0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
From school and reading I've always understood that time slows as you approach the speed of light and an objects mass becomes infinite.
Ouch that hurt. I know relatavistic mass is not considered part of special relativity. Does not the relativistic mass increase with the kinetic energy of a mass at rest increase at higher speeds? "I was wondering why time slows it must be affected by something. I'm just guessing here but does time or change travel at the speed of light? If it does, does time have energy and can it be measured?"In my ignorance let me rephrase the question, why does time appear to slow for the people on the train from the observers point of view why does time appear to slow in a gravitational field. When an astronaut comes back is he not seconds younger, do not satellites have to be set at a different time rate than the time rate at sea level? what is the energy required to produce these results, can it be measured?
From school and reading I've always understood that time slows as you approach the speed of light and an objects mass becomes infinite. I was wondering why time slows it must be affected by something. I'm just guessing here but does time or change travel at the speed of light? If it does, does time have energy and can it be measured?
Time is a dimension like space, it has no energy.
there was a reason why i chose layman as a user name, and i need some clarification. going back to the twins, why would one twin say the journey he took lasted only this long and the other twin say no it lasted longer? or am i so incredibly thick that i've missed the answer above.not related to this at all, my shift key isn't working.
...going back to the twins, why would one twin say the journey he took lasted only this long and the other twin say no it lasted longer?
One way might be to define time's 'origin' to be at all points in SpaceTime simultaneously. That is, there is no preferred 'point/frame' inside SpaceTime for defining an objective time. All points are equal in that they all have the exact same amount of 'time'. Then the arrow we observe to move will be a result of something else. Don't ask me what I mean though :)I don't really know why I started to think that way.==Oh yes I know.That elusive ah, Einstein )
Yeah that one is classical JP, Baez takes it up too. If I move a mass close to the speed of light, why wouldn't it form a black hole? from the link The answer is that a black hole does not form. The idea that "if enough mass is squeezed into a sufficiently small space it will form a black hole" is rather vague. Crudely speaking, we might say that if an amount of mass, M, is contained within a sphere of radius 2GM/c2 (the Schwarzschild radius), then it must be a black hole. But this is based on a particular static solution to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, and ignores momentum and angular momentum as well as the dynamics of spacetime itself. In general relativity, gravity does not only couple to mass as it does in the newtonian theory of gravity. Gravity also couples to momentum and momentum flow; the gravitational field is even coupled to itself. It is actually quite difficult to determine the correct conditions for a black hole to form. Hawking and Penrose proved a number of useful singularity theorems about the formation of black holes. But even these theorems do assume certain conditions which we cannot be sure are true "out there".
Like the aether?I know people have views about Einstein, but that he would collapse an Empire?That's a mighty big undertaking, especially as he's dead?