Could it be the theories are wrong..

[thenumbersix]

Could it be the theories are wrong..

About time being affected by speed ?

Is there not also sufficient evidence that time is slower the deeper you are in a gravity well.

Simply put, if we fly out far enough in space to escape the curvature of space caused by the solar system time may slow, the flatter space is then the slower time will be, are there any observations to show this to be false.

Some things that seem to back me up, light will always travel at the speed of light relative to yourself no matter the spped you travel at, doesn't this effectively make it impossible to slow time using speed as there is no point of reference, what would decide the mysterious point of reference anyway ?

All of the theories on gravity, time and space are based on observations of our fairly immediate environment and the calculations have been created to fit those observations, with a couple of fudges here and there. It doesn't actually mean that the accepted explanations are right, it's just they seem the most 'natural'.

Basically I'm putting forward the idea that the curvature of space causes time dilation and not speed, prove me wrong.


---------------------------------------------------

The effect may be inducing the cause, not vice-versa.

 

[Harte]

Re: Could it be the theories are wrong..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

About time being affected by speed ?

Is there not also sufficient evidence that time is slower the deeper you are in a gravity well.

Simply put, if we fly out far enough in space to escape the curvature of space caused by the solar system time may slow, the flatter space is then the slower time will be, are there any observations to show this to be false.

Some things that seem to back me up, light will always travel at the speed of light relative to yourself no matter the spped you travel at, doesn't this effectively make it impossible to slow time using speed as there is no point of reference, what would decide the mysterious point of reference anyway ?

All of the theories on gravity, time and space are based on observations of our fairly immediate environment and the calculations have been created to fit those observations, with a couple of fudges here and there. It doesn't actually mean that the accepted explanations are right, it's just they seem the most 'natural'.

Basically I'm putting forward the idea that the curvature of space causes time dilation and not speed, prove me wrong.


[/b]

There is no proving you wrong except in that you don't go far enough. Both speed and gravity cause time dilation.
Time dilation caused by high speeds has been documented under laboratory conditions. Most people use the two atomic clock example but there are others. For example certain unstable particles can only exist for a split second before breaking down into their constituent particles. Such particles can be observed having longer lives in proportion to the speed at which they are moving as the leave the particle accelerator. The extra time granted to the particle coincides exactly with the predicted relativistic effect of time dilation due to the high speed of the particle.

Space has to be mightily curved to cause observable time dilation, in the same way that speed has to be mighty high. Our position in the earth's gravity well has more effect on our time than the gravity well of the sun. That is because we are deeper into the earth's well (obviously, if we weren't we'd be sucked off the earth by the sun.)
Anyway, were we to escape from these various gravity wells, time would speed up for us, not slow down.

Several years ago I read an interesting refutation to the idea of possible locality being involved in the operation of physical laws. I defy anyone to state exactly what is meant by local. Dont forget, the sun is moving through the galaxy, the galaxy is moving with respect to the local group and the local group is moving with respect to nearby galactic clusters. There is no way to know how fast we are going because we have no spot that is at rest to compare to. So how can we say that we haven't already covered a large percentage of the available space? And the laws ain't changed here. QED

 

[StarLord]

Re: Could it be the theories are wrong..

I think that Dad came up with some persons Math/ formulae that 'corrected' for all the movement that our Sun was doing, the earth was doing, our galaxy was doing to insure that if you time traveled into the past, you would be in the right spot your needed.

In a perfect world that would work, however I don't see that happening due to the facts that the Earth rotation is not necessarily perfect, it wobbles, our orbit around the Sun is an elliptic orbit, and If I am not mistaken the Sun's orbit withing the galaxy may not be 'perfect' as in exactly the same path ways every 12 or 15 million years. Lastly, as everything is expanding how could you possibly predict the exact place with all the above variables, or is there a specific mathematic symbol that constitutes aladin's magic lamp or 'works every time no matter what'.

 

[thenumbersix]

Re: Could it be the theories are wrong..

Thanks Harte, that clarifies a few things for me.

I guess until we get a particle accelerator into orbit or onto the moon we won't really know.

It leaves me wondering if there is a close relation of the effects on time by speed compared to the eefects by gravity. For example, If two spaceships start at the same time and are travelling from one side of a large gravity well to the other. One ship goes round at a higher speed, the other goes straight across, going deeper into the gravity well. Speeds are calculated so they meet at exactly the same time on the other side.

Once they meet would the relative time taken for each ship to complete the journey be equal, though one of the ships' experience was changed by speed and the other gravity ?

I think I need a bit of a read up on special relativity..

 

[Arez]

Re: Could it be the theories are wrong..

i think both have an effect on time as a black hole loks like it slows down tie but its because the light is going slower. now at school i always got this said to me "what is the fastest thing ever" and i would always sat a tacyion or sumthing else.....(not light) but they would alway say a black hole....because it can trap light. but as many pl have said a black hole spins? so that must mean that to capture light it must travel faster than it. so thats what i am guessing what happens...it spins faster than the speed of light.

now as we know well i do lol. that light isnt the fastest thing around as there are subatomic particles that can arrive to where they are tryi to get to before they set of to get there.

now 2 examples are 1 is neutrino's now they are believed to be able to travel thru the sun and not slow down. and secondly is the tachyon. it says a hypothetical particle that travels fast tha light but it does do

 

[thenumbersix]

Re: Could it be the theories are wrong..

Always question what people telly ou. Have recently read that there is a limit on the speed that massive stars rotate at after they collapse and they were speculating that the same may apply to black holes. Even so it still wouldn't make it fast in the traditional sense simply cos it can capture light.

Sodium atoms are currently being used to slow light to as little as 38mph : Bose-Einstein condensate It doesn't make them fast.

A thought, these particles appear to travel faster than light as they cause effects over a perceived distances. Are they actually travelling faster than light to traverse these distances or is it us making the mistake that there is actually a physical distance for them between the two points in question ?

 

[Harte]

Re: Could it be the theories are wrong..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>

A thought, these particles appear to travel faster than light as they cause effects over a perceived distances. Are they actually travelling faster than light to traverse these distances or is it us making the mistake that there is actually a physical distance for them between the two points in question ?[/b]

TNS,

There is no known particle that travels faster than light. There is a prediction of a particle called a tachyon that travels faster than light. This hypothetical particle, never detected, should exhibit mirror image properties with respect to a normal particle regarding lightspeed. That is, the tachyon cannot exist as speeds slower than lightspeed. As the tachyon slows to lightspeed, it experiences increased mass, time dilation and constriction of length. Once it reaches lightspeed, (for the tachyon) time stops, it's mass reaches infinity and it's length measured along the direction of motion reaches zero.

You may be thinking of a recent quantum experiment that recieved a lot of press about scientists achieving something similar to the Star Trek transporter device. The experiment resulted in the instantaneous transportation of information, in this case it was a particular property of a subatomic particle. This effect was predicted long ago and involves the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It did not involve in any way faster than light travel of a real object of any kind.