
Yeah that too ... now in the multi-verse ...
I wrote “Time doesn’t really ‘speed up’. The moving clock’s time only appears to speed up from an outside stationary observer’s reference frame.”
Actually, it only appears to speed up (compared to the other clock) from the view of the person moving along with the clock.
A clock in motion will tick out time more slowly than a stationary clock at your side.
And, as I mentioned above, this effect is true for both the moving observer AND the stationary one, as both can (correctly) claim that they are the stationary one and it is the other that is doing the moving. Again, this only works for inertial frames. Reference frames where speed and direction (velocity) are constant. ie, no outside forces involved to alter(accelerate) speed or direction (F=ma).
Acceleration is defined as a change in *velocity*. Velocity is a 2-component vector, consisting of speed and direction. Change either speed OR direction (with an application of force) and you change the object’s velocity.
___________________________
Inertia: the resistance, of any physical object, to any change in its velocity. This includes changes to the object’s speed, or direction of motion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
That's a trippy paradox. Thanks for posting!
a clock in motion runs more slowly than a stationary clock at your side:
Basically you win the race by hitting the snooze button!
Lol! Gotta run myself now!
Until later...Good night!
Yes I understand there is a prescribed requirement for theories to be defended and repeatedly proven correct. My reply was a snarky shot at climate “scientists” whose theories gain authority by a vote.
Thanks colorado tanker. Frame-dragging / Special Relativity / GPS ping.
Something more everyday that relativity predicts is the color of gold and the liquid nature of mercury. The inner electrons are moving so fast that the orbit diameter actually shrinks enough to change those atoms physical properties.
pfl
I think time and aging are polar opposites...the more aging you do, the less time you have.....
My reply to you was also meant as sarcasm that only liberal ideas/desires are settled science such as global warming. sorry you did not take it that way.
Since we have never had any 'clock' or anything else in a true zero-gravity environment, how would we know ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.