Time Paradox: Calculating Time Dilation for Objects Moving at 90% Speed of Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trojan666ru
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox Time
Trojan666ru
Messages
104
Reaction score
0
Suppose an object "O" is traveling towards me at 90% speed of light which is placed at 1hr c away, then how much time in "MY Clock" would it take to reach me?
I calculated it to be 1hr and 6 mts, am i right?
But on the other hand I'm the one who is moving towards the object "O" so by time dilation I'll reach there in 26.16mts, which one is the correct answer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Trojan666ru said:
Suppose an object "O" is traveling towards me at 90% speed of light which is placed at 1hr c away, then how much time in "MY Clock" would it take to reach me?
I calculated it to be 1hr and 6 mts, am i right?
Right. Assuming that the given distance the object had to travel is as measured by you.

Of course, as seen by an observer moving with the object, the distance you have to travel is shorter due to length contraction. Note also that that observer disagrees with how you measured the travel time, due to relativity of simultaneity.
 
Trojan666ru said:
Suppose an object "O" is traveling towards me at 90% speed of light which is placed at 1hr c away, then how much time in "MY Clock" would it take to reach me?
I calculated it to be 1hr and 6 mts, am i right?
But on the other hand I'm the one who is moving towards the object "O" so by time dilation I'll reach there in 26.16mts, which one is the correct answer?
The reason that there is any confusion is that you didn't clearly specify the problem. To fully specify the problem you should have said "Suppose an object 'O' is traveling towards me at 90% speed of light which is placed at 1hr c away in my frame, then how much time in 'MY Clock' would it take to reach me?"
 
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...
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(...
Abstract The gravitational-wave signal GW250114 was observed by the two LIGO detectors with a network matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 80. The signal was emitted by the coalescence of two black holes with near-equal masses ## m_1=33.6_{-0.8}^{+1.2} M_{⊙} ## and ## m_2=32.2_{-1. 3}^{+0.8} M_{⊙}##, and small spins ##\chi_{1,2}\leq 0.26 ## (90% credibility) and negligible eccentricity ##e⁢\leq 0.03.## Postmerger data excluding the peak region are consistent with the dominant quadrupolar...
Back
Top