How does time stop at C?

  • #76
15
0
For large spaceships, the situation becomes more complicated. There is an event horizon associated with any accelerated observer known as the "Rindler horizon"
followed by this quote

Different notions of simultaneity tend to occur in any problem in relativity, however. Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are not necessarily simultaneous in another. The net effects of time dilation, length contraction, and the relativity of simultaneity all result in a consistent set of experiences.
followed by this quote.

The theory of relativity says that two clocks in the same reference frame - as two clocks on the same ship are - will behave exactly the same relative to each other.
And there in lies the paradox I want to explore further.

(There are two question above I still haven't received and answer to, which might help explain where it is I am going with this. But here is my next question anyway.)

Three people are in a box, say one light year in size. A and B are separated by the full length of the box. All three people within this box have computerized clocks set to absolute zero starting point. All three clocks draw from the same power source that travels at the speed at which all three people exist within that box, and this power source covers the entirety of this box. Person A and B are connected together with a string. Person C then flies back and forth between both A and B at the speed of light. What changes if any will occur within reference to all three occupants and their clocks if everything is measured within a box environment? Do both A and B clocks remain the same, and only C's clock changes or would all three clocks change? Or is it possible that all three clocks would remain the same? (Don't forget the physical connection between A and B)

Do the same principles with reference to relativity still apply equally in this box environment? Especially when we take into account the statements quoted above?
 
  • #77
russ_watters
Mentor
19,704
6,041
pervect said:
Some caution is advised here - the spaceship isn't an inertial frame of reference.
Yeah, accelerating. Sorry, carry-on.
 
  • #78
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
9,765
981
litlbunny said:
Three people are in a box, say one light year in size. A and B are separated by the full length of the box. All three people within this box have computerized clocks set to absolute zero starting point. All three clocks draw from the same power source that travels at the speed at which all three people exist within that box, and this power source covers the entirety of this box. Person A and B are connected together with a string. Person C then flies back and forth between both A and B at the speed of light.
Everything was fine up till the last sentence. Person C can't move at the speed of light. Person C can move very fast, but his velocity will be less than 'c'.


What changes if any will occur within reference to all three occupants and their clocks if everything is measured within a box environment? Do both A and B clocks remain the same, and only C's clock changes or would all three clocks change?
Assuming that by box you mean an inertial frame of reference, A and B's clocks will run at the same rate. Assuming also that C is moving very fast but at a speed less than the speed of light, C's clock will appear to run slow according to both A and B.

The power source of the clocks is irrelevant to this result, it will be the same regardless of how the clocks are powered. Similarly, the string is irrelevant, except to ensure that A and B are both stationary within the box.

What will happen is that C will pass A at some time, assumed to be zero, on A's clock. C will then pass B at some later time, slightly greater than 1 year later by B's clock, because his velocity is just slightly less than 'c'. C's clock will read some lower number (say 1 month for a gamma factor of 12) at the instant when B and C are at the same point in space, much less than B's clock reading which will be slightly over a year.

What C sees is a little more complicated. I will assume you are also interested in what he sees, though what he sees is not in the inertial frame of the box but in a different frame, which may or may not be inertial.

The easiest case to analyze is when C never accelerates - C has an initial velocity that caries him past A when A's clock reads zero, and winds up at B when B's clock is reading slightly over a year. In this case, because C never accelerates, he is in his own inertial frame of reference.

In that case, C will see clocks A and B as not being synchronized. C will agree that B's clock reads approximately 1 year when he passes it, but will also see B's clock as running slow. This is explainable to him because B's clock did not read zero when A's clock was set to zero in his frame of reference. This is what is meant by the "relativity of simultaneity".
 
  • #79
15
0
Assuming that by box you mean an inertial frame of reference, A and B's clocks will run at the same rate.
This is the most important sentence within your entire statement. Remember this sentence as you read on.

The power source of the clocks is irrelevant to this result, it will be the same regardless of how the clocks are powered. Similarly, the string is irrelevant, except to ensure that A and B are both stationary within the box.

What will happen is that C will pass A at some time, assumed to be zero, on A's clock. C will then pass B at some later time, slightly greater than 1 year later by B's clock, because his velocity is just slightly less than 'c'. C's clock will read some lower number (say 1 month for a gamma factor of 12) at the instant when B and C are at the same point in space, much less than B's clock reading which will be slightly over a year.

What C sees is a little more complicated. I will assume you are also interested in what he sees, though what he sees is not in the inertial frame of the box but in a different frame, which may or may not be inertial.

The easiest case to analyze is when C never accelerates - C has an initial velocity that caries him past A when A's clock reads zero, and winds up at B when B's clock is reading slightly over a year. In this case, because C never accelerates, he is in his own inertial frame of reference.

In that case, C will see clocks A and B as not being synchronized. C will agree that B's clock reads approximately 1 year when he passes it, but will also see B's clock as running slow. This is explainable to him because B's clock did not read zero when A's clock was set to zero in his frame of reference. This is what is meant by the "relativity of simultaneity".
What if I told you, A and B represent the distance from one side of the universe to the other, and the string represents that everything within those two points exist at the same time. The power represents universal forces, and C represents all the light we witness within our universe from both A and B respectfully and everything in-between.

What if I then told you I chose a box on purpose with those stated parameters in mind. What does that do to everything you just stated above?

That box I call the EZiS, which I have explained in the PM I have sent everyone who has responded to this discussion.

EZiS = Existence Zone inside a Sphere. (EZiS basically pronounced exist)

If (time) the universal inertial frame reference point between A and B will remain the same between those two points, what does that mean regarding relativity and everything, “including us,” that exist within those two points? Let alone, I must ask this question again. Are we using the wrong calculated measurements in reference to Time?
 
Last edited:
  • #80
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
9,765
981
litlbunny said:
This is the most important sentence within your entire statement. Remember this sentence as you read on.

What if I told you, A and B represent the distance from one side of the universe to the other, and the string represents that everything within those two points exist at the same time. The power represents universal forces, and C represents all the light we witness within our universe from both A and B respectfully and everything in-between.

What if I then told you I chose a box on purpose with those stated parameters in mind. What does that do to everything you just stated above?
I think I'd sigh deeply. It wouldn't "do anything" to what I wrote, but that sort of response would indicate to me that you really weren't interested learning about physics or special relativity.

That box I call the EZiS, which I have explained in the PM I have sent everyone who has responded to this discussion.
Did you read the forum guidelines you signed about personal and/or overly speculative theories?
 
  • #81
15
0
I think I'd sigh deeply. It wouldn't "do anything" to what I wrote, but that sort of response would indicate to me that you really weren't interested learning about physics or special relativity.
I would say that is an untrue statement. And you are also saying your statement three posts up, that you are still keeping the same parameters with regards to how I said I meant that question. Then you are admitting you purposely ignore all the aspects of space to reach your desired results. And that makes me sigh deeply.

If any of you could answer these two questions instead of just ignoring them it would be appreciated.

"If both clocks (computerized) where set at absolute zero starting point at the same location within our galaxy separated by only a fraction of a inch, and one stayed absolutely still (did not move at all, no universal forces could move this clock) while the other traveled at the speed at which our galaxy rotates, yet both remained connected to the same power source (non solar) would their times still be the same or close to the same? Or would time change drastically between the two clocks?"

"Okay, but time as the standard that is used in several theories, they use time within reference to this planet do they not? So I guess the question I will ask next of you is, would time still flow if we didn't use our standard understanding of it? And if the ticking of the universal clock where to continue ticking even if we are not using our own understanding of time, then how far does the universal time clock travel and does it encompass the entire universe simultaneously?"
You then said,

Did you read the forum guidelines you signed about personal and/or overly speculative theories?
I wasn't aware I couldn't reference a private message within a thread. If that is the case then I apologize.
 
  • #82
DaveC426913
Gold Member
18,844
2,314
"If both clocks ... where set at absolute zero starting point ... and one stayed absolutely still (did not move at all, no universal forces could move this clock) while the other traveled at the speed at which our galaxy rotates,
1] "stays still" with regard to what external frame of reference? Perhaps the local supercluster?

2] How do you propose to do cancel the clock's existing velocity? Both clocks started off stationary wrt to the galaxy, and each other. You will have to accelerate one of the clocks so that it is no longer moving wrt your external frame of reference.


...would time still flow if we didn't use our standard understanding of it?...
So, time didn't flow at all until some time in the last few centuries? Decades? That must have annoyed those dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
15
0
I have been waiting for some time now for someone to attempt to answer two questions I have been asking since I entered this discussion, am I to believe what I have quoted below is the best response available? I feel one could reasonably surmise the reason no other comments have been forthcoming is two fold. Either one, the answer to those two very important questions scare some, or two, science is incapable of answering either of those questions without first destroying what is being taught. Lets examine both statements with regards to my two questions.

"stays still" with regard to what external frame of reference? Perhaps the local supercluster?

2] How do you propose to do cancel the clock's existing velocity? Both clocks started off stationary wrt to the galaxy, and each other. You will have to accelerate one of the clocks so that it is no longer moving wrt your external frame of reference.
““stays still” with regards to what external frame of reference?” Now that is an interesting question because as the question implies, and as the theories go with relation to what same say time teaches us, time cannot be measured without an external frame of reference. Yet I must ask this question, how can there be a better external frame of reference then an entire galaxy? Are not all the stars within a galaxy referenced under the same forces exerted by that entire galaxy? And wouldn’t time essentially exist at the rate at which that galaxy rotates, thereby creating a galaxy wide external frame of reference within that entire galaxy, while taking into consideration our current teaching of time and how it is arguably taught? Time, or so called “time” as it is taught, is said to be directly affected by velocity, yet I cannot find logic in that statement at all or within all the theories with regards to relativity. The trouble I have regarding those beliefs, or theories is, they fly in the face of logic that exists right here on this planet that we cannot explain.

Earlier someone brought up and we briefly discussed muons. They travel further then the speed of light can allow for, so we theorize that muons are “living proof” relativity is an actual state, because to do otherwise would show “proof” that yes the speed of light can be broken and our current understanding of time with relation to how velocity can effect time, has either been grossly exaggerated or even more alarming… wrong! While at the same time science completely ignores the fact that if muons do move into the realm of theoretical relativity, then cannot one theorize that muons are “living proof” that relativity is just another level of existence within our solar system?

“You will have to accelerate one of the clocks so that it is no longer moving wrt your external frame of reference.” In my question that this statement is referring too, I stated and I quote, “If both clocks (computerized) where set at absolute zero starting point at the same location within our galaxy separated by only a fraction of a inch, and one stayed absolutely still (did not move at all, no universal forces could move this clock) while the other traveled at the speed at which our galaxy rotates,” To quickly answer your question so you can go about trying to answer this question. Each clock is using the other as its external frame of reference. (The context is which I just answered that question is being done within the same context that question was asked.) However, earlier you said, “Perhaps the local supercluster?” The quick answer is yes the super cluster within reference to a galaxy would be good place to start regarding a external frame of reference would it not? Unless of course science is going to argue that nothing is truly interconnected within the universe and each thing exists only within reference of itself. And if science is going to continue to make such bold statements, then they should be able to prove that theory here on Earth should they not? Yet the more science tries to elaborate on a theory the more elaboration needs to be elaborated on with regards to each new theory that tries to answer questions the previous theories ignored outright or could not account for. So if we are going to say a super cluster is not an external reference point are we then saying that galaxies don’t truly exist? Meaning whatever universal forces moving that galaxy, we are saying are we not that they have no direct reaction to all the matter that exists with that galaxy? And if that is true then we are saying that a galaxy is nothing if anything but a cosmic aberration with no uniformity to it at all? I believe if we look at the universe within its actual construct, three dimensional, and not the mathematical theoretical two dimensional realm sciences passes off with each of its theories, the answer to my question would be completely obvious regarding my final question, which was, ” would their times still be the same or close to the same? Or would time change drastically between the two clocks?" However I would really like to read what others believe would happen with regards to my question in its complete context.


So, time didn't flow at all until some time in the last few centuries? Decades? That must have annoyed those dinosaurs.
Yes Time must have flowed. So the question science has to answer then is how did time flow back then. Has time only recently changed to our understanding of time, or is our understanding of time still primitive?
Question: Are we living in a relative state here on Earth? I ask that question with all seriousness because if nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, and existence truly doesn’t exist, (existence within this context means the space we all live in, or that little nuance science ignores that separates the Earth from the moon lets say.), then how do we account for a planet such as ours that exists faster then the speed of light can account for?

I know some of you are thinking that question is blasphemous, yet if you give me a few more minutes I will explain how I have come to ask that question.
The Earth, every square inch of it exists at the same time, to ignore that totally flies in the face to every living thing on this planet does it not? However the Earth, and time as we know it, never really starts nor completes a full second. It is perpetually moving, so therefore time must be perpetually moving all the time is it not? Meaning, for every second that is started there is another second starting on top of the first, and the next and so and so forth until time is never truly moving, more then it is existing within a realm that time must exist within, in and of itself right? How would one go about trying to prove that statement? One could attempt to prove that statement by mathematically trying to figure out how fast must the speed of light travel to circumvent the globe in one-one billionth of a second could they not? Because it is a fact is it not that the Earth and every living creature within this planet exist at the same time within one-billionth of one-one billionth of a second, that is correct right? Then how does relativity account for our planet where every living thing does exist at the same time within our planets internal frame of reference at exactly the same moment within every square moment of this planet we call Earth? Relativity doesn’t account for any of it does it?
Lets go even further. We have probes on other planets and traveling within and outside our solar system. Each, well almost each, has constant communication with us here on Earth. They are “living proof” are they not that our current understanding of time must be wrong? If our current understanding of time is not wrong, then how do we account for those probes being where they are, and us being able to communicate with them? They must be out there and existing within the same span of time we are existing in, they must correct? If that is true and it takes time for our communications with those probes to reach those probes, and our communication with those probes are traveling at the speed of light, yet can only reach those probes with regards to the time it takes, at the speed of light, to reach those probes, yet they and us exist at the same time, as the speed of our communications travel towards them. Then how does relativity account of that?

Am I wrong in thinking our understanding of time stinks to high heaven of geocentric application or thinking?

If we say that the Earth and everything within this planet exists faster then speed of light could possibly account for, yet we say nothing can travel faster then the speed of light, however, we are living proof are we not that that statement cannot be true? We then go on to theorize if someone was able to travel faster then the speed of light they would either age more quickly or less quickly then our understanding of time could allow for. Yet, the distance it takes for our communications to reach those probes happen at exactly the same “earth time reference” mathematical time we say our communications should reach those probes. How is that even remotely possible if relativity is true? We have an invisible string connecting us to Mars with the land rover and the missions currently going on with relation to our two planets. We have constant communication with that probe. So one could theorize that time is everywhere can they not, at least within the distance between Mars and Earth, that time is happening at the same time and that our geocentric definition of time needs to be reevaluated at the very least?

How can speed effect time? If velocity has a direct reaction to time, then how come our communication with every probe we currently have within our solar system reaches those probes at or near the exact same time we say it should take those communications to reach those probes? That question is extremely important and it must be answered in a three-dimensional format if we are to find out what the physical true answer to time truly is correct?

I could continue on and on with example after example regarding my questions on time and how we perceive time. Yet I would like to stop here to allow for some more discussion with regards to my previous two questions and all the questions I have asked here.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
6
0
Sorry if this is out of context but none of this makes sense to me either! I can see that time would APPEAR to slow down if a clock is flying away from us but surely thats counteracted if the clock flies back towards us. I know they have done experiments to show that thats not the case. The reason is basically because spacetime is not flat - am I right there? I have difficulty visualizing this. If a ship is travelling closer and closer to c does it cause space time to bend in its path? Or does it just have access to a differant path that doesnt exist at a lower velocity? And when we say the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of our velocity does that mean that if we are travelling away from a light source at near C we still measure it to be the same?

Also, can anyone clear up what the hell is the story with black holes? General (or Special) Relativity holds that when a star collapses on itself it will contract until its volume becomes zero while retaining all of its mass, thus resulting in a nothingness with infinite density - surely i have missunderstood something there?! If it's nothing then it can't have any position in the universe so its either nowhere (doesnt exist) or everywhere. Also, if it has infinite density, and causes an infinite curviture of space time then would the entire universe not be sucked into a black hole instantaniously as soon as one exists?
 
Last edited:
  • #85
65
0
Ok, I'm new but...litlbunny, what gives you the idea that anything exists faster than light?

And also, why do you think that there's some 'external' viewpoint? Do you mean, external from our universe? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

It seems like your major question is, "If we floated a clock in deep space that was 'standing still' as opposed to a clock on the earth, would their times be the same or not?" I'm no expert, but I sincerely think that yes, their times would be different.

Why do you think time didn't flow before we got here? That seems to be a non-sequitur from your argument.
 
  • #86
15
0
Ok, I'm new but...litlbunny, what gives you the idea that anything exists faster than light?
Hello LnGrrrR, in order for me to answer your question I have to do it with a question. What makes science believe nothing can travel faster then the speed of light? That statement, from those who say they understand the universe, makes zero sense to me when we take into consideration all the things we physically know are true, and then compare them to all the theories science tells us must be true.

Like, we know for a fact it will take just over two seconds for the speed of light to reach the moon. If we take theoretical science at face value, without questioning what they teach at all, then it should go to reason if man was ever able to reach the moon in two seconds the entire universe would either cease to exist, or by the time we reach the moon the universe would have already died one second prior to our arrival. I ask how is that possible if the moon is just over 2 light seconds away from us? Lets look at the Sun, the light from the Sun takes (roughly) eight minutes to reach us correct? However if the sun stopped right now we wouldn’t know it for eight minutes. And even more alarming, earth mathematical physics that calculates how long it takes for our communications with our own probes (floating throughout our entire solar system) can be calculated to near perfect every time, regarding how fast our physical data (physical in this sense means the information we have purposely put within that communication traveling at light speed) will travel at the speed of light versus the distance it will take our communications to reach those probe at the speed of light. (Remember that is at, not slower but at, the speed of light.) And lets not forget all the time it takes with regards to physical satellites and the time it takes for that information to reach from one physical location here on earth, up to the satellite and back down to another part of the globe (physical location). Remember each communication is traveling at the speed of light, and each object, Person A, satellite, Person B are all existing at the same time within the same span (space) of time.

However, theoretical science tells us if we physically traveled to the Sun at the speed of light the same issues we would face traveling towards our moon would happen as we traveled towards the Sun at the speed of light. Yet, earth mathematical physics proves when calculating traveling distance, that if we reached the Sun one second after it stopped, (traveled 480times the speed of light) we would still reach the sun 1 second to late, and if we traveled back to the Earth, we will still be able to see light from the sun for another 7minutes 58 seconds. (That is using the same formula science uses to calculate how long our communications will take to reach every probe within our solar system.) However, theoretical physics says, we wouldn’t be able to reach the sun at all if we ever reach or past the speed of light because there would be nothing to fly into. Which brings about the question I keep asking, how is that possible?
How can both mathematical sciences be right? (I know people will argue matter versus no matter, however their is physical matter existing at opposite ends of those two points, and even more important, all the matter that exists in-between those two points.)
One proves itself day in and day out with physical “earth referenced” physical mathematical non-theoretical science, while the other just believes, or theorizes, what is says is true when there is not (to date) a single theory that can answer every new question that arises with every new theory that is propagated upon us. I mean Relativity was first introduced before man ever stepped foot outside this planet, yet some how we are to believe that that theory and all the other theories that are still trying to prove that first theory, some how they are still correct? What am I missing?

