27
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 157:
Line 157: +
no edit summary
:::::::::::::Okay, so if I was driving at a constant 55 mph and travelled 110 miles, then from my point of view I've travelled for two hours. But how much time has passed for someone watching me from a vantage point where time passes at a different rate? What's the formula for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Okay, so if I was driving at a constant 55 mph and travelled 110 miles, then from my point of view I've travelled for two hours. But how much time has passed for someone watching me from a vantage point where time passes at a different rate? What's the formula for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I'm not sure I understand you. All observers agree on the vaue of the speed of light; that's the fundamental tenant of special relativity and it is confirmed in particle accelerators around the workd every day. It doesn't matter where or how fast the observer is. The proper distance between two points in space is also the same for any observer, regardless of how fast or slow that observer is moving. The time that an observer will measure for a light ray to travel a given proper distance doesn't depend on who is observing; it's just the proper distance divided by the speed of light. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 17:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: I'm not sure I understand you. All observers agree on the vaue of the speed of light; that's the fundamental tenant of special relativity and it is confirmed in particle accelerators around the workd every day. It doesn't matter where or how fast the observer is. The proper distance between two points in space is also the same for any observer, regardless of how fast or slow that observer is moving. The time that an observer will measure for a light ray to travel a given proper distance doesn't depend on who is observing; it's just the proper distance divided by the speed of light. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 17:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::: OK, I think I folow you statement now. Suppose observer A has the 'normal' flow of time, but observer B is in a region of space where time ticks twice as slow for him. So in 2 seconds of observer A's clock, observer's B clock has ticked only one second. What time does observer B measure for the car to travel 110 miles? Both observers will agree on the distance the car needs to travel (say the distance between two cones or something). Observer A measures 55 mph for the car, hence two hours. Observer B, however, will count 4 hours to travel that same distance. That is, in observer B'd frame, the car is only traveling 55/2 = 22.5 mph. So yes, they will get different results for both the elapsed time and for the car's speed. Now if this is true, then special relativity must be wrong. The tenenat that all of special relativity is based on is that all observers agree on the speed of light regardless of their reference frame. We would need observers to measure different values of the speed of light for your time rate hypothesis to be correct. Do you agree that for your hypothesis to be correct, then special relativity must not be perfectly correct? That's what it seems to me. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 17:35, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::How did the moon got THAT ammount of craters in only 6000 years?[[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 15:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::How did the moon got THAT ammount of craters in only 6000 years?[[User:Aknot|Aknot]] 15:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)