Speed of light what if question.

[UglyEd]

Here is something I have thought about and would like to hear some other peoples opinions on what would happen if.
You had a huge disc in space. Made from an indestructable material that wouldn't bend or twist. The disc has a circumference of 599,584,916 meters. The disc would be spun by a shaft with a diameter of say 19 meters. Then you space clocks at regular intervals in line with each other from the center of the disc to the outer edge. With another clock not attached, to be a control clock. Then you spin the shaft at 60 RPMs. Or one turn per second. So saying that nothing would fall apart. A clock placed at 9.5 meters out from the center of the disc. Would be traveling approximately 60 meters per second. (That is equal to the circumference of the disc at that point.) As you kept moving out each clock would be traveling faster and faster than the ones before it. Then at about 4,771,351 meters out from the disc center the clock there would be spinning at the speed of light. (Traveling a circumference of 299,792,458 meters) The clock at the outer edge of the disc would be traveling 2x the speed of light.
Some things I know would happen are. Each clock although inline with each other would be in different space times. The disc itself would be in different space times from itself. From 4,771,351 out from the center and past that it would be going back in time. Right? Also the mass of the disc would increase from the center out. At 4,771,351 meters out from center and past that it would reach infinite mass? Would that mean that even though the shaft that spins the disc isn't moving that fast. 60 meters a second at its fastest point. It couldn't go that fast cause it would then be attached to a disc that after a certain point has an infinate mass? So the shaft would then have a speed limit of just under 30 rpms? (Which would mean that the outer edge of the disc would be traveling at just under the speed of light)
So even with the shaft having a max speed of just under 30 RPMs. The clock and the atoms at the outer edge of the disc would be barely moving through time, compared to the control clock (cause the would be moving just under the speed of light). Or to a clock and the atoms at the center of the disc. If the disc were to keep spinning. Say 100 yrs on the control clock. The atoms and the clock on the outer edge of the disc would be almost 100 years younger than the clock and the atoms at the center of the disc. So the same disc would exist both in the present (in relation to the static control clock) and nearly 100 yrs in the past?

 

[lwymarie]

I have another question to ask: does the retard time affect the speed of light?

 

[ramollari]

The disc has a circumference of 599,584,916 meters. The disc would be spun by a shaft with a diameter of say 19 meters. ... Then you spin the shaft at 60 RPMs. Or one turn per second. So saying that nothing would fall apart.

Wrong assumption from the beginning... Do you see why?

The inner part of the disk would have to break from the outer edge, otherwise you would need an infinite force (impossible) to pull the string.

 

[UglyEd]

I was thinking more of it accelerating up to speed and turned by a motor. Also the whole thing being indestructable. Yes though it would take an impossible infinite force to turn it at 60 RPMs. What about the second part though. It could theoretically reach just under 30 RPMs. Which means none of it would pass the speed of light (just under at the outer edge) which means it wouldn't need an infinite force to spin it so theoretically possible. So at just under 30 RPMs what about the time thing with the outer clock barely moving in time compared to the clock in the center, or the control clock. The disc could theoretically exist in the present (control clock) and 100 yrs in the past (clock at outer edge)?

 

[eNathan]

Here is something I have thought about and would like to hear some other peoples opinions on what would happen if.
You had a huge disc in space. Made from an indestructable material that wouldn't bend or twist. The disc has a circumference of 599,584,916 meters. The disc would be spun by a shaft with a diameter of say 19 meters. Then you space clocks at regular intervals in line with each other from the center of the disc to the outer edge. With another clock not attached, to be a control clock. Then you spin the shaft at 60 RPMs. Or one turn per second. So saying that nothing would fall apart. A clock placed at 9.5 meters out from the center of the disc. Would be traveling approximately 60 meters per second. (That is equal to the circumference of the disc at that point.) As you kept moving out each clock would be traveling faster and faster than the ones before it. Then at about 4,771,351 meters out from the disc center the clock there would be spinning at the speed of light. (Traveling a circumference of 299,792,458 meters) The clock at the outer edge of the disc would be traveling 2x the speed of light.
Some things I know would happen are. Each clock although inline with each other would be in different space times. The disc itself would be in different space times from itself. From 4,771,351 out from the center and past that it would be going back in time. Right? Also the mass of the disc would increase from the center out. At 4,771,351 meters out from center and past that it would reach infinite mass? Would that mean that even though the shaft that spins the disc isn't moving that fast. 60 meters a second at its fastest point. It couldn't go that fast cause it would then be attached to a disc that after a certain point has an infinate mass? So the shaft would then have a speed limit of just under 30 rpms? (Which would mean that the outer edge of the disc would be traveling at just under the speed of light)
So even with the shaft having a max speed of just under 30 RPMs. The clock and the atoms at the outer edge of the disc would be barely moving through time, compared to the control clock (cause the would be moving just under the speed of light). Or to a clock and the atoms at the center of the disc. If the disc were to keep spinning. Say 100 yrs on the control clock. The atoms and the clock on the outer edge of the disc would be almost 100 years younger than the clock and the atoms at the center of the disc. So the same disc would exist both in the present (in relation to the static control clock) and nearly 100 yrs in the past?

You seem to have made a lot of inacurate assumptions, so we can "guess"the result but we cannot rely on our current equations to calculate something they are not meant to.

1. None of the clocks would be traveling at c or 2c. Even if you are traveling past me at .9c and I am traveling past you at .9c in the opposite, it does not mean that our velocities are 1.8c. Spacetime does not allow this.

2. Infinite force Well if we assumed that, we could assume a lot of things which relativity forbids.

Im just pointing out a few things, I like getting hypothetical over things to hehe

 

[UglyEd]

1. None of the clocks would be traveling at c or 2c. Even if you are traveling past me at .9c and I am traveling past you at .9c in the opposite, it does not mean that our velocities are 1.8c. Spacetime does not allow this.

I think you misunderstood what I am saying. The clocks are all in line with each other. Each going further out on the disc, but they stay in line. Example: 1 Clock in the center of the disc 1 clock at 4meters out from center another at 100meters out etc.. With clocks spaced out all the way to the edge. With the disc spinning at just under 30 RPMs. The circumference of the disc is 599,584,916 meters so with almost 1 rotation every 2 seconds The farthest point on the edge of the disc where the last clock is would be moving nearly the speed of light. The clock at 4 meters out would be moving approx. 25 meters per second. (The circumference of the circle at 4 meters out from center.) So even though the clocks never pass each other and stay perfectly in line. They will be moving faster as you go out from the center cause they travel a greater distance with each rotation. Then cause the faster something moves the slower time moves. (relative to a stationary object) Compared to the stationary control clock. The clock at the outer edge would be barely moving through time. If you started all the clocks at say 12:00 on 1/1/2006. Then let the disc spin for 100 yrs ( on the stationary clock) The stationary clock would read 12:00 on 1/1/2106. The clock at the very edge cause it has been moving nearly the speed of light may only read 12:05 on 1/1/2006. Each clock from the center on out would show a lower date and time as the one before it. All the clocks although in line with each other and traveling the same RPMs. Would be moving at different speeds. Faster as you went out from the center. So wouldn't that mean that the disc would be 100 yrs old or so at the center and only 5 mins old at the edge? The same disc would exist in the present and 100 yrs in the past?

2. Infinite force Well if we assumed that, we could assume a lot of things which relativity forbids.

The infinite force would be the reason that the disc could only spin at just under 30 RPMS. That way no part of the disc would be spinning at the speed of light. Which causes infinite mass. It would need infinite force to move an infinit mass. My 1st question breaks laws of physics. The 2nd part though with the fastest point of the disc spinning just under the speed of light doesn't break any laws.

 

[lwymarie]

..

I have another question to ask: does the retard time affect the speed of light?

how about my question.../.\

 

[Janus]

So wouldn't that mean that the disc would be 100 yrs old or so at the center and only 5 mins old at the edge? The same disc would exist in the present and 100 yrs in the past?

The disk would be of various ages as you move outward, that much is correct (the center of the disc experiences 100yrs while the edge experinces only 5 min), But that does not mean that mean that the outer parts of the disc would "be in the Past".

 

[Janus]

how about my question.../.\

The speed of light is the same for all inertial frames.

 

[UglyEd]

The disk would be of various ages as you move outward, that much is correct (the center of the disc experiences 100yrs while the edge experinces only 5 min), But that does not mean that mean that the outer parts of the disc would "be in the Past".

What would that mean then for the RPMs and speed of the disc? The motor turning it is set to 29 RPMs. If you used the control clock or a clock at the center. In 100 years at 29 RPMs the disc would have made 1,524,240,000 rotations. According to the outer clock though it would have made that many rotations in 5 mins. Which would mean that it would have to be turning at a lot more RPMS so turning faster, but it is really turning at 29 RPMs. What would it be? Would that mean only a stationary clock is accurate?

 

[lwymarie]

well i mean, if a light is near a gravity field, then the time will retard. Then we see the light traveling slower...

 

[vincentchan]

well i mean, if a light is near a gravity field, then the time will retard. Then we see the light traveling slower...

do you mean time delation here? retarded time in relativity means the other thing...
Well, the answer is NO , However, in fact, the time delation affects the light in the other way. i.e. frequency... Have you heard about red shift[/color]? Can you use time delation in gravity field to explain it?

 

[UglyEd]

What would that mean then for the RPMs and speed of the disc? The motor turning it is set to 29 RPMs. If you used the control clock or a clock at the center. In 100 years at 29 RPMs the disc would have made 1,524,240,000 rotations. According to the outer clock though it would have made that many rotations in 5 mins. Which would mean that it would have to be turning at a lot more RPMS so turning faster, but it is really turning at 29 RPMs. What would it be? Would that mean only a stationary clock is accurate?

If the above is true. Would that mean that there IS a constant time, but when something is moving it is avoiding the full passage of the constant time? There is a "constant time" it is just that different objects experience its passage at different rates?

Also would that mean if someone were able to stand on the outer clock. They would see 100 yrs of events happen in what would be to them 5 mins?

Or would it also mean that you could think of a "constant time" like a wave that moves at the speed of light. Then when an object moves the "constant time" waves don't pass the object at the same rate as a stationary object. Then if an object moves at the speed of light. It is like hoping on and riding a crest of the "constant time" wave. Therefore it it doesn't experience its passage at all?

Would it also mean that traveling into the future in a way IS possible. By moving at or near the speed of light or just moving at all. Cause by moving at the speed of light you are staying in the present time riding a "constant time" wave. Then say you do that for a "constant time" of 100 years. Then when you stop because some "constant time" has been steady moving at a constant rate. (Like the spinning disc has always been turning at 29 RPMs and turned 1,524,240,000 times in the 100 yrs that passed on the control clock. Only 5 mins passed on the outer edge clock, but the disc still turned 1,524,240,000 times at 29 RPMs, and the outer clock experienced it all in 5 mins ) You stop 100 yrs in the future, to you though it feels as no time has past?

 

[Alex Massi]

While the hypothesis that started this thread is intriguing the effects that occur are so localized as to be meaningless. From center to edge there is a light wave length shift and that is about it. To an observer 10 million miles away relative to their point in space the disk is nothing of particular interest. The reflective light emanating from all points on the disk is a constant wavelength.

Furthermore you have not established two isolated points in the continuum. Since the disk is considered a single point theoretical applications do not apply. Again the post made one think but it has no applicable significance.

 

[UglyEd]

Since the disk is considered a single point theoretical applications do not apply.

Why?

Wouldn't it be pretty much the same way they tested the theory that time does slow down when an object is moving. They used 2 atomic clocks one on the Earth the other in an airplane. After flying the plane for awhile the clock on the plane was slightly behind the clock on the ground.
The clock on the ground was moving with the Earth rotating. So was the plane just faster.

It is the same with the disc right? The outer clock is moving just under the speed of light. So time would have to slow down for it, just like the clock on the plane. Time would barely move on the outer clock compared to the center clock or an outside control clock. The motor would have made that many rotations in 100 yrs. It couldn't at 29 RPMs have done it in the time the outer clock would show. So the outer clock is inaccurate. The non- attached control clock, also the least moving would show the most accurate time. Time kept ticking (the disc kept turning) but the outer clock missed most of it.

Maybe in some ways it is like time is a river, and clocks (any object) measure time by how much water flows past them. If the clock is not moving, the maximum amount of water (time) flows past. Time passes for it at the fastest rate. Then the faster the clock moves with the current the less water passes it. So it counts time slower than when stationary. If the clock is moving at light speed (speed of the current) no water passes it therefore no time. The river though always flows at the same rate. The same way the disc kept spinning at 29 RPMs. So time would be constant? Objects just experience it at different rates?

If that were all true. Would it mean that if there were 2 twin objects created at the beginning of the universe. One of the objects never moved. The other forever moved at near light speed.

The stationary object would have experienced as much time as is possible in the universe. It would be as old and would have aged as long as the universe. If it were a clock it would show the true constant time.

The other, moving object even though created at the same time. (And would really be the same age. Around since the beginning.) It would have only experienced and aged a small amount of time. Basically a smaller amount of time would have passed it by or even happened for it. So just because it doesn't know it doesn't mean that time didnt keep moving. Time just didnt move past it as fast as possible.

 

[Nereid]

Something rather similar exists in nature ... young pulsars such as that in the Crab Nebula. Particles trapped in the (intense) magnetic field of the pulsar move around it with the same period as the pulsar itself, ~30 ms in this case. What happens where the electrons (etc) are moving relativistically?

 

[Chronos]

The thought experiment is flawed. It assumes material properties that cannot and do not exist. A neutron star is the densest known state of matter in the universe, and it does not exhibit any such properties.

 

[Bjørn Bæverfjord]

Some pulsars (neutron stars) rotate with a period that would give a surface velocity of something like 0.7c if it was a rigid body. It is clearly possible to imagine something to rotate fast enough as to experience measurable relativistic effects.

The thought experiment is perfectly valid, that the disc edge is spinning at close to the speed of light is just a way to make things clear. The effects would arise at any speed and for any size of disc. A CD in a CD player would work just as fine.

 

[Alex Massi]

UglyEd all you say is correct but once again it is a closed system. So it is only relative to that particular environment. You are applying Macro Theories to the micro. If all that were true I could use a plate spinning on top of a stick and claim interdivisional displacement.

 

[Nereid]

Something rather similar exists in nature ... young pulsars such as that in the Crab Nebula. Particles trapped in the (intense) magnetic field of the pulsar move around it with the same period as the pulsar itself, ~30 ms in this case. What happens where the electrons (etc) are moving relativistically?

The thought experiment is flawed. It assumes material properties that cannot and do not exist. A neutron star is the densest known state of matter in the universe, and it does not exhibit any such properties.

Some pulsars (neutron stars) rotate with a period that would give a surface velocity of something like 0.7c if it was a rigid body. It is clearly possible to imagine something to rotate fast enough as to experience measurable relativistic effects.

It's not hard to do the calculation; some neutron stars will have a surface that is moving relativistically (say, >0.1c).

However, what I was referring to is electrons trapped in intense magnetic fields, above the neutron star's surface - they will co-rotate with the star. Here is a simple account of neutron stars (electrons trapped in the magnetic field is mentioned near the bottom).

