Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Time dilation relationship between gravity and velocity.

  1. Feb 29, 2004 #1
    Spaceships A and B synchronise their atomic clocks and then perform an activity

    :Spaceship A accelerates to 0.9999 times the speed of light in relation to spaceship B. Time in spaceship A will be observed by spaceship B to be running slower by the factor


    Where Tb/Ta is the ratio of Tb compared to Ta and Va is the velocity at which spaceship A has accelerated from B. In this case

    Tb/Ta = 1.00010001, so time at spaceship B is going 1.00010001 times faster than time in spaceship A.

    ;Spaceship A flies to a black hole and is affected by an acceleration of 100000ms^-2 due to the force of gravity and spaceship B remains in negligible gravity.

    Has anyone found out what Tb/Ta is in relation to gravity and can a simple simultaneous equation find out a relationship between Gravity and Velocity?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 29, 2004 #2
    There are well-known methods of determining gravitational time dilation, but there is no relationship between gravitation and relative velocity.
  4. Feb 29, 2004 #3
    Yes! I done some detail workings some years ago, and off the top of my head it relates Gravitational Velocity to Space Velocity.

    The effects I had derived from it placed some interesting observational effects for near and far off Horizons, for instance at a Gravitational Velocity close to a Black hole = Contraction.

    At a far off extremity of observational Horizon (far off location from BH)it transforms into a high Space Velocity opposite to Contraction..... Gravitational Expansion!
  5. Feb 29, 2004 #4
    v = nh/2qmr

    h = 6.63*10-34
    q = 3.14
    m = 0.83*10-27
    r = 0.59*10-10

    to = t(1 - (v/c)2)½

    Thereby there is a timedistance between mass and space.
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2004
  6. Feb 29, 2004 #5
    What do these equations have to do with gravitation? The first is a quasi-classical expression for angular momentum of an electron in the (hydrogen) atom -- except that you have the mass of something that isn't the electron -- the second is time dilation.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
  7. Feb 29, 2004 #6
    s - ct = 0

    This cannot and will not be denied.

    So c(t - t(1 - (v/c)2)½) = delta s
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2004
  8. Feb 29, 2004 #7
    If there is a timedistance between matter and space, then it brakes the laws of physics not having a roomdistance.

    Cause if the matter is put against the compact mud we're in, oscillating it, it's bound to get compressed, surpressed and sometimes implode into a blackhole, bla bla, etcetera, etcetera.
  9. Mar 1, 2004 #8

    This relationship holds only for photons, so it can most definitely be denied if it is applied to anything else.

    Although this is once again nonsense, the relationship which should follow from your first equation is [tex]\Delta s = 0[/tex], i.e. photons follow null geodesics.

    This still has nothing to do with gravitation.
  10. Mar 1, 2004 #9
    Your just dumb.

    the speed of the particles creates a timedistance between particles and space. It is proven that a groving timedistance demands a groving roomdistance. It always follows the simple equation s = ct, since this was proven to hold in all cases.

    The speed of the photon times the time it moves is the length it moves; s = vpt. Since the photon moves in the speed of light, wich is 299792458 (that's all you need to know in this case), there is a timedistance between a moving particle and one not moving. Now let's say the ether moves as the mass inside of a black hole, then it cannot move so very fast. But truely, ether is the last face of a black hole, since it dissappears. Then you must admit that the ether would make the particles we want to call REAL particles vibrate if it vibrate itself. only the thing is, the "real" particles vibrate so much faster then the higgsparticles that the timedistance between higgs- and "real" particles gets somewhat big (that's what I think anyway) i also think m in (h/4qmx) should be exchanged to (h/4q(m/d)x) were d is density. But hey, who's counting?


    And who can prove the oposite, since particles are aloud to change shape, I find it hard to prove it's wrong. Perhaps the proton is a speare, and the electrone is a dot, that fits into the spheare?

    You're just a bad mathematican, not realising speed causes timedistance and thereby roomdistance.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
  11. Mar 1, 2004 #10
    I couple questions for Sariaht.

    What is a groving particle?

    What language do the words Timedistance and Roomdistance come from?

    Does using non-sensical terminology and berating other people on these boards that are probably smarter than you make you feel good about yourself?
  12. Mar 1, 2004 #11
    If the distance between space and mass always rises, then masses should attract eachother aswell as space should attract space.

    s - ct = 0 (remember?)

    This cannot and will not be denied.

    So c(t - t(1 - (v/c)2)½) = delta s

    Then if particles move, particles should attract eachother.

    Especially when they move within our referencesystem.

    Look, atleast i know that growing timedistance means growing lengthdistance In every stars case

    By the way, delta y and z is not 0 anymore, Heisenberg proved that particles never can move in the speed 0. Join the quantum revolution.

    v = nh/2qmr

    h = 6.63*10-34
    q = 3.14
    m = 0.83*10-27
    r = 0.59*10-10

    to = t(1 - (v/c)2)½

    Thereby there is a timedistance between mass and space.

    c(t - t(1 - (v/c)2)½) = delta ct = delta s.

    c(1 - (v/c)2)½ = u, the speed that the mass moves away from the ether with.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
  13. Mar 1, 2004 #12
    This is exactely my point. You posted quoting my questions, yet you address NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
  14. Mar 1, 2004 #13
    Perhaps now you can see what i wrote?

    Cause I'm really trying to convince you that gravity is a cause of timedilation as stated by Startravel (and others before him).
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
  15. Mar 1, 2004 #14
    Well, you're doing a horrible job at convincing anyone.

    Answer the questions:

    1. What is "timedistance" and "spacedistance"? Please list a few other authors who use these terms (besides perhaps the Scientologists).

    2. How does the equation for a null geodesic (which "cannot be denied") say anything about mass, or "massdistance", or whatever it was?

    3. Why does quoting the equation for angular momentum imply that gravitation causes time dilation?

    You make baseless statements, and assert that they show unquestionable proof of your hypothesis.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
  16. Mar 1, 2004 #15
    1. Timedistance is the agedistance between the spacetraveler and the guy who choosed to stay at home. Spacedistance might be distance in space. In my country we talk about rumsavstånd and tidsavstånd

    Guestion 1. Who uses the word geodesic?

    2. If there is a growing time distance between space and mass, then there is a growing room distance. That's whatever it was. Since particles are moving, einsteins special relativity theory gives us that there is a growing timedistance between particles as protons and electrons, and empty space perhaps, just perhaps, containing higgsparticles.

    3. That should be the other way around: Time dilation causes gravitation.

    No, you make baseless statements, and assert that they show unquestionable proof for your hypothesis.

    Who the stars do you think you are, besserwisser?
  17. Mar 1, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Sariaht - No more of this.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook