# Can we stop time?

#### rod

According to formulas for Special Relativity, a spaceship traveling at 2.8 x 10^10 cm/s or ~ 93% c velocity, 1 second on that clock is about 2.8 seconds on a clock on Earth. Newtonian physics for kinetic energy vs. kinetic energy according to Relativity changes dramatically too. Traveling at 2.9 x 10^10 cm/s or 96.73% c, Earth's clock ticks 3.94 seconds for each second on the starship traveling at 96.73% c velocity.

#### Atlan0101

According to formulas for Special Relativity, a spaceship traveling at 2.8 x 10^10 cm/s or ~ 93% c velocity, 1 second on that clock is about 2.8 seconds on a clock on Earth. Newtonian physics for kinetic energy vs. kinetic energy according to Relativity changes dramatically too. Traveling at 2.9 x 10^10 cm/s or 96.73% c, Earth's clock ticks 3.94 seconds for each second on the starship traveling at 96.73% c velocity.
"According to formulas"! Tell us of a traveler who has actually traveled at that velocity relative to an observer sitting on a rotating Earth, itself a spaceship orbiting a star, itself a spaceship moving through a galaxy that is itself a spaceship traveling through the universe. And please don't tell me about gravity if the traveler and his clock aboard ship existed under one Earth gravity, or maybe even greater gravity than 1g, the whole time traveling. The only time the observer's frame is a rest frame is when that is the selected [choice] of frames to be at rest.

Not only the above, Einstein and others chose to be observers who where in the ships with the travelers while at the same time sitting on the Earth in order to do the comparative math. They couldn't have done it otherwise. What they were taking to be the traveler himself / herself / itself (the clock) was the traveler they were observing, meaning the traveler in the light arriving to their place of observation. And that very time in the light would itself be stretched out.... meaning distance in space-time would be stretched.

Rod, have you ever taken into account, or anyone else you've read, watched, or heard, taken into account, the distances between observers and travelers? I'm betting, because of what you wrote above, that you don't even know that such a difference in relative velocities is itself, regarding curvature, regarding space-time elasticity, a difference in space-time distances.

Now you try doing math concerning the traveler in the light, versus the real time traveler on the distant spot. Try a triangulation between the observer, the real time traveler, and the stretched traveler and clock in the light that are the only pair under possible observation. Do you see any of this in the math? Of course not. You made that obvious above when you made no difference between the two travelers: when you made them one and the same traveler (the observed traveler in the light (the observed traveler in the hologram)); your only traveler, period!

#### rod

Yes, according to the formulas Atlan0101. I use the text, Relativity The Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation that anyone can understand by Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers Inc. 1961. I also use The Physics Problem Solver 1976 by Research and Education Association. The formulas show the contraction of the meter length, contraction of time, increase in mass, as well as kinetic energy difference between Newtonian physics and Relativity. I plugged the math equations into my trusty astronomy spreadsheet I maintain in MS Excel and out pops the answers based upon different inputs

#### Atlan0101

Yes, according to the formulas Atlan0101. I use the text, Relativity The Special and the General Theory, A Clear Explanation that anyone can understand by Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers Inc. 1961. I also use The Physics Problem Solver 1976 by Research and Education Association. The formulas show the contraction of the meter length, contraction of time, increase in mass, as well as kinetic energy difference between Newtonian physics and Relativity. I plugged the math equations into my trusty astronomy spreadsheet I maintain in MS Excel and out pops the answers based upon different inputs
Yes, and it is still all based on one, single, frame of reference.... projecting physics into another. It is not based on there being two divided, separated, boxed four-dimensionalities. Two separate universes. You crammed the distantly traveling spaceship, the distantly traveling traveler, and the traveler's distantly traveling clock (in other words the traveler's universe), inside the room with the observer on Earth. What a picture. The same picture the physicists deal with at the LHC where the one universe is squeezed, and squeezed, and squeezed, down into the other. And, obviously, you still can't see what you are doing. And, just as obviously, what you can't possibly observe!, Rod.

rod

#### rod

Atlan0101, the two reference sources I cited in post #4 show some real differences emerge between Newtonian physics and Relativity, especially when it comes to determining length, mass, time, kinetic energy. Are you suggesting that neither model of physics can be tested and supported today in your post #5?

#### Atlan0101

Atlan0101, the two reference sources I cited in post #4 show some real differences emerge between Newtonian physics and Relativity, especially when it comes to determining length, mass, time, kinetic energy. Are you suggesting that neither model of physics can be tested and supported today in your post #5?
Rod, you are still talking one reference frame rather than two. Just ONE! Can't you see that?! There is an unobservable universe out there and relativity breaks down between it and the observable. The observable is always behind the unobservable regarding time. Always! And the more distance expands the more time apparently slows (light taking longer to cross distance, including changes in velocities, in momentum) and falls into history versus the local observer, the more uncertainty accelerates and becomes the rule. You didn't even start to include gravity (gravities) as a factor. You're math stated there was nothing between observed and observer. Nothing whatsoever. Light instantaneously went from event to detection by the observer, according to the math picture. Instantaneously!, Rod. In the picture you drew with the math, there was no time at all for the unobservable real time traveler and clock in their boxed four-dimensionality to gain on the mathematical picture the observer draws from observation of the observable universe existing only within an observation. Sure it works for the LHC, a confined universe within the observer's universe. The same with the traveler's drive within his spaceship, but that isn't the opening space-time universe the traveler is traveling, the space-time the traveler will manage to contract with his own constant of acceleration through it.

And I mean SPACE-TIME, not just time. An elastic bubble of space-time environment was not what you were dealing in for the traveler. You were dealing in the observer's sense of space-time environment from the observer's sitting room. Your measurement of space-time environment for the traveler was exactly the same as the observer's measurement of space-time environment for himself on Earth. The difference then became the clocked difference and age difference, exactly what would be observed concerning the traveler in the light speed picture arrived to the observer sometime after the fact of an event, and the clocked time of the event, there and then! A history, Rod. The clocks would not show any parallel, any simultaneity, of universe.

Rod, Newtonian and Relativity physics both deal in local universe, the lone, single, reference frame common to both observer and traveler individually, but not common between them. Not in the non-locality become the fact between two divided, and dividing, local universes that no longer have either's relativity between them. That now have only Quantum Mechanics' principle of growing uncertainty between them. Each universe being unobservable to the other. Neither Newton nor Einstein dealt in the unobservable universe. Well, Einstein tried later in life and failed miserably because there was no such concept as 'Multiverse' in his time.

Rod, your math is correct, I suppose, but only for the clocks and events in the light. Correct only for the relative, the histories, not the un-observably simultaneously current and real that are not, and will not be, anything like quantumly entangled with each other to serve the math. Your map is not anything like the territories you think your mapping.

There are even physicists now who increasingly no longer trust that picture you cited and drew for divided four dimensionalities. Who are beginning to realize that they are divided universes, each with the same physics, but not between them. That you don't simply raise up their common local dimensionality to encompass that larger environmental dimensionality.

#### Helio

According to formulas for Special Relativity, a spaceship traveling at 2.8 x 10^10 cm/s or ~ 93% c velocity, 1 second on that clock is about 2.8 seconds on a clock on Earth. Newtonian physics for kinetic energy vs. kinetic energy according to Relativity changes dramatically too.
Yes. Multiple experiments confirm that Einstein's formula for time dilation is correct.

Traveling at 2.9 x 10^10 cm/s or 96.73% c, Earth's clock ticks 3.94 seconds for each second on the starship traveling at 96.73% c velocity.
Yes, but be careful who is claiming what. The Earthlings will see this as true, but the spaceship folks will argue that their (the spaceship's) clock is 3.94x slower. Relativity works both ways, which is why it is called "relative".

But once the ship slows down and accelerates to get back to Earth something happens (that I can't answer) that breaks the symmetry and it is the spaceshipers -- lazy term I suppose -- that will have had a much slower time rate than those on Earth.

rod

#### rod

Just remember Helio, the 1980s Disney movie Flight of the Navigator illustrated well the time dilation between Earth clock and the spaceship clock the young lad traveled to Phaelon in and back to Earth

#### Helio

Just remember Helio, the 1980s Disney movie Flight of the Navigator illustrated well the time dilation between Earth clock and the spaceship clock the young lad traveled to Phaelon in and back to Earth
I only remember enjoying the movie. I assume it fits with the "Twin Paradox" model.

The best example of it is the experiment with two atomic clocks. One was put into orbit then returned. It clearly showed it ran at a slower rate than the "twin" that had remained on the ground. There are more similar experiments as well.

