Posted on 08/14/2008 5:51:05 AM PDT by BloodOrFreedom
>>There are measurable effects to time due to acceleration.
“To time”.
Presumes time exists as an entity that is separate from the system that is being observed.
Certainly we can see changes in observable phenomena within a system; changes that are relative to the velocity of that system.
The concept of time is a human construct that is derived from observing these state changes within the system.
If the system no longer changes state, what happens to time?
Been there.....Done that! {:-)
Wow... I checked out that site and I think it is fair for me to say that I have never seen a ranting, foaming word salad as thorough as that one.
I go through my life wanting to believe that most people are more or less like me, and that things that make sense to me will probably make sense to them, and vice versa, because we all grow up in mostly the same universe. But now and again I find out that there are some people that exist in a very, very different world.
“Night Speed.”
(and that’s the speed I can’t exceed)
: )
“I just wish I could comprehend what theyre talking about.”
It’s simple.
They are making it all up as they go.
“If the speed of light is what 187000 miles per second, what is the velocity of which these people speak?”
My question is, if I get caught, how much is the ticket gonna cost me?
Correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
Let's try this: imagine, instead of a vibrating 'caesium 133 atom', we have a beam of light bouncing back and forth between two mirrors within a vertical tube. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that it takes precisely one second for the light beam to reach the top mirror (tic), reflect off it, reverse and reach the bottom mirror (toc).
Now let's say the light tube, or 'light clock', is resting on a flatbed train car, and on the flatbed is an observer who we will call "Observer A". To Observer A, who is moving along with the train and is therefore 'at rest' with respect to it, the light beam simply travels from the bottom of the tube *vertically* to the top of the tube and then straight back down again. From the relationship, speed equals distance over time, we get time equals distance over speed. So this is then how Observer A defines time (t=distance/speed). Important to note here is that light travels at the SAME SPEED for ALL observers.
Now let's say there is an observer B standing on the embankment alongside the train watching it pass by. From this observer's point of view, or frame of reference, the light beam does NOT simply travel vertically up and down. Rather, it travels on a slanted or diagonal path since the train is in motion, let's say from left to right as Observer B sees it. Now since the light beam travels a diagonal path between tic and toc, again, from OB's stationary point of view, the light beam therefore is traveling a LONGER distance (from OB's perspective). Therefore, since the light beam is traveling a longer distance (from OB's perspective) AND since light travels at the same speed for all observers, the light beam MUST take a longer time to bounce between the two mirrors (tic-toc). Therefore, the two observers (A and B) do NOT agree on what a "second" is.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/srelwhat.html
For anyone who has taken Physics in high school or college, you are probably aware of the "light clock" model for demonstrating Einstein's Special Relativity theory.
“The question Does time exist was a matter of debate among him and his peers.”
They must have had ‘plenty of time’ to sit around and discuss such things.
Why is it that ‘plenty of time’, and ‘very little time’ are almost identical, clockwise?
“>>90% of the Universe is missing. ;-)”
If the universe is truly infinite, then no such measurement is logically possible.
Are fines doubled in a work zone?
So, then you slow down to impulse power?
I don’t know how people come up with this stuff, but I guess they must be pretty smart!
The light clock model assumes that distance is an invariant quantity.
When the quantity of space compressed within a given matrix system varies - so does the distance.
This is seen quite clearly in the phenomena of gravitational lensing.
No it doesn't. The distance the longer diagonal light path takes is measured in the stationary outsider's frame of reference, which of course is fixed with respect to him. The shorter straight up and down path is measured by the observer moving along with the light clock. It all stems from the assumption that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of their state of motion.
Dark matter doesn’t actually exist. It’s just a tool for math.
First of all, there are two basic forms of dark matter. One is simply ordinary matter which isn't radiating enough light for us to detect it, or is too small for us to detect. The other, 'non-baryonic' dark matter, is believed to be some sort of strange exotic type of matter which doesn't interact with light and so is 'invisible' to our detectors. Both forms of dark matter are usually known of through their gravitational interactions with other objects. For example, the way in which the outer stars of many spiral galaxies move faster than expected as according to well established laws for orbiting objects (Kepler's 3rd Law, specifically).
It still treats distance as being homogeneous and accounts for the time dilation based upon movement through homogeneous space.
>>regardless of their state of motion.
What happens when the observer is not moving - but the light passes near a massive object en route to the observer?
Does the light move through more space or less?
1) The moving object progressively shrinks in length (from the outside stationary observer's point of view)
2) Time aboard the moving frame progressively slows (from the outside stationary observer's point of view)
3) The mass of the clock, and any other mass-containing object aboard the moving frame, progressively increases (from the outside stationary observer's point of view)
Certainly mass effects the fabric of space, but these effects wouldn't come into play here with such low mass objects. There isn't anywhere near the amount of mass here to bend the light beam's path. To bend a light beam's path, you need extreme amounts of mass, somewhere around the mass of the Sun. In fact, it was the bending of light coming from planet Mercury around the Sun which helped confirmed Einstein's GENERAL Theory of Relativity. Special Relativity only applies to things moving at a constant velocity (straight line, constant speed, basic inertial motion), while General covers it all.
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.