# Time dilation in acceleration or velocity

by morningstar
Tags: acceleration, dilation, time, velocity
 Share this thread:
P: 126
 ..."space is the substance, and matter is the unsubstantial dream" -albert einstein
I haven't been able to find this quote anywhere. Or anything close to it.
Homework
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 13,092
Welcome to PF:

 Quote by Radiastral At first I found it hard to swallow, that where both speeds add up to the same result classically, the results are different in relativity.
You are not alone - SR has strong experimental verification so we just have to live with it.

Actually it's not that bad to use - there are surprising simplicities that come out like "easter eggs" in a video game. Fun to explore.
 P: 23 all I'm trying to say, in my math gibberish, is that there seems to be a mechanical function to space itself. and that is how 4/3c is converted to 12/13c (see simon bridge's math). if that is the case, it seems that the only plausible mechanical function of space itself, is to impart a sort of constant force onto each and every mass-bearing form of energy. the only way I can rectify that is by having light remain fixed in space and its source material shrinking away from it; and exuding all of the behavior that relativity would predict of it as observed from the point of view of its previously emitted light. so as the source material perceives one second to have elapsed, the light itself would simply perceive the source material to be smaller and in a different location- inside itself. but the only way that model works is to have space moving the source material closer to itself, faster than the material is shrinking away- which is okay because clocks would be slowing. it appears that each individual particle or packet of energy is behaving as if it is heading toward a singularity- shorter rulers, slower clocks, increased mass; and that space is imparting a uniform force of acceleration on all energy; it makes sense that any energy experiencing additional acceleration would compound the affect that the accelerating space is already having on it- exacerbating the effects of slower clocks, shorter rulers, increased mass. of course there is no uniform velocity in the universe- everything is accelerating, but the accelerating effects are mitigated by our increasingly slower clocks and shorter rulers. this seems to be concurrent with what we see in the big bang. if the size of the universe is measured by the 'distance' light has traveled since the first event- let's hold the size of that universe as constant and observe what is happening inside- matter is shrinking; leaving its light behind in every direction to weave the fabric of the cosmos that we see. it's as if light is eternally bound to its ever-shrinking source material... the string?...extending to the edge of the cosmos... fizzling out under the force of space, to infinitesimally small.
Homework
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 13,092
What is plausible and what is true can be different things.

Some of your language seems a bit confused, for eg.
 mass-bearing form of energy
mass and energy are the same thing - do you mean to say "objects with non-zero rest-mass"?

However, you have a good intuition in the middle there when you talk about everything accelerating but you cannot tell due to dilation/contraction effects... I think you have caught a glimpse of something important, and you can feel it, but you are having trouble expressing yourself or even knowing how to express it.

Here's what I think you've spotted:
An accelerating reference frame is indistinguishable from gravity.

Combine that with SR, and you get General Relativity and the kind of mechanistic description of space-time that you are looking for.

GR does produce the exacerbated effects due to large amounts of energy in a small volume (i.e. matter) and it does predict the expansion of the Universe. So your thinking is right on the edge of something important all right - just at a slight tangent to it.

If you take some trouble to get used to SR - just treat it as a language for talking about space and time - you'll discover that this provides a way to talk sensibly about accelerations and cosmology and all that other stuff.

:)
 P: 23 By saying "mass-bearing" I mean to refer to the source of light- because people think photons are massless- and I'm not referring to the light itself, but the source of light. It seems to me that photons have mass because they have energy, but perhaps that mass is stretched out to the edge of the cosmos and attached at its source. The only sense I can make of a photon is as a sphere of light that is bound to its shrinking source material. And the source material seems to behave as if it is moving toward a singularity- as if the singularity is inside that very source material- string or whatnot- shrinking within the body of the photon. The light that we see seems to be energy "burnt" off by its increasingly smaller source.
 Homework Sci Advisor HW Helper Thanks P: 13,092 No - however it seems to you, photons do not have mass in the sense that electrons, for example, do. When we talk about something having mass we are referring strictly to rest-mass. There is no sense in which the photon can be described as having a mass or an energy "stretched out to the edge of the cosmos". The "only sense you can make of light" is, excuse me, nonsence. Matter does not shrink in the manner you are imagining. These are not useful models for you to pursue. A light source releases energy in a small bundle well-located in space and time when it undergoes a transition to a lower energy state. Light sources do not radiate forever then, because at some point they will run out of energy to give up. The small bundle propagates in a particle-like manner. You seem to have moved on to cosmology and quantum mechanics - you started out in relativity - so I guess we are done here. Please follow advise in post #22. Learn the language of special relativity and explore general relativity.

 Related Discussions Special & General Relativity 9 Special & General Relativity 22 Special & General Relativity 85 Special & General Relativity 35 Special & General Relativity 5