The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. Does time dilation alter the rate at which a body accelerates to light-speed?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Does time dilation alter the rate at which a body accelerates to light-speed?

  • 27 Replies
  • 12557 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ukmicky (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • *****
  • 3046
  • Activity:
    13.5%
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Does time dilation alter the rate at which a body accelerates to light-speed?
« on: 02/06/2005 22:45:43 »
When mass is accelerated time dilation occurs in regards to the object that’s accelerating
Causing time to slow down for the object that’s accelerating compared to everything else in the universe [8D].

So if i wanted to work out how much time it would take me and my rocket to accelerate to a specific speed nearing the speed of light in a vacuum, would the effect of time dilation effect the answer regarding how long it would take?
And if so does that mean the more i accelerated and the faster i went the greater time dilation would occur so the longer it would take me causing a never ending fight between acceleration and time.

I’m slowly coming to terms with time dilation but not quite there yet [:)]
« Last Edit: 13/04/2012 20:44:51 by chris »
Logged
 



Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #1 on: 03/06/2005 13:33:01 »
To the object being accelerated time passes at the same speed as when that object was at rest. It is an observer outside of the object's frame of reference who notices the dilation. Therefore if you are on a spaceship that accelerates to near C, then returns to your point of origin 5 years later by your reckoning, to someone who stayed at the point of origin it would have been much longer than 5 years. So, in your calculation you need take no notice of time dilation.
If, however, you wanted to do the calculation from the perspective of someone remaining at the point of departure, then yes you would have to take it into account.
Logged
 

Offline ukmicky (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • *****
  • 3046
  • Activity:
    13.5%
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: time dilation
« Reply #2 on: 04/06/2005 01:44:08 »
Right I enter a competition to be the first man to travel at 250.000 mph over a prescribed distance.
Now as Arizona isn’t big enough for my attempt I have no alternative but to do it in a rocket ship up in space
I’ve got to do a round trip of 4 million miles with no stopping or slowing and as I’m traveling at 250.000 mph (easy one to calculate) we on earth have worked out that my ship should cross the Finish line within 16 hours and in doing so I will win the cup for being the fastest man.
So I say goodbye to the scantily clad women and the worlds press assembled for my departure, Jump into my rocket where I accelerate to the above speed and cross the start line as I begin my journey
 
Now for me and my rocket after 16 hours of traveling I cross the finish line and end my journey.
 Now for me its taken 16 hours as first worked out. But for the people I left back on earth due to time dilation its taken say 20 hours meaning I’ve missed my welcome home party and in their perspective have failed in my attempt because I didn’t return within 16 hours meaning my ship must have been  traveling less than 250,000 mph .

Now apart from the man who waited,  Telling me that life's a bitch
Would that be a good description of time dilation?
Logged
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #3 on: 04/06/2005 05:47:34 »
Not quite. The observers will see you go around the course of 4,000,000 miles at 250,000 mph and so take 16 hours to complete. You will see the course length shortened by the Lorentz length contraction, and measure less than 4,000,000 miles to travel, so you will measure less than 16 hours to complete the course. Incidently, the observers will see your spaceship foreshortened by the Lorentz length contraction.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2005 05:49:05 by gsmollin »
Logged
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."
 

Offline ukmicky (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • *****
  • 3046
  • Activity:
    13.5%
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: time dilation
« Reply #4 on: 04/06/2005 14:51:57 »
maybe one day i'll get there. back to my studies.
this subject can be soooooooooooo confusing
« Last Edit: 04/06/2005 15:13:05 by ukmicky »
Logged
 



Offline ukmicky (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • *****
  • 3046
  • Activity:
    13.5%
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: time dilation
« Reply #5 on: 05/06/2005 01:07:32 »
gs and doc thankyou for your imput but im confused
the doc above says
It is an observer outside of the object's frame of reference who notices the dilation.
but gs you say
The observers will see you go around the course of 4,000,000 miles at 250,000 mph and so take 16 hours to complete. so  going buy that statememt the observers are not seeing any dilation.
i know its down to my ignorance and im not understanding something quite right
so arrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhh
how about an easy explanation of how it all works which includes Lorentz length contraction
Logged
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #6 on: 05/06/2005 14:22:06 »
Hey - what do I know? I'm a psychologist!
Both GS & I are correct. Maybe I wasn't very clear with what I said.
Say you sychronise watches with someone who will remain at home & you set off on your journey. To you it will have taken 16 hours for you to return & it will also be 16 hours for the person who remained at home. But when you compare watches, yours will be behind the person who was stationary.
Logged
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 749
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #7 on: 05/06/2005 16:07:45 »
This problem is easiest to explain just the way I explained it. The course is measured by observers at rest to the course. It is 4 million miles long. You are moving at 1/4 million mph as measured by the observers at rest, so you take 16 hours to complete the course. What could be simpler?

Now you, inside the spaceship, are moving during the race, so your time is dilated. You take less time to complete the course than the observers at rest will observe. When you exit the spaceship, your watch is behind the obervers'.

During the race, you see the length of the course shortened by the Lorentz length contraction. This has to coincide with the time dilation, because you are going to finish sooner than the observers at rest measure. In fact, the time dilation formula in SR is derived from the Lorentz length contraction formula, so they are different ways of saying the same thing.
Logged
"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #8 on: 05/06/2005 17:26:08 »
Mind you, at only 250,000mph there won't be much dilation
Logged
 



Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #9 on: 05/06/2005 20:29:57 »
Clocks also vary with the height you hang them, strangely.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #10 on: 05/06/2005 21:28:31 »
quote:
Clocks also vary with the height you hang them, strangely.

Of course they do. Gravity affect time
Logged
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #11 on: 05/06/2005 21:54:04 »
Also has to do with the energy you 'store' in the clock by elevating it, I read.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #12 on: 05/06/2005 22:05:26 »
Did you also know that a kettle of hot water weighs less than a kettle with the same amount of cold water?
Logged
 



Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 475
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #13 on: 06/06/2005 09:56:57 »
Water expands when it's hot, so that would figure.

The clock story is different, though, and has to do with speed ofcourse. One reason is that if you hang a clock on top of the Empire State building, it will run slower than one on the ground, since it describes a bigger circle caused by the earth's rotation.

You can only measure such slight effects with the most accurate clocks now available, made of a sapphire ring that is made to 'ring' with an incredible pure 'note', running accurately to better than one part in 100 trillionths of a second, albeit only for 300 seconds, then it goes unstable. Made by an Australian, I believe, coincidentally called Blair, so good luck in finding stuff on him in google... [:)]

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)
Logged
Errare humanum esd.-- Biggus D.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #14 on: 06/06/2005 13:22:39 »
Sorry, I meant a kettle of how water weighs MORE.
The kettle thing is to balance E=MC2. Hot water has more energy so M must increase to keep the equation balanced
Logged
 

Offline merarischroeder

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #15 on: 10/04/2012 01:53:29 »
Quote
The kettle thing is to balance E=MC2. Hot water has more energy so M must increase to keep the equation balanced

I have serious objections to such assertions! (But someone may prove me wrong)

When you heat the water, you are not adding mass! You are adding energy. If you are suggesting that when you add heat energy, you keep the heat energy but also gain mass, then you have discovered perpetual energy.

You can't assign E in an equation and convert to m, but still have 100% of E! And how does this conversion take place? What's the process?

The equation - E=mc2, doesn't mean that energy has mass, but rather energy can potentially be "converted" into mass. There's a fundamental difference!
Logged
 

Offline merarischroeder

  • First timers
  • *
  • 2
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #16 on: 10/04/2012 02:40:05 »
Quote
But someone may prove me wrong

I think I can (being myself), having just finished reading the wikipedia article on E=mc2.

It appears that the formula does imply concurrent equivalence, that is, you may measure energy as energy or mass, because they are physically the same thing. One does not convert from mass to energy, they are concurrently the same.

Another example, is that a tennis ball travelling at the speed of light would be measured in the relative frame of reference as having infinite mass. Therefore it can be measured as having infinite mass as well as travelling at the speed of light (kinetic energy).

So there you go, if there's another ignorant person such as me out there that gets confused, hopefully they find this and don't have to waste as much time as I did to come to the answer.
Logged
 



Offline MikeS

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1043
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #17 on: 10/04/2012 08:18:39 »
It might just be worth pointing out that if you accelerated up to the speed of light time for you would ultimately stop.  You would not be aware of it as time would seem to be passing as normal in your own local reference frame right up to the point where it stopped.  At which point you wouldn't be aware of anything, as you wouldn't be aware of anything, as you...
« Last Edit: 10/04/2012 08:36:50 by MikeS »
Logged
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 2782
  • Activity:
    0%
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #18 on: 10/04/2012 12:11:33 »
Ok - a hot kettle will have slightly more mass (as long as no steam has escaped) 

And Mike - please not on the main board.  There is no real consistent or reliable model for massive objects travelling at light speed (psst cos they don't!)
Logged
There’s no sense in being precise when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n
 

Offline MikeS

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1043
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Re: time dilation
« Reply #19 on: 10/04/2012 15:54:28 »
imatfaal

We all know they don't.  I only mentioned it because some people are under the mistaken impression that time dilation approaching c is not a real effect.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

If we put a mirror millions of light years away and reflected earth, could we see what earth looked like millions of years ago?

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 9
Views: 11476
Last post 20/05/2018 00:53:37
by raf21
Must ∞ monkeys on ∞ typewriters really write everything given ∞ time?

Started by chiralSPOBoard General Science

Replies: 28
Views: 24667
Last post 28/03/2020 11:42:26
by yor_on
We Know The Extent Of The Sun, What Is The Extent Of Space Time?

Started by TitanscapeBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 11117
Last post 27/04/2008 23:10:10
by turnipsock
What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

Started by scheradoBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 15
Views: 9294
Last post 09/02/2018 10:28:21
by Colin2B
What is "light" pressure?

Started by sorincosofretBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 34
Views: 27601
Last post 13/02/2018 19:46:54
by Bill S
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.291 seconds with 82 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.