0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years.

If you hop in your space ship and accelerate to, lets say 99.99999 percent of the speed of light, YOU would arrive at Vulcan in a very short time period of maybe a month or something like that according to YOUR watch. However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years.

Quote from: MurBob on 01/02/2016 03:18:15If you hop in your space ship and accelerate to, lets say 99.99999 percent of the speed of light, YOU would arrive at Vulcan in a very short time period of maybe a month or something like that according to YOUR watch. However, if someone here on earth was watching your space ship zip through space with a telescope, they'd have to sit there and watch you for a bit over 1000 years. This is what my comment refers to. The claim that someone on "Earth" would watch you through a telescope for only a bit over 1000 years.Not how long the trip seems to you although that's relevant. But making the statement that Earth watching you through a telescope take a bit over 1000 years means that when "Earth" watches you arrive, it is actually light that has taken 1000 years to get to Earth from Volcan. So according to the "Earth" telescope watcher you arrived 1000 years before they saw you arrive.All the rest is meaningless until this is adequately explained.If that statement is true then you have travelled 1000 light years in your quoted 50 years by both you and the telescope on Earth. It just took Earth a further 1000 years to confirm the fact, because that is how long it takes light to get to Earth from Volcan. Where is the time dilation?

Hi,Although, I used to be a student of science but there is one thing that still haunts me i.e. Time travel. I understand that the time is just a unit that as human we introduced which is "he duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". I completely accept that this phenomenon can be dependent on a number of environmental variables and other fields which when changed would impact the period and gravity is one of those. From above I understand that if a person on earth using an atomic clock matched to the other atomic clock with another person in space then eventually the atomic clock in space will slow down in relation to the one on earth hence 81 years on earth could be 80 years in space. Having said that I couldn't understand that is it possible that, if the person on earth takes 81 years to complete something then at the same speed the person in space will complete the same in 80 years? or will it be 81 years in space?I reckon it should be 80 years in space considering time is relative and 80years in space will be equal to 81 years on earth. Similarly the span that the person has lived will be exactly the same on both sides with the only difference that their measuring scales are acting different because of gravity or may be other reasons. If my assumption is true than I really fail to visualize the concept of time dilation.Please help me in understanding this and visualize the time dilation.

Ship leaves earth at the speed of light and goes to a planet 1000 light years away... Observer watches it travel through space. 500 years later, the ship is at the half way mark, but the observer on earth wouldn't see it at the half way mark until 1000 years has past because, as you infer, it takes another 500 years for the image of the ship to come back to earth. So, 1000 years passes and the earth observer sees the ship at the 1/2 way point.. The ship however, has already reached its destination.

You claim the ship is traveling at the speed of light which is not possible and doesn't fit into the math. So I will assume you meant at almost the speed of light.

You now claim that the Earth reference frame watches the ship uninterrupted for the whole journey of 1000 light years and according to your description the Earth reference frame now watches the ship travel for 2000 years to complete a journey of 1000 light years.Now my math maybe a bit rusty but that says to me that the Earth frame only ever observes the ship traveling at half light speed. Remember that the Lorenz transformation requires the Earth frame to witness the ship traveling at almost light speed. It has no place for allowing for the light to separately travel back within the relativity equations that I can find.The solving of the lorenz transformation clearly gives an answer of a little over 1000 years observation time for Earth reference frame. Not travel time, "observation time".The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.What is going on here?

The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.What is going on here?

QuoteYou claim the ship is traveling at the speed of light which is not possible and doesn't fit into the math. So I will assume you meant at almost the speed of light. Thank you. Since I am not capable of running the complex mathematics involved, I'd prefer to keep things at a comprehension level rather than a technical level when possible. I do realize sometimes this is not practical.QuoteYou now claim that the Earth reference frame watches the ship uninterrupted for the whole journey of 1000 light years and according to your description the Earth reference frame now watches the ship travel for 2000 years to complete a journey of 1000 light years.Now my math maybe a bit rusty but that says to me that the Earth frame only ever observes the ship traveling at half light speed. Remember that the Lorenz transformation requires the Earth frame to witness the ship traveling at almost light speed. It has no place for allowing for the light to separately travel back within the relativity equations that I can find.The solving of the lorenz transformation clearly gives an answer of a little over 1000 years observation time for Earth reference frame. Not travel time, "observation time".The Earth frame can not both observe the ship traveling at almost the speed of light and take 2000 years to observe the ship arriving.What is going on here?You're going to give me a headache thinking of this stuff!!! So we know that it takes the ship 1000 years to get to its destination (=Fact).. And since its impossible to see the ship at its destination until it arrives (=Fact), it will take an additional 1000 years for the image of the ship to return to the observer on Earth. That's 2000 years. So I would say yes, as the ship travels to its destination, it would appear to an observer to slow down. Now, if the ship immediately left its destination for the return trip home, I think the reverse would be true as I understand it. The return trip would look very very fast to an observer on Earth. As if the ship was traveling at much faster than light speeds. The ship took 1000 years to get there, and 1000 years to get back. I think the Earth observer would see the ship take 2000 years to get there, and come back almost instantly (very very very fast). That is, based on my limited understanding of the concepts involved.

This doe's not sound correct,t=1000yearsso let us add a distance and speed.s=1035 mphd= 24902000 mileFrom Earth to Volcan 1000 yearsFrom Volcan to Earth 1000 yearsWhere are you getting 2000 years from?

Edit: sorry MurBob our post crossed. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

Quote from: Thebox on 01/02/2016 23:17:11This doe's not sound correct,t=1000yearsso let us add a distance and speed.s=1035 mphd= 24902000 mileFrom Earth to Volcan 1000 yearsFrom Volcan to Earth 1000 yearsWhere are you getting 2000 years from?I'm sorry, I don't understand your numbers. Were did you get 1035 mph? or 24.9 million miles?

1035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles, and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,so if I did my calculation correct, your distance is 24.9 million miles relative to 1035 mph. But I edited since to 9089230000 mile which I still have to double check.365*24902*1000=9089230000 mileadded - yes the new valuev=1035 MPH OR 0.28821759259 MILE /S 0R APPROX 463M/S

I'm sorry, I don't understand your numbers. Were did you get 1035 mph? or 24.9 million miles?

1035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles, and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,

Quote from: Thebox on 01/02/2016 23:36:391035 mph is the speed of the Earth's rotation at the equator, the circumference of the equator is 24,902 miles, and it takes approx 24 hrs for one rotation, 365 days is a year,so if I did my calculation correct, your distance is 24.9 million miles relative to 1035 mph. But I edited since to 9089230000 mile which I still have to double check.365*24902*1000=9089230000 mileadded - yes the new valuev=1035 MPH OR 0.28821759259 MILE /S 0R APPROX 463M/SSir, I don't think you're in the right forum thread. What does any of this have to do with traveling at near light speed to another planet?

You're going to give me a headache thinking of this stuff!!!

You are using the word observe in 2 different contexts.Relativity does not allow for the light travelling back from the destination because it is only considering travel time.

. Nowhere in any of that does it actually state that the speed of light can't be exceeded.

I'm going to open my mouth and probably stick my foot in it.. but here goes anyhow. There isn't enough energy in the universe to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Even a tiny itsy-bitsy particle like an electron would require more energy than what is available in the universe. I'm no mathematician, but isn't this what E=MC2 means?

The only thing that can be stated with any certainty is that every reference frame in the entire universe is unique. No two can ever agree to the N th degree about everything. And that is because we use Electromagnetic Radiation as a means of information transfer. that necessarily means that everything is gaged against the backdrop of the speed of light.

Quote from: Colin2B on 01/02/2016 23:16:35. Nowhere in any of that does it actually state that the speed of light can't be exceeded.

Here are two things that are very easy to understand and can not be argued with.1) It takes the ship 1000 (and a bit) years to get there.. 2) It takes the photons that make up the image of the ship at its destination, 1000 years to get back to Earth. That's 2000 years... no way around that.

I should have taken up music.. so much easier...

Something like this?

I think yu are applying time dilation to the traveller and assuming he travels the full distance in our frame and so appears to travel FTL. But that is not what happens from his perspective.

But that is not what happens from his perspective.He appears stationary, with our frame rushing past at .9xx of c. Just as we see his ship to be length contracted he sees the distance to Volcan to be contracted. So although Volcan moves towards him he completes a shorter journey in a shorter time, he doesn't exceed the speed of light.

Try contemplating the Earth observer sees on the return trip..

You called up Vulcan on the intergalactic subspace instant communication system and say your pizza is leaving here now.Vulcan turns their telescope on Earth to watch the departure. They would see nothing for 1000 years. Then, at 1000 years, they would see you depart and it would appear to them as though your ship was traveling much much faster than light. So if your journey was gong to take 1003 years, to Vulcan, it would only look like the trip took just 3 years.

Wrong he never can consider himself as stationary.

He is and measures and understands himself to be in an accelerated frame. He sees Volcan rushing towards him ever faster because he is accelerating towards it. Not because length is contracting.

Remember that no matter how it's presented, the only one that can track progress in real time is the traveler.Both the other reference frames have a distorted view of events.

The one that I had a problem with was understanding the return trip.. but I got that figured out too finally.

Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 12:06:32Wrong he never can consider himself as stationary. But that is the whole point of relativity, that relative to him the earth frame is moving.He is in his own rest frame and hence experiences his own proper time.

However, special relativity states that he sees length contraction of the distance to Volcan. If length contraction is a visual illusion then so is time dilation, they have the same source.

The traveller's view of earth's frame is also distorted.

I can see where you are coming from, but this is not a standard interpretation of SR.As the traveller approaches light speed the length contraction means the distance he has to travel approaches 0, hence the speed of light limit.

Have a read through this and see what you think and how your theory differs from the usual interpretation. ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINAfter you've read it you might still want to develop your theory in New Theories as it is an interesting interpretation.

Quote from: MurBob on 02/02/2016 06:20:58The one that I had a problem with was understanding the return trip.. but I got that figured out too finally. Think about doppler shift, retreating and approaching give different results. As you say, you figured it out a different way.

Ohh Colin. You are getting your relativities mixed up.You are thinking in terms of SR and applying it to an accelerated frame.SR does not apply to an accelerated frame.