But, Relativity argues what I claimed above, that those on the rocketship would be confident that Earth's clocks are ticking slower, even after compensating for the extra time between ticks due to the speed of light that takes longer and longer to reach the spaceship.

George

#### Atlan0101

Yes. Multiple experiments confirm that Einstein's formula for time dilation is correct.

Yes, but be careful who is claiming what. The Earthlings will see this as true, but the spaceship folks will argue that their (the spaceship's) clock is 3.94x slower. Relativity works both ways, which is why it is called "relative".

But once the ship slows down and accelerates to get back to Earth something happens (that I can't answer) that breaks the symmetry and it is the spaceshipers -- lazy term I suppose -- that will have had a much slower time rate than those on Earth.
Oncoming to Earth the traveler will appear to be in a 'foreshortening' condition. Will appear -- would be observed -- to have a much faster time rate than those on Earth. And whereas the traveler's doppelganger in the light going away will always reside somewhere between local real space-times (thus slower to age, thus his -- the doppelganger's -- clock slower to clock time), when he goes to return to the Earth, that potentially observable doppelganger of him -- the unobservable real time traveler -- will still be there between local real space-times, a foreshortening, speeding up -- accelerating in speeding up -- space-time picture to be observed by the Earth observer. A light-speed brought traveler speeding up in aging. A light-speed brought clock speeding up in clocking time. A movie being observed in fast forward. The real traveler and the doppelganger traveler not becoming, not merging to, one and the same until shaking hands with the observer in the fusion of four-dimensionalities to one and the same.

If there is more than one observer spread around, that is how many doppelgangers that will be spread around in differing space-times (differing in ages, differing in timings of differing clocks; differing in pieces of events (more forward in time, or more backward in time) observed). Differing time-verses to differing observers, both regarding potentially differing relative positions (here and there, closer to and farther away) and potentially differing relative momentums. Rod won't unlock from one, and one only, reference frame.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0101

I'm going to deliberately go off the rails a little bit here:

There is nothing like being chauvinistically Earth centric in the Universe. The whole Universe being tethered (by one hell of a massive tether as it lengthens out) to the Earth observer's chair nailed down still to the floor on Earth. The whole Universe runs slow, will run slow, slower than Earth clocks run, per the Earth observer. And you know what, he will prove it to you that Earth's surface clocks run faster than any in the Universe.... anywhere at all in the Universe. You know how he will prove it to you? By showing to you with a telescope that all the Universe, everywhere, is behind the Earth in time. And falls farther behind the Earth in time, therefore Earth's clocks in time (those other clocks in the Universe running so slow, and slower, and ever slower), the more distant it, the rest of the Universe, gets from the Earth observer.

#### Helio

Oncoming to Earth the traveler will appear to be in a 'foreshortening' condition. Will appear -- would be observed -- to have a much faster time rate than those on Earth.
Right, but those on the returning ship will observe the same thing; the Earth clocks will appear to our travelers to be running much faster than normal.

Catastrophe

#### Atlan0101

Right, but those on the returning ship will observe the same thing; the Earth clocks will appear to our travelers to be running much faster than normal.
No argument from me. I agree completely that it would appear exactly the same for the traveler observing in the direction of his destination (the Earth then having a relative doppelganger in the light (in the four-dimensional bubble elasticity of space-time)) -- for the traveler -- between unobservable reals.

#### Atlan0101

Post #12 was supposed to be a little craziness pointed at those who are clock crazy. Unlike most here I actually worked with precisionist clocks and required precisions concerning time in my field at times. But I woke up from sleep last night realizing that as crazy as it, post \$12, was supposed to appear it is actually the look and feel of closeness of the observable Universe in the light for one dimension, and for another dimension the actual tether that exists between the Earth observer and any existence at the speed of light itself (in and regarding the quantum weirdness of that same light)!
----------------------------
----------------------------
Time-verse: "A World Without Space". Regarding post #12 -- among others, an observable universe existing solely in the light, the light itself existing at the speed of light and nowhere else. The other end of the tether mentioned could appear a mass at the other end of a universe long (weighted) tether ending at the speed of light itself! Crazy yes, but that is the actual look. I went for an 'Alice in Wonderland' weird type play in post #12, only to realize now that in some respects, maybe all, it actually plays (regarding the observable universe in the light).

Last edited: