t i m e

[R1]

that's more like the right distance from a hole, where time dilation is strong enough to matter after after a few billion years , but without all the intense tides.<br />Another question is can time actually stop altogether further close to the surface of the hole? if so then wouldn't everything cease to fall to the hole itself? in such spot, wouldn't even photons stop dead on their tracks?(because of the speed of time alone) <br /><br />I guess if the milky way center is rather small there must be some other more supermassive holes somewhere. <br /><br />I suspect that there are such zones as black-time zones or no-time zones, whatever they may be called.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

To an outside observer, yes, time would appear to stop. You would, as you fell inwards towards the event horizon, move slower and slower, and finally cease moving.<br /><br />To you, on the other hand, time wouldn't slow down at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[R1]

I disagree, though, or maybe I can't understand it yet.<br />You see, time itself, is slow over there.<br />the atomic clocks and everything, the very own local time which the observer falling uses to measure the speed of falling is slow as a snail if it moves at all. <br /><br />In other words the even the observer there would realize the atomic clock stopped ticking, wouldnt he? after all he is the one in the zone where time is affected by gravity, not us over here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">To an outside observer, yes, time would appear to stop. You would, as you fell inwards towards the event horizon, move slower and slower, and finally cease moving.</font><br /><br />Wouldn't you have to travel at c in order to be frozen in time?

 

[R1]

[Wouldn't you have to travel at c in order to be frozen in time?]<br /><br />that's one way of doing it, but No, I'm talking about frozen time due to the proximity of a large hole .<br /><br />(forget the velocity, the atom in the atomic clock itself <br />probably slowed to a complete stop due to gravity alone)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Well, it's all frame of reference.<br /><br />Remember, in classic time-dilation experiments, the effects are seen by the outside observer, not the one participating directly (eg, travelling at a substantial percentage of C).<br /><br />So, in this sense, to you, no, you'd fall into the event horizon in what to you seems real-time. It's the outside observer who would see the slowing down effect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[R1]

I need help getting these time differences understood.<br /> When the astronauts went to space, their atomic clock was<br />found to be ahead of the twin atomic clock left here on the ground. This is not relative to the best of my knowledge. It has nothing to do with apparent dilation due to orbital speed, or speeds, but to the effect of<br />gravity, and when they returned to the ground, their clocks were still ahead in the future. Every time I mention this gravity issue, it seems like a lot of people<br />only think of the dilation (apparent time dilation)due to speed at c. But isn't the<br />clock affected (time distortion) by a gravity field alone? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

Yes, and no. If you travel really fast (a significant fraction of c), time slows down for you relative to an observer at rest. The same observer will also say that your mass has significantly increased. But we know that clocks run slower in the presence of a significant gravitational field.<p>So, from the perspective of the observer, did the clock run slow because of your high velocity, or because of your high mass?<p>The point is that time dilation due to frame dragging, and time dilation due to velocity are the same thing!</p></p>

 

[ordinary_guy]

Here's a thought:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b><i>What if the flow of time has no divisible units?</i></b><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />It crimps calculus at a certain level but it solves Zeno's paradox in a snap.<br /><br />Peter Lynds had a similar theory entitled "Time and Classical Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity," published in the August 2003 <i>Foundations of Physics Letters</i> and even SDC did a blurb on it. Do a search on it, it's really kind of fun to see physicists coming to blows over it.<br /><br />It's a bit difficult to wrap your noggin around but to sum it up: science assumes that motion can be considered in frozen moments (instants). Lynds' disagrees, saying: "There isn't a precise instant underlying an object's motion. And as its position is constantly changing over time – and as such, never determined – it also doesn't have a determined position at any time." To my untrained ear, this evokes similarities to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.<br /><br />Seeing that there can be no "instants," no physical quantity, Lynds goes on to say there is no "flow" of time, no direction or angle, rather that there is only "now." What if he's <i>half</i> right? What if there are no instants but rather a relative and indivisible flow of "now"? Consider that at the scale of quantum foam, the description of motion of a planck mass over units of Planck time would put the mass in discrete spots along its trajectory. That is, with divisible time, the mass in motion would have to cease to exist in one location then magically pop into existence at the next location.<br /><br />If it were true, could calculus go "fuzzy" and treat time as discrete blocks rather than particular instants?<br /><br />Thoughts? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Ordinary_Guy,<br /><br />No time to comment...at this time. Sorry, couldn't resist.<br /><br />Anyway, others (including Yours Truly) have aired their thoughts on the subject on another thread:<br /><br />Does Time Actually Exist?

 

[ordinary_guy]

Thanks, amigo, I'll check that out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px"><strong>Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority.</strong></p> <p style="font:normalnormalnormal12px/normalTimes;margin:0px">-Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)</p> </div>

 

[le3119]

Maybe time exists soley because particles spin. Isn't this the basis for all motion? Anyone?