 

[UglyEd]

If all that were true I could use a plate spinning on top of a stick and claim interdivisional displacement.

The different parts of the plate would experience time at different rates. Slower closer to the edge. It wouldn't be interdivisional travel though. If what I said is true. It would mean that although the plate and everything in the universe is part of the same constant time flow. The outer edges experienced less of the flow, and aged slower, but it is all part of the same constant time dimension. The outer edges just didnt experience the full affects of the constant time.

If there were no constant time. Wouldn't that mean that almost everything would be in its own time dimension, cause things move at different rates?

Or if there was a clock created at the beginning of the universe and that clock always remained perfectly stationary. It would show the exact constant time. If everything else created at the beginning was also given clocks, and those things did move. Then you were to later compare times. The moving objects clocks would show less time compared to the stationary clock. It wouldn't mean that the moving objects are in their own space time (or arent truly as old). It would just mean their clocks are slow. The moving objects though would have only aged and experienced as much time as their clocks showed. So could you say time is constant, the experience of it is relative?

 

[AWolf]

Here's something that I just can't get my head round. Maybe somebody can paint a clear picture for me.

Rotating disc where the outer edge is traveling close to C.

Lorentz transformations ?

 

[Nereid]

Wouldn't that mean that almost everything would be in its own time dimension, cause things move at different rates?

Yes; which is why building a clock no more than an OOM or two more accurate than the best we have today would likely not be worth the effort - comparing any two such clocks would tell you ... what, exactly?

Note that the clock synchronisation problem already occurs with our GPS system - due to full GR effects, not just SR ones - and what's used to handle this is just one of several possible ways to do it (see the S&GR section for threads which discuss this).

 

[Alex Massi]

I think Nereid's post correctly explains the matter and I have nothing to add.

I would like to comment on the 3 or 4 posts above that say or suggest going back in time as you cross the disc. That is not possible nor did Albert Einstein come close to actually saying it. In fact his Relativity position explains why it is relative to a secondary point but impossible for the secondary point to move to the primary point and maintain the Relative Characteristics of the secondary point.

 

[UglyEd]

I would like to comment on the 3 or 4 posts above that say or suggest going back in time as you cross the disc.

I wasn't saying that you would go back in time by crossing the disc. All I am theorizing is that there is a constant time. Time is constant. It is just that different objects experience it at different rates. The faster something moves the farther off its time becomes to true constant time. If I were to fly around the world at just under C. For 100 years going by a stationary clock. Even though the watch I was wearing would only show maybe 5 mins has passed, and I would only feel, and aged 5 mins. Doesnt mean that I am not really still 100 years older. Constant time still passed by for 100 years. I just didnt experience all the affects of it. Just like the clock at the outer edge of the disc. The disc always turned 29 RPMs and made 1,524,240,000 rotations, 100 years worth of rotations at that speed. The outer clock will say only 5 mins has passed. Even though it still made 1,524,240,000 rotations at 29 RPMs. It can't do that in 5 mins. So that means the clock is wrong.

 

[Nereid]

If I may say so UglyEd, your question (and confusion) is a very common one, for folk when they first encounter Relativity - it's all so ***ly counterintuitive!

However, if you take the trouble to work through this - especially if you check for yourself what the predictions are and what the results of the honest-to-goodness experiments are - then I think you'll find that it is at least fully consistent.

In particular, you'll no doubt get an appreciation of why 'true constant time' doesn't exist (indeed, within GR, it *cannot* exist).

 

[Alex Massi]

UglyEd I did not mean to suggest you said you would go back in time. Those who posted below you did.

 

[UglyEd]

I very well could be not catching on to something. Given the facts that I know are true. This is the conclusion that seems to work.

It is true that a clock that is moving will show a slower passage of time compared to a stationary clock. Like the experiment that was done with the 2 clocks one on a plane one on the ground. Right?

Also I saw a show about space, time and relativity. There were twin brothers. That worked for NASA. One had orbited the Earth a few times. He was saying how he is now slightly younger (very small amount) than his brother. Do to the speed he traveled at.

I see that as being partly true. Although he has aged less, and felt the affects of less time. He is still just as old, he has still been in existence the same amount of time. Like the clocks in the river. If the brothers were the clocks (that measured time by the amount of water/time that passed them by). One clock stayed in place, the other floated down stream a little. The one that floated would have had less water pass by it. It would therefore show less time, than the stationary one. The river has always flowed at the same rate though (time kept moving). The stationary clock would have even kept track of the exact amount of flow. So even though one of the clocks would show, feel, and have experienced less of the rivers flow. Both of the clocks have been in the river the same amount of time. The brothers would also be just as old, or in existence the same amount of time.

If the clocks and plane scenario is true. Then it should be true that the outer fast moving clock on the outer edge of disc would show less time has passed compared to a slower moving one in the center. The outer clock would have even aged, felt the affects of, and experienced less time.

In that situation though the disc really did rotate 1,524,240,000 times. At a rate of 29 RPMs. The outer clock, even if it doesn't feel the affects. Did make the 1,524,240,000 rotations at 29 RPMs. That can't happen in the 5 mins that the outer clock shows. So couldn't that only mean that it didnt keep accurate track of time? It took track of the all time that passed it (like in the river scenario) but it didnt keep track of all the time that had really flowed. Just because it only had 5 mins worth of time, doesn't mean that 100yrs didnt flow.

If that is all true then wouldn't it mean. That time is constant, just objects experience, or have it pass them at different rates. If that wouldn't all be the correct reasoning. Then what would be?

 

[AWolf]

Rotating disc where the outer edge is traveling close to C.

Lorentz transformations ?

As nobody else has noticed the significance, I'll try to answer my own question.

The further you travel from centre of the spinning disc, the faster you are travelling. According to Lorentz contraction, the faster you go, the more your length contracts. Length in the case being the circumference at a radius from the centre.
If you map circumference/velocity/contraction you will find that at the speed of light, the outer edge of the disc has a circumference of zero.

As you spin the disc up, the faster you go, the more the outer edge curves back on itself.

 

[Alex Massi]

AWolf I think something in that post is not exactly correct.

UglyEd:
If you were to read five explanations of Einstein's Relativity Theories you would get five different explanations some would have slight differences and some would be completely wrong. I believe I have a good understanding of his Theories but I would never be so bold as to attempt to explain them. Complex multi-level thoughts are difficult to explain. Why I have never read his theories explained correctly I guess. Actually I have read one book that explained them correctly.

I just finished an Internet search and went to four different sites to see if it was explained correctly. Three were mostly wrong and one site had you leaving Earth in a spaceship and returning to Earth 2000 years in the past. Einstein never said you could go faster than the speed of light and return to your starting point before you left.

I suggest you use the source that I learned the theories from. I can absolutely guaranty his explanations are 100% correct. The book I used was written by Albert Einstein. I had to read it very slowly making notes and reading some parts three or four times to fully understand what I thought he meant. I am positive I did not understand 100% of the material closer to 90%.

Read

Relativity
The Special and General Theory
By: Albert Einstein

 

[Alex Massi]

AWolf I know what bothered me:

When using Lorentz Contraction the velocity of the observer has to be a fraction of the speed of light it cannot be the speed of light so you could not have v squared / c squared = 1 so you can never end up with 0.

While the square root of zero is zero you can not use it to get a real solution from the equation or any equation.

 

[AWolf]

AWolf I know what bothered me:

When using Lorentz Contraction the velocity of the observer has to be a fraction of the speed of light it cannot be the speed of light so you could not have v squared / c squared = 1 so you can never end up with 0.

While the square root of zero is zero you can not use it to get a real solution from the equation or any equation.

Granted, you cannot have a velocity of C, but even with a velocity just less than C, the contraction will result in the outer edge curving back in towards the centre.

 

[UglyEd]

I had never heard of the Lorentz Contraction. I checked a site about it. Isn't it more of an observed contraction, than an object actually contracting? The site mentioned a spaceship flying past an observation post at near C. From the ship the observation post would look contracted. From the observation post the ship would look contracted. It didnt say that the ship or observation post would actually be contracted. It also said that the Lorentz Contraction only happens in the same direction as travel. The observation post would look thinner but still the same height.

Even if the Lorentz Contraction does physically contract an object, it doesn't really matter for this. It doesn't matter how fast the disc spins. Even if it is spinning slow enough for the contraction to be minuet. The outer clock will still be moving faster and still show less time than a clock at the center. So the clock would still be wrong when it came to the RPMs and the number of rotations that happened. It would be off by less than if it were spinning near C but still off and would still show the same conclusion.

 

[Alex Massi]

The theory was used by Loentz to explain the contraction of a object in relation to its motion. Einstein used the basics of the equation for some of his mathematics. Einstein proved that the contraction was not the object changing but a change in space and time.

Tell me how exactly are you going to get to the second clock to see the time and if you go to it will the two clocks be the same time?

 

[Alex Massi]

Awolf you are correct the theory works if the speed is 1 mile an hour. Very hard to measure the contraction but it changes. The change would be about the thickness of an atom - my random guess.

 

[UglyEd]

Tell me how exactly are you going to get to the second clock to see the time and if you go to it will the two clocks be the same time?

After 100 yrs on the center or a separate clock. Also after the disc has turned 1,524,240,000 rotations at 29 RPMs that would take 100 yrs. Just stop the disc. Walk out to the clock and check it. This is a what if question. I don't see how something like how would I check the clock matter. No the outer clock will show less time has passed. It has been moving faster. Maybe go back and read the other post. That is what I have said the whole time.

The disc always turned 29 RPMs and made 1,524,240,000 rotations, 100 years worth of rotations at that speed. The outer clock will say only 5 mins has passed. Even though it still made 1,524,240,000 rotations at 29 RPMs. It can't do that in 5 mins. So that means the clock is wrong.

It doesn't matter how fast the disc spins. Even if it is spinning slow enough for the contraction to be minuet. The outer clock will still be moving faster and still show less time than a clock at the center. So the clock would still be wrong when it came to the RPMs and the number of rotations that happened. It would be off by less than if it were spinning near C but still off and would still show the same conclusion

Think of 2 runners on a track. One is on the inside lane the other is on the outside line. The start at a the same starting line and stay in their lanes. Both of the runners run around the track and come to the finish line at the exact same time. Even though they finished at the same time. The runner on the out side track had to run faster. He because he is on the outside lane has to cover more distance in the same time. That is why they have staggered starts for races that go around the track and the runners have to stay in their lanes.

Now imagine a similar situation where the track is moving and the runners stand still on the track. The track is moving at say 30 RPMs for 20 mins(set with a completely stationary clock). That means it will make 600 rotations. The runner on the outside lane will still be moving faster than the runner on the inside lane. If each runner had a clock. Although it would be a very small amount the outside lane runners clock would show less time has passed, cause he is moving faster. At the end of the 600 rotations (which takes 20 mins at 30 RPMs )the outside runners clock may say only 19.999999999999999999999 mins (or something just under 20 mins) had passed. So the outside runners clock is wrong. Why? Because by it moving time passed by it slower. It didnt experience the passage of time at its full rate. Time did not slow down (the track did still rotate 600 times at 30 RPMs which takes 20 mins). The outside runner and his clock didnt feel, age or experience the full 20 mins. That doesn't mean though that 20 mins didnt pass. It did the track rotated 600 times at 30 RPMS, that takes 20 mins.

So what I am thinking is the case is. Time is constant, but when an object moves time passes by that object slower. Also that a completely 100% stationary object would experience the full flow and affects of true constant time. Any moving object would just be off from that time. Or in another words time doesn't pass at its full rate passed a moving object. If the stationary object was a clock. It would show the true passage of time. If an object, created after the stationary clock. Were given a clock then that object moved around the universe. Then after a period of time, the 2 clocks were checked. Even though the clock on the moving object would show less time, and the object would have aged and felt the experience of less time. The stationary clock would show the objects true age. How long the moving object has been in existence.

 

[Alex Massi]

First it was not a statement but a question. Why there was a "?" at the end of the sentence.

In regard to your post you state "go back and read the other post" as if the post contained 100% fact that can be used to prove further theories. The post is interesting but at the same time breaks a dozen proven laws. Actually more like entire segments of the Laws of the Universe. If the math equates to five minutes of time passage of the clock than your comment "so that means the clock is wrong" means you are saying Einstein's math equations are wrong? Something is wrong but I am going to back Einstein on this one.

Your comments about the disc contraction brings up another batch of "what ifs" that are now being used as a foundation of pure fact to prove further "what ifs." Did the contraction post forget to mention that the equation applies to an observer moving in the exact opposite direction of the objects motion. Not an observer moving across the disc 90 degrees from the directional motion.

Has anyone given a thought about the disc post as it would apply to the space/time continuum laws? Has anyone explored the resultant light wave frequency shift from the center to the edge of the disc and the resultant implications? As I recall the Disc Post was presented as a what if to be discussed. It was not intended to be taken as pure fact by the author. Somehow both posts are now excepted as proven science not to be questioned. The Disc post states in the opening remarks that it is a thought to be discussed.

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the laws that govern space, time, and matter in the Universe cannot be reduced to two runners on a track. Keep in mind this, you cannot know a little bit about this branch of Physics and mix it with what you know about the way things work on Earth because your conclusions would be 100% wrong 100% of the time. If your proof is runners on a track than you would be using that to discuss Sir Isaac Newton's work. If your proof centers around the curvature of space/time caused by a Supernova you would be using Albert Einstein's work.

We return back to my question - Tell me exactly how you are going to get to the second clock to see the time and will the two clocks be the same time? Note you carry the first clock with you and compare the two side by side. Actually prove your answer using the applicable laws of physics that govern the Universe.

 

[AWolf]

Awolf you are correct the theory works if the speed is 1 mile an hour. Very hard to measure the contraction but it changes. The change would be about the thickness of an atom - my random guess.

The theory works from 1 mile per hour up to 1 mile per hour less than the speed of light, at which velocity the contracted circumference would be approximately 0.3% of the original.

If the Universe is a spinning disc, with the outer edges rotating at a velocity close to the speed of light, then the answer to what is beyond the Universe is perhaps the centre of the Universe. The whole disc contracting back on itself like a big doughnut.

 

[UglyEd]

We return back to my question - Tell me exactly how you are going to get to the second clock to see the time and will the two clocks be the same time? Note you carry the first clock with you and compare the two side by side. Actually prove your answer using the applicable laws of physics that govern the Universe.

I thought I answered it here.

After 100 yrs on the center or a separate clock. Also after the disc has turned 1,524,240,000 rotations at 29 RPMs, that would take 100 yrs. Just stop the disc. Walk out to the clock and check it.

No the outer clock will show less time has passed. It has been moving faster.

If the math equates to five minutes of time passage of the clock than your comment "so that means the clock is wrong"

I didnt do the math on it. I used 5 mins as an example. The point is that no matter how fast the disc spins. A clock on the outer edge of the disc will show less time than a stationary unattached clock. It would also show less time than any other clock on the disc that was closer to the center.

I will make some points then you tell me the ones you agree with and the ones you disagree with. Then we can see where our ideas differ, cause actually from your last post I am confused as to what you think I am saying. Also I am not saying that I am right for sure that "time is constant and it is just the way objects experience it that is relative." So far though nothing has shown me otherwise.

1) The faster something moves the slower it experiences time.

2) This was tested by using 2 atomic clocks. One on Earth the other in a
plane. The clocks were set to the exact same time. The plane flew at like 600 mph for a period of time. When they stopped the plane and compared the 2 clocks the clock on the plane showed slightly less time than the one on the Earth.

3) If you have a disc spinning at a constant RPM. A point or clock on the outer edge of the disc will be moving faster than a point or clock that is closer to the center. This is because the outer point or clock travels a greater distance than the inner point or clock with each rotation.

4) So because the outer point or clock is moving faster it will experience less time than the inner point or clock. As in statement 1.

5) A stationary point or clock that is not attached to the disc will not experience the time delay at all.

6) The disc being turned by a motor set at a constant 30 RPMs. Will make 30 rotations per minute. To make 600 rotations would take 20 mins. Using a stationary unattached clock. Or by just by dividing the 600 rotations by the RPMs.

7) When the disc is stopped after the 600 rotations The outer point or clock would have made 600 rotations at 30 RPMs.

8) The outer point or clock will say less than 20 minutes has passed, because it is moving and thus experiencing the time delay.

9) No matter what the outer clock says. The disc did make 600 rotations at 30 RPMs.

10) 600 rotations at 30 RPMs cannot be done in less than 20 mins.

11) The outer edge clock says less than 20 mins has passed. So it is therefore wrong.

 

[Michael Dmitriyev]

Try to stir big mass of water in the pool by a mixer. You will see a real picture of your experiment.

Michael.

 

[Alex Massi]

I stumbled onto this site by accident. Thought I would post a few times and help out. I can see my help was not needed or wanted. You seem to be highly knowledgeable and even though the forum was set up to help those that wanted academic guidance you have learned all that is known. At least you think you have.

I being a Nuclear Physicist that designs nuclear reactors bows to your superior intellect and will be on my way.

UglyEd read Albert Einstein's book and than answer my question; later in life you will be glad you did.

 

[Alex Massi]

As for your post UglyEd all are incorrct but 3, 6, and 7 are true on Earth.

 

[Nereid]

A (belated) welcome to Physics Forums Alex Massi!

You will have noticed that this thread is in a section of PF called "Theory Development"; what you may not have yet appreciated is the history and current status of this section - please take a look here to get a quick appreciation.

 

[UglyEd]

You seem to be highly knowledgeable and even though the forum was set up to help those that wanted academic guidance you have learned all that is known. At least you think you have.

Alexi I don't think anything like that at all. I really do want to know what the truth is. I also really appreciate your input on this. I feel bad and am sorry if I have upset you. If I am wrong I can except it. I just want to know where I am going wrong. You said that I was wrong on all of my points except 3,6,and 7 are true on Earth.

Here is proof though that my 1st point is correct.

1) The faster something moves the slower it experiences time.

This is a quote from Albert Eisteins book Relativity: The Special and General Theory.

" As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but (There is an equation here that shows the seconds, but I wasn't able to paste it.)

seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting velocity. "

Here is a quote from another site about time dilation.

"Einstein laid the basis for most
modern theory on time travel in
1905 when he developed his special
theory of relativity. This theory
predicts that time passes slower
for moving objects than for
stationary ones, a phenomenon
termed time dilation. This was a
significant discovery because it meant
that space and time are not absolute
as previously thought.
A clock traveling at the speed of light ticks
slower to a stationary observer than
a clock at rest would."


"This was a
significant discovery because it meant
that space and time are not absolute
as previously thought "

This is the part that I don't see as 100% true. Maybe time is constant it is just that objects experience it at different rates. A completely stationary object would experience time at its full rate. Time slows down for a moving object because it doesn't experience the flow of time at its full rate.

Or like in this quote from a site on space/time.

" But if a traveler were to travel into space and back to Earth a distance of 1000 light years, traveling at 99.995% the speed of light, they would have aged only 10 years while 1000 years had elapsed on earth."

I see that as all true, but from looking at the disc thought experiment. Could you also add to the above statement. That although the traveler has only aged 10 years. The traveler is still 1000 years older. Or in other words the traveler has still been in existence for 1000 years. That constant time has always moved at the same rate. Just only 10 yrs of it passed by the traveler.

Or could you also say that time passes objects at different rates depending on how fast the object is moving? That a completely stationary object would feel the full passage of time? If that stationary object were a clock it would keep track of constant time?


I know my 1st statement

1) The faster something moves the slower it experiences time.

is right. The 2nd statement I made is from a show I saw about space-time and how the above was proven. To me it seems that if the 1st statement is true then everything else should also be true. I just want to know if I am wrong at what point do I go wrong at.

 

[UglyEd]

Nereid for you to even go there with the link to the crackpot post is not cool. I listed a chain of statements and thoughts as to how I saw them. I just want to know if I am wrong at what point to I go wrong at. Alexi said my 1st statement.

1) The faster something moves the slower it experiences time.

Was incorrect as I showed in the previous post the statement I made is not incorrect. Alexi was incorrect in saying I was.

 

[Alex Massi]

See I knew you were smart UglyEd you posted I was incorrect knowing I would respond.

Ok let us review the proof you used. Obviously, Einstein's quote is correct but the second quote explained what Einstein said and usually it is dangerous to use others interpretation of Einstein's work. In this case the second quote is also correct.

Time is used extensively in Einstein's papers. He uses the word time after he explains what Time is in the beginning of his work. The word time has been used here, as literally meaning "my watch slowed down" and that is not Time.
Time is the speed of light. Time does not speed up or slow down. The frequency of light speeds up and slows down. Light is a constant exact speed. The wave frequency can change but the speed is always the same. I repeat the SPEED OF LIGHT NEVER CHANGES.

There is no reason that a mechanical wristwatch with machined gears and a set tension coil is going to modify its mechanical characteristics regardless of your speed. Gravity can effect mechanical motion but that is not a constant. Moving at the speeds we are discussing it would be a variable. These theories are a constant.

Please do not post things like "but a atomic clock shows a difference" because they do but they are effected in the same or similar way as light.

For now please do not use the word time unless it is followed by what the frequency of light is doing. Time is the frequency of light relative to you. If the wave frequency of light relative to you is slower than the frequency of light relative to an observer than your Time is slower.

The speed of light relative to you is Time.

The frequency of light that is our perceived Time is neutral in color. If that frequency is slowed light shifts into the red spectrum (if you do not know what the Red Doppler effect is search the net now). The Earth Time or frequency of light on Earth is your relative time. If I left Earth and went twice the speed of light, Earth’s speed of light, for 100 minutes and stopped than looked at Earth I could see what was happening on Earth 50 minutes before I left. Have I gone back in time? No you have not you have gone twice as fast as Earth’s frequency of light “Time” for 100 minutes. You spent 100 minutes getting there and will take 100 minutes to get back. When you get back you will have been gone 200 minutes. Your relative point has now been returned to Earth so your time is now relative to the frequency of light on Earth. As you left Earth your light frequency was twice as fast as Earth’s Time and when you came back it was half as fast. The point being you cannot go back in time.

The frequency of light on Earth is Time.

 

[Alex Massi]

There is a slight error in the last sentence "The point being you cannot go back in time" should have said. You cannot go back in time using this method but it is theoretically possible to go back in time.

 

[Alex Massi]

I just did a 20 minute search fact find on the net. Things are worse that I thought Einstein's Theories have been mangled. The sites I looked at vary from the sort of on target to just nuts in there explanations.

As you argue with my post here are the rules. Only one single proof that I am wrong may be posted/discussed and proven true are false than another can be posted. Also 20% of the sites claim that the speed of light is not constant and changes but just by a little not enough to matter. The speed of light is either a constant are it is not a constant it cannot change a little just as a person is either dead or alive. You can not be a little dead.

The speed of light is constant. If the proof you find on the internet first explains why the speed of light changes just a little than do not bother to post it please.

 

[UglyEd]

As you argue with my post here are the rules. Only one single proof that I am wrong may be posted/discussed and proven true are false than another can be posted.

Ok sounds good. One more thing we have to keep this friendly. Like I have said this is how I understand Time to be. I could be wrong but just haven't seen that I am yet. My theory is. Time is constant, objects just experience times passage at different rates.

The speed of light is constant.

This is true and false. It is true in that light always leaves an object at the same speed no matter how fast the object it moving. As in you can't add the objects speed to C to get the speed that light is moving from the object. Also that C doesn't change in a vacuum.

It is false in that light does travel at different speeds through different materials. Light travels fastest through a vacuum.

Here is a quote from a site.

the Theory of Relativity tells us that light always travels at the same speed relative to some observer, no matter what the relative motion of the observer. Thus, light emitted from a moving airplane does not travel with the speed of light plus the speed of the airplane, it travels with the "speed of light", no matter what the speed of the airplane! In a vacuum, light always travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second, no matter how its speed is measured... To be precise, what we usually call the "speed of light" is really the speed of light in a vacuum (the absence of matter). In reality, the speed of light depends on the material that light moves through. Thus, for example, light moves slower in glass than in air, and in both cases the speed is less than in a vacuum. However, the density of matter between the stars is sufficiently low that the actual speed of light through most of interstellar space is essentially the speed it would have through a vacuum, so we don't make much error by ignoring the difference

I can't find the site that showed the experiment that proved that light moved slower through different materials, but from all the sites I looked at. This is understood to be true. Plus you probably just saying C is constant in a vacuum. So yes in a vacuum the speed of light is constant.


Here is my question. If you have 2 clocks set to the same time. One clock remains stationary. Then you fly one around the Earth a at say .5 C. (but any speed will work). After a period of time you compare the times on the 2 clocks. Will the clock that flew show less time has passed than the stationary clock?

 

[Alex Massi]

UglyEd those are valid points worthy of a discussion. This will be our starting validation post. When his post points are analyzed and the validity of his arguments has been decided than we move on. As in my post still stands as is and all understand why – Than next batter up.

I could think of no other way to present this material. 98% of the Internet sites are wrong. Easily proven to be wrong. I have some design work to complete than I will post a reply later tonight.