Speed, Time and Relativity: A Lurker's Question

DeadPoet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Long time lurker, first time poster!

I've been presented a question that I do not have the answer too, at least not an accurate answer and was hoping one could enlighten me as to expand my mind. It goes as follows..


If time is relative to speed.

And speed is the relative position to other objects.

What effect does constant relative position to all objects have on time?

If time has an inverse relation to acceleration is the opposite true?


Thanks everyone!
DP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
are you able to re-word that?
 
Constant relative positions implies zero relative velocity therefore no time dilation.
 
nitsuj,

Wish I could re-word it but that was how it was presented to me. :\ Believe he is bumping around ideas that relate to time dilation on mass. And in his second question, I believe he is asking along the lines of 'since time slows down at much faster speeds, does going slower make time faster?' But I didn't want to respond without getting opinions of others cause I'm still a bit perplexed as to what is actually being asked.

Thanks Integral! Much appreciated!

DP
 
What do you mean by "constant relative position to all objects". If you mean the position, relative to all objects, is constant, then you are requiring that everything has speed 0 relative to everything else so there is no motion and "relativity" does not come into it.
 
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
42
Views
669
Replies
5
Views
348
Replies
36
Views
4K
Back
Top