We prove every single day we must live within a universe that doesn’t fit relativity in my opinion, what I am asking here and trying to figure out is, how it is I am wrong? Now I know there are folks here who will say you don’t understand, but that is not the problem, I have read every theory in relation to time and relativity, yet as I have shown time and time again those theories create more questions then they have, to this date, been able to answer. Which then brings about another very serious question. If those theories cannot answer very important questions that are at direct odds with those theories, then could it possibly be the mathematical time formula used within each of those formulas, not to mention using 2 dimensional formulas in the physical 3 dimensional universe we live in? I mean could one theorize that they are wrong? I mean what else could it possibly be? Those theories prove something, I admit that, but with all seriousness, do they answer a single question, more so then each theory out there raises a billion other questions?

And also, why do you think that there's some 'external' viewpoint? Do you mean, external from our universe? I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Well I will take the simple approach to answering your question. Because here on earth and within our solar system, we prove day in and day out that everything we can travel too can be seen from every angle imaginable. And no, not from outside our universe though I could pose an extremely interesting question using that hypothesis, however, as the rules tell us within this forum, those are frowned upon. However, I can ask this question that I will then leave for you to answer. Astronomy has pictures they say of other galaxies that exists completely separate from our own galaxy. I am sure several of us have seen, just as I have seen these phenomenal pictures. So because we can physically see other galaxies, could we then theories if other life exists within those galaxies we would appear to them just as they appear to us? And if so, depending on who is older, are we then not measured by how they must view time instead of how we view time? Or, because we are looking at each other, albeit several billion physical years apart in light years, (which brings about another billion questions) is there an even more powerful time reference that encompasses the entire universe as a whole we should be using instead of the mathematical "time" formula we currently employ today? (This question is in direct reference to my previous two questions.)

It seems like your major question is, "If we floated a clock in deep space that was 'standing still' as opposed to a clock on the earth, would their times be the same or not?" I'm no expert, but I sincerely think that yes, their times would be different.
With all do respect, that is not my major question at all. However I will admit, with our current understanding of time and how it is taught, your answer is both correct and wrong at the same time. Seriously, it would depend of which theory you read and how one was to go about trying to answer that question and the parameters in which that question was trying to be answered to begin with, while taking into account all the theories we are told we must use with regards to how to measure time and relativity (General or Special) and sciences use of 2D mathematics. However, if we measured your answer in a 3D mathematical format instead of the theoretical 2D mathematical format we use today, would you say that your answer is correct or is it wrong?

Why do you think time didn't flow before we got here? That seems to be a non-sequitur from your argument.
Actually I never made that statement at all, that statement was inferenced in direct reaction to one of my questions, however I believe I have answered your question succinctly enough when I said this in the statement all your questions have been derived from. ” Yes Time must have flowed. So the question science has to answer then is how did time flow back then. Has time only recently changed to our understanding of time, or is our understanding of time still primitive?”
 
  • #87
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Litlbunny, your entire post is gibberish, and clearly shows that you haven't understood the basic issues, let alone relativity. You just toss words around.

We can see objects near at hand or far away because light comes to us from them. It comes at the maximum speed of "c" (a little over 186,000 mps) but less where it has to travel through some medium, like air.

Questions about "same time" or "who's older" when referenced to distantly separated locations are meaningless, because you can't establish simultanaity between them; the fastest possible communication is by light signals, which take as long as they take to get from one to another. This is a major conclusion of relativity, and is derived from the Lorentz transformations, which are derived from the laws of electromagnetism (Maxwell equations). Relativity is not contradicted by everyday experience, but since "c" can be expressed as 1 foot per nanosecond, or 1 mile in 5.28 microseconds, relativistic effects are very tiny.
 
  • #88
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,226
34
The original poster's question was hopefully answered early in the thread. Since the thread has devolved into crackpot conjecture, I'm locking it.

If there are any (legitimate) questions left standing, feel free to open another thread to discuss them specifically.

- Warren
 

Related Threads on How does time stop at C?

Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
25K
Replies
51
Views
8K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
85
Views
10K
Top