Relativistic time dilation....

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

longhairdfreak

Guest
I was thinking while on a bus ride. The closer objects approach the speed of light, the more time dilation occurs. Now I assume it is basing speed on a single point in in space (x,y,z), let's say from the exact center point of the universe. our galaxy is therefore traveling at a speed of 1.34 million miles per hour (600 km), so does that not mean the our concept of time is already dilated? Our concept of time is not as it would be if we were at a true state of rest (as with the universe itself), or that if we were situated on a planet in a faster or slower moving galaxy, is that not true? So therefore there should be a universal time and individualized galactic times...there is also some variations adding speed on the galactic arm as the galaxy spins, that in itself should add/subtract depending on the rotation speed. I used the following references for information:<br />http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PatriciaKong.shtml<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation<br />Anyone care to comment of my theories, and/or disprove or add to it?
 
S

Saiph

Guest
I don't have to much time right now...but you're on the right track.<br /><br />First, there is no "at rest with the universe" and there is no center to the universe.<br /><br />But, that doesn't mean other observers looking at us couldn't say we are experiencing time dilation. We are moving (as noted by the acceleration of the earth going about the sun in a circle)...and we are under the influence of gravity (another time dilation source). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
L

longhairdfreak

Guest
I meant a hypothetical center as a point to measure speed from, any point I suppose would due if it was at a dead stop according to everything else...which brings about another concept, can something be at rest compared to everything else...lol
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
From my understanding, no. As the fabric of space is expanding, no matter your location, we are moving in relation to everything around us. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
well...that only works if everybody agrees to use that point of reference.<br /><br />But you <i>can</i> describe the motion of everything else with respect to one single reference point. I like to choose me...I'm the "center" and everything moves relative to me.<br /><br />In fact...I didn't hit my head on the door frame the other day, the universe suddenly shifted violently and attacked my face. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
L

longhairdfreak

Guest
Many galaxies are moving at different rates of speed. What I am suggesting is that all galaxies, and planets for that matter, exist at different rates of time depending on the speeds they're traveling at...the amounts may be slight, but they would be accumulative...I understand from a human standpoint, we would always put ourselves at the center of the universe, but time, as a measurement should be a universal constant, therefore the measurements we use would be, in essence, inaccurate universally, no?
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<font color="orange">In fact...I didn't hit my head on the door frame the other day, the universe suddenly shifted violently and attacked my face.</font><br /><br />excellent... you made me tear on that one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
I hate to use the cliche, but it's all 'relative' to the observer. I'm not sure it is possible to have a universally recognized "clock". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
well...time should be a constant, it would make life easier. It isn't though, and so there are many circumstances where you do have to take into account that the time we observe, and the time "experienced" near whatever we're looking at, are different. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
L

longhairdfreak

Guest
So let's say a galaxy is travelling much faster of slower than we are, even though the differences of time would be slim, over billions of years it would accumulate...so from an outside perspective some galaxies have existed longer than we have even though the big bang originated at one time....?
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Actually, as we look at ourselves as the reference point, the other galaxy will undergoe time dilation..time will slow for them.<br /><br />Those galaxies will appear much younger than ours.<br /><br />Our galaxy is essentially the "oldest galaxy" because of this effect. Granted, if you go to any other galaxy, and make the observations, you could say the same thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Hence the Hubble 'centric' point of view... Same situation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
T

thespeculator

Guest
This made me wonder. Is it really relative to just speed? Or is it relative to your speed towards or away from the main source of light (closest star to you)? It seems logical to me that if you are going really fast towards the main source of light that you would experience time contraction and if you were going away from it you would experience time dialation. Does this sound plausible to anyone else?
 
S

siarad

Guest
You gain time no matter which way you look or don't even move away.<br />GPRS satellites gain 38 micro-seconds a day getting nowhere <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<font color="orange">It seems logical to me that if you are going really fast towards the main source of light that you would experience time contraction</font><br /><br />I'm not so sure there is such a thing as time 'contraction'. There is a 'length' contraction based on a relative point of view. Time dilation, however, doesn't matter on your direction. It is another 'perspective' concept. The traveler will experience time normally... The observer's end result will be 'experiencing' the dilation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS