Capngarrett said:I was thinking Doppler effect when someone told me that a clock ticks faster than your own as it approaches, normalises as it passes, and then runs slow as it moves away. Is this true even for inertial motion?
ghwellsjr said:Only if you don't put the common origin of the rocket twin's two frames at the turnaround event. You make him jump frames in a discontinuous way which creates the artificial shift in simultaneity. If you put the origins of the two frames at the same event as the turnaround, this shift in simultaneity won't occur.
Or if you just use one frame to analyze the entire scenario, there won't be any shifts in simultaneity no matter which frame you use.
mrfrosty said:What I find hard to grasp is that if light has a speed, and if time is supposed to be frozen at this speed, then surely this would mean that time has a speed also. Which would beg the question of what would occur if something traveled faster than light. My understanding is that the only reason there is a limitation of light speed is due to the fact that an object has the appearance it does due to the light which is reflected from the object. If the object was moving faster than light, then it would not give light the opportunity to reflect from it, therefore the object would theoretically not appear. Sorry if this sounds a bit garbled but I find it difficult to explain the theory I am thinking of.
By that same logic a supersonic aircraft should be silent.mrfrosty said:My understanding is that the only reason there is a limitation of light speed is due to the fact that an object has the appearance it does due to the light which is reflected from the object. If the object was moving faster than light, then it would not give light the opportunity to reflect from it, therefore the object would theoretically not appear.
mrfrosty said:That's understood about infinite energy. Now if you think about the theory of the idea, and the theory that you have enough energy to propel a mass at the speed of light, if you were to slowly accelerate up to the speed of light and have the ability to take measurements of time dilation in doing so, would both the acceleration and the amount of time dilation be proportionate with each other. For example, if the speed of light was used as a speed in the equation for time dilation, would the time be '0', ie at a stand still.
Similarly, your logic that a superluminal object would be invisible is not correct. In fact, there is a close analogy to sonic booms for EM radiation, called Cherenkov radiation. It is very visible. True, you wouldn't see it until the particle had passed, but you still see it quite clearly.mrfrosty said:A supersonic aircraft would be silent if you were in front of it, as the sound wave acts in a cone from the front of the direction of travel outwards to the rear, that is why you see a supersonic aircraft before you hear it. The sound wave is an effect from its movement.
mrfrosty said:That's understood about infinite energy. Now if you think about the theory of the idea, and the theory that you have enough energy to propel a mass at the speed of light, if you were to slowly accelerate up to the speed of light and have the ability to take measurements of time dilation in doing so, would both the acceleration and the amount of time dilation be proportionate with each other. For example, if the speed of light was used as a speed in the equation for time dilation, would the time be '0', ie at a stand still.
mrfrosty said:Lets see if I have got this right then.
1. Speed is related to time dilation, the faster the speed, the greater the time dilation.
2. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
3. The speed of light is the point at which time is stationary.
4. If you could travel fast enough, you would not know that time has stopped or been dilated as it is only observed by somebody outside of your ship.
mrfrosty said:Lets see if I have got this right then.
1. Speed is related to time dilation,
It actually does. The photon's time in a way stops. From photon's point of view the universe ages in an instant as it goes from one end to the other end of the universe (not that there are ends - using this as a form of expression).c0ke said:...why doesn't light itself travel into the future? ...
kamenjar said:It actually does. The photon's time in a way stops. From photon's point of view the universe ages in an instant as it goes from one end to the other end of the universe (not that there are ends - using this as a form of expression).
I don't think eitherDrakkith said:I'm not sure a reference frame can be given for light.
kamenjar said:..time in a way stops.
kamenjar said:I don't think either
mrfrosty said:My problem with the theory of photons is that light has a speed and although it is very fast, it is still measurable. I am convinced that the only limitation to speed is the fact that photons, the particles that allows us to see things due to them bouncing off of the object, are the limitations to speed as if the object was traveling faster than photons, theoretically, the object would be invisible, but it would still be there.
We already addressed this. By this logic a supersonic jet or bullet would be silent. We know that they are not silent. Therefore your logic is wrong. When your logic is shown to contradict fact then you must discard your falsified hypothesis and come up with a new theory that correctly fits the facts.mrfrosty said:My problem with the theory of photons is that light has a speed and although it is very fast, it is still measurable. I am convinced that the only limitation to speed is the fact that photons, the particles that allows us to see things due to them bouncing off of the object, are the limitations to speed as if the object was traveling faster than photons, theoretically, the object would be invisible, but it would still be there.