I've never really grokked relativity, and I think it's because I only read the EZ Reader explanations (that start off with a guy on top of a train that gets hit by lightning and a guy on the ground) rather than a math explanation that I have to struggle through. But anyways, imagine our twins (from the EZ Reader) Joe and Biff. Biff jumps into the Apollo Space Capsule (this is an old EZ Reader) and speeds away at nearly the speed of light for quite a while. Then he comes back, and lo' and behold - he's way younger than his twin Joe. But shouldn't Biff be expecting Joe to be younger? In his frame of reference, the Earth sped away at near the speed of light for a while, then came back. . .
that's a great question. I had to think about it for a bit.. Here's an analogy to explain that may or may not be accurate: Think of a lake with 2 speedboats in it. Joe is on one boat (earth) and Biff is on the other (rocket ship). The lake is space. Joe's boat is just drifting with very little velocity, producing no wake behind it. (the wake is space/time distortion caused by the velocity) Biff's boat is speeding away at near the speed of light, and is producing an enormous wake. So, even though PERCEPTUALY they are speeding away from each other at the same velocity, only Biff's boat is producing a wake (space/time distortion) because he's the one that has the actual velocity. I think that's correct..
wouldn't it be because biff really did have more velocity than joe? if i move away from you full speed in a car and you move away from me (at the same time) full speed in a bike, i really do have more velocity than you, although it may look like you are moving away fast from me (from my perspective). whoever has more velocity (through space) will age slower (due to less motion available in time).
why not? assume you have a gun that can fire a bullet at .75 lightspeed. assume that you have a car that can accelerate to .75 lightspeed. now get in the car, reach .75 lightspeed and fire the gun in the direction of the car motion, bullet travels 1.5 light speed.. isn't it all relative?
i think you need to lay off the reefer buddy !! what you should be thinking about is how to make money trading and not wasting time posting on ET
except that the car (at .75 lightspeed) now weighs 100,000,000 pounds and the bullet (at . 75 lightspeed) now weighs 100,000,000,000 pounds, there's literally not enough gunpowder in the ;universe to propel the bullet past light speed.. (let alone TO light speed) (the faster you go, the heavier you weigh, and the more energy needed to propel you further..) perhaps like being a fund manager trying to get a good fill..
this is wrong. read "the elegant universe" by brian greene. the same idea is discussed in his book. his example uses a lightbulb on a moving train. "regardless of the state of motion of the source or the observer, the speed of light is always the same." let's say there is a special gun on a moving train. it can shoot 2 bullets at the same time in opposite directions at the speed of light. let's also say there are 2 targets on opposite sides. so one gun will be shooting in the direction of the train, the other in the opposite direction. now also say there are spectators on the train AND off the train, all watching this event. the gun is fired and the 2 bullets hit the targets. the people on the train will claim the bullets hit the targets AT THE SAME TIME, while the people off the train will claim the bullet moving opposite the direction of the train hit the target FIRST. BOTH observers are right, although the results are different.
One can say that the passage of time at the speed of light is zero only if one is an observer of that object. The reason for this is that both are relative to each other. If we, traveling at the speed of light, had no frame of reference to judge our speed, we could not judge our time in a relative manner. Therefore, time would pass normally for us. On the same note, light travels at exactly the same speed no matter the frame of reference. Say we were traveling at 100,000 miles per second, and light was traveling towards us at 186,00 miles per second. We would still measure the speed of light at 186,00 miles persecond, NOT 286,000 per scond. This is due to, I believe, time dilation. The relative frames of reference by which to judge a second, would be adjusted to the differences in speed.
I thought particles have been surpassed the speed of light already. They literally reach the destination before they start. I think Aphie posted a link in here before... something about graviton reaching the destination before.... Let me look.
Einstein, in all his brilliance used up quite a bit of brain power quantifying his ideal scenario regarding time travel relative to objects occupying space or 4 dimensions. What you and hundreds of others since have called into question was, essentially: 1) why didn't Einstein use his Relativity Theorum on this proposition regarding speed / time / accelleration and such? 2) your conclusion essentially adds Relativity to the Space-Time Continum theory. It remains a theory, because we have no way of testing or confirming it. It remains a theory because we don't have s sentient being that can be capsulized, accellerated, log observations and return to share those observations. Essentially, he looked at the equation from the static T+0 frame. The next scenario (which is what you described) would be the T+1 scenario, or the accellerated object. That object (T+1) would have its own sense of time relative to its own location and environment. We can illustrate this simply as a time traveller crossing multiple time zones. Take a flight from NY to LAX. While in flight (accellerated state) time and relativity to objects remains constant inside the capsule. When the travel is complete, one is in another time phase / zone and has to adjust his clocks / watches accordingly. Now, take that example, apply it to your initial objection to Einstein and re-complie your theorum, and let's take this discussion to the next level. Cheers