# Light speed time travel

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Light speed time travel

My question is how mouthed is the time dilation for someone traveling 0.999 the speed of light or the half of the speed of light or 0.7 ?

Will one minute for them be like a yare for us ? Can someone give me a good calculation method and calculated answers to dilations at 0.5 , 0.6 , 0.7 , 0.8 , 0.9 the speed of light ?

Thanks for the future responses .

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Eloise
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
Offline

It's all already done and graphed here Carx which should save you some time and effort.

You can see from the graph that time dilation due to velocity is not noticeably consequent until the order of about half the speed of light. At that point the length of time gradually increases and is approaching double that of the inertial reference. At 70%-80% of lightspeed it has about reached double (ie 1 day for the inertial frame is 2 days for the moving body), but it is not until you get very close to the speed of light that the dilation of time begins to sharply increase and approach infinite. Between 90% and 100% of lightspeed the rate of change in time per unit of velocity becomes huge.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
There is no magic to this.

There is no magic to this. It is just a simple calculation. I presume that what you want to know is the ratio between the rate of ticking in a stationary frame versus that at near light speed. Since all observers must record c as the same, it follows that if c cannot change, then dt must for a moving observer. Thus, we simply use the Lorentz factor to compute the time dilation.

I can compute the answers to everything you requested but it may be more prudent to understand the Lorentz factor first.

Einstein asked what would happen if someone raced a light beam, traveling closer and closer to light speed (by the way, light speed is 3x10^8 meters per second). Well, according to Galilean transforms, the observer should see a light beam at rest, without oscillation. Maxwell's equations do not allow this. The oscillation of a magnetic field to an electric one cannot be "at rest". If somebody moves towards you at some velocity v, then according to the Galilean transforms, the light should arrive at a velocity of (v+c) where c is the speed of light in a vacuum (already given). This never happens. The speed of light is always c, in all frames of reference. This is the fundamental postulate of special Relativity. This is a problem. So, what would happen if the observer reached light speed? The answer is, he wouldn't. This is another fundamental postulate of special Relativity. Under the Galilean Transforms, we would say that the velocity of light within a moving frame of reference is merely the sum of the vectors. In Relativity, that is not possible. Instead, Einstein realized, of saying that velocity of light changes, another quantity changes at such a velocity. That is obviously time.

Essentially, as you reach closer and closer to light speed, if you were wearing a watch, it would tick slower and slower. As I said above, if you were a light beam wearing this watch, it would not tick. This is called the time dilation effect. At first this may seem confusing to you. How is this possible? But again, why not? Time is just a unit in physics, there is no "constant" of time the same way there is a constant speed of light. Consider a thought experiment central to Relativity, the light clock. A light clock is a hypothetical device where a light beam is continually reflected between two mirrors which stand opposite each other. The amount of time it takes for the light to reflect from one mirror and reach the other is called a tick. It is a single tick of the light clock. Now, what if the light clock has two mirrors which are vertically in parallel (one on top of the other), with the light clock moving horizontally. Then, the distance travelled by the light in the clock will be given as a perpindicular vector. Let us say that the light clock has a height h. If the light clock was not moving, or rather, was in the stationary frame then the time between ticks is simply h/c. Now consider the clock moving along a horizontal distance. Since distance is simply velocity x time, the horizontal distance is given as vt'. then the distance travelled by the light is given as a pythagorean vector, like a right angled triangle. Hence

√{ [(vt')2+(h2)]/c}

This can be rearranged to give:

t'=1/(√{1-(v2/c2)} x t

t is the time for a tick in the stationary frame.

This formula gives time dilation. It will give the difference taken for a tick on a moving clock versus a stationary clock. The factor by which the stationary tick is multiplied above is called the Lorentz factor. Let us say t is one second. This is useful for simplicity, insofar as we want to find ratios.

So, let's answer your questions. By what factor would time dilate for an observer at 0.7c?

This should first be converted into SI units:

0.7c=2.1x108ms-1

t'=1/√{1-(4.41x1016/9x1016)}=1/r(0.51)=1.4s

So, a tick of 1 second in the stationary frame would take 1.4 seconds in the frame of an observer at 7 tenths of light speed.

You can do the rest.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Thank you DG & Eloise  .I

Thank you DG & Eloise  .
I always invented the well and I postulate a different approach in my mind to this
1) the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest thing we know.
2) Electrons and other particles/forces move slower then the speed of light.
3) Imagine a infinite energy source and a engine that will convert this energy into movement in outer space (we have no friction)
4) lets fallow the path of electrons while they enter  the engine to generate movement , while we are increase the speed the electrons will move slower and slower to their goal at the engine because the engine is “running away from the electrons”.
5) if the  engine or the ship approached electron speed the addiction of more speed is impossible because the electrons will stand still and if we move faster they start “moving backwards “.
6) and so did I reason that you can not go at light speed.

Is my reasoning correct ?

The same is true with a gravitation frilled that "grabs" electrons and other particles/forces from interaction with  other particles/forces . And it creates something I named time freeze (solving down of time do to fast movement)  and the correct or absolute time is a stationary frame of reference (0 speed , 0 time freeze) because after a Q&A in relativity there is no relativity we have a absolute time frame and everything else can only slow down  the reactions like in a refrigerator that slows down chemical reactions (actually its even more easy to explain relativity that way without confusing a simple audience) , so the twin paradox is only a paradox for people who think there is a refrigerator paradox because one fruit/chemical reaction “ages” slower  in a refrigerator then the other fruits/chemical reaction  in room temperature.

There is no (literary)relativity in (physical)relativity.
Everything is relative to the ultimate time frame (correct time) and this ultimate  time frame is the speed of light at its maximum (100% stationary frame) every deviation is simply slowing down do to time freeze.

Is my reasoning correct ?

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Hmac
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
Offline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Essentially, as you reach closer and closer to light speed, if you were wearing a watch, it would tick slower and slower. As I said above, if you were a light beam wearing this watch, it would not tick.

So, somebody put this from the frame of reference of a light beam from supernova SN1987A.

We (humans) have calculated that this phenomenon is 168,000 light years away. But if one could "surf" the wave of light at light speed from SN1987A to Earth, would that trip take any perceived time at all?

Or light from the Sun to Earth: ~8.3 minutes from an Earth-bound reference; instant from the sun's reference?

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Quote:We (humans) have

Quote:

We (humans) have calculated that this phenomenon is 168,000 light years away. But if one could "surf" the wave of light at light speed from SN1987A to Earth, would that trip take any perceived time at all?

Technically yes, but only trivially true as no material object capable of "percieving" time could travel at c.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Quote:Is my reasoning

Quote:

Is my reasoning correct ?

As a thought experiment, I find it very hard to follow your reasoning insofar as it makes reference to impossible concepts. I don't understand what you mean when you say "convert energy into movement". Energy can only be interconverted with mass. Mass-energy is a conserved quantity. Perhaps you mean some form of potential energy converted into kinetic energy?

Anyway, the simplest way to understand the c-limit is to understand that according to Newton's second law, F=ma, but according to Einstein, mass increases as velocity does. From Newton's second law we can reason that an object with a force applied for a sufficient amount of time will continue to accelerate and pass c. However, this is not possible. According to Einstein, as v increases, so does m, hence so does required F for the same aAs v approaches c then required F approaches infinity.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Hmac
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
Offline
It's a mind exercise, and

It's a mind exercise, and I'm not so good at math.

Hypothetical surfer, capable at moving at or near c. Assume time is constant. What other factors could change?

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Quote:Hypothetical surfer,

Quote:

Hypothetical surfer, capable at moving at or near c. Assume time is constant

That makes no sense. By definition, the percieved time passing recorded by the surfer will slow down. A tick that takes 1 second in the stationary frame will take more time in the surfer's frame. The surfer cannot move at c. No object with mass can move at c. As the surfer approaches close to c then the percieved time per tick will increase. Since you asked what other factors changed, there are two:

1. Distance: A meter stick in the direction of travel will be percieved as shorter by the surfer. This is called the Lorentz contraction

2. Mass: The surfer will become more massive.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

phooney
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
Offline
Poor deludedgod, having to

Poor deludedgod, having to explain what should happen in impossible hypothetical situations to people who don't know enough about physics.

LIKE ME!

Would this surfer be crushed under his own mass and become a miniature black hole like those ones postulated by the LHC haters?

If he used LOTS of dapper dan hair pomenade, would he be able to maintain his original style throughout the trip?

Would the sleeves on his hawian shirt appear shorter from the perspective of the surfer, due to the lorentz contraction?

Hmac
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
Offline
deludedgod wrote:That makes

deludedgod wrote:

That makes no sense.

I know, I know.

My mind works by trying to analyze other frames of reference, not to discredit, necessarily, but simply to understand. It's not enough for me to know *that* something works; I like to know *why*.

Thanks for humoring me.

Quote:
A meter stick in the direction of travel will be percieved as shorter by the surfer. This is called the Lorentz contraction

I'm just applying "what ifs" to the scenario.

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Quote:Would this surfer be

Quote:

Would this surfer be crushed under his own mass and become a miniature black hole like those ones postulated by the LHC haters?

This reminds me of a Limerick penned by a clever wag:

There once was a fellow from Fisk

Whose fencing was exceedingly brisk

So fast was his action, that the Lorentz contraction

Turned his rapier into a disk

An object which is moving at close to c will tend to "shorten" in the direction of motion. Once we talk about what happens to the surfer however, we are going beyond the thought experiment. The surfer, of course, is a biological organism, who could not possibly survive the contraction. But, no, the surfer will not become a little black hole.

Quote:

Would the sleeves on his hawian shirt appear shorter from the perspective of the surfer, due to the lorentz contraction?

Not relative to the rest of him, as the whole object is shortened in the direction of motion. This means if a resting observer viewed the surfer from behind, they would see no change, but if someone viewed the surfer from the side, they would see him contract.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Hmac wrote:deludedgod

Hmac wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Essentially, as you reach closer and closer to light speed, if you were wearing a watch, it would tick slower and slower. As I said above, if you were a light beam wearing this watch, it would not tick.

So, somebody put this from the frame of reference of a light beam from supernova SN1987A.

We (humans) have calculated that this phenomenon is 168,000 light years away. But if one could "surf" the wave of light at light speed from SN1987A to Earth, would that trip take any perceived time at all?

Or light from the Sun to Earth: ~8.3 minutes from an Earth-bound reference; instant from the sun's reference?

You can not travel at light speed however if you travel near it your time freeze is greater so you would have no presumable time for a distance like sun earth and your time slow down more approaching the speed of light. If you would travel at light speed (with is impossible) you would have no time you would be frozen in time for ever no reaction would take please however this is impossible and you can only approach this time freeze state  however reaching it is impossible.

In other words hibernation is unnecessary for travels in other galaxies you simply would have a natural hibernating from the lows of physic.

It’s a simple extrapolation if your time dilation/time freeze is increasing rapidly approaching the speed of light if you are closer to the speed of light the surfer will be slower extrapolating this we can fantasize that he will stop having time at the speed of light. However this is fantasizing other stuff would stop this process from happening.

If I’m not mistaken.

DG can you cross check and verify/refute my arguments ?

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Eloise
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
Offline
carx wrote:Thank you DG &

carx wrote:

Thank you DG & Eloise  .
I always invented the well and I postulate a different approach in my mind to this

Do you mean 'reinvented the wheel', Carx? There's nothing wrong with that at all, it's good exercise for the mind. So let's see what you have-

carx wrote:

1) the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest thing we know.
2) Electrons and other particles/forces move slower then the speed of light.

Basically, but they are also able to move at speeds very close to c, within the ranges of extreme time dilation which you saw on that graph.

carx wrote:

3) Imagine a infinite energy source and a engine that will convert this energy into movement in outer space (we have no friction)
4) lets fallow the path of electrons while they enter  the engine to generate movement ,

So do you mean the electrons are providing an electrical charge to your hypothetical engine?

carx wrote:

while we are increase the speed the electrons will move slower and slower to their goal at the engine because the engine is “running away from the electrons”.

So you are saying that the charge cannot reach the drive mechanism because the drive mechanism is moving away from the charge at a faster velocity?

I think your reasoning runs into a problem here because the charge would be carried along a conductor that forms part of the accelerated mass, so to the electronic charge the conductor is a stationary frame that it is running across. The conductor doesn't outrun the charge in this case.

On the other hand as your hypothetical vehicle approaches lightspeed it gains mass  and in order to accelerate it further you would have to increase the charge exponentially. This result would manifest physically in a similar way to what you're describing, the charge could not get to the drive mechanism fast enough to accelerate the vehicle and its speed would plateau just the same.

carx wrote:

5) if the  engine or the ship approached electron speed the addiction of more speed is impossible because the electrons will stand still and if we move faster they start “moving backwards “.

Well if the electron charge is required to jump a gap or tunnel a vacuum in the mass to get to the drive mechanism then that would make sense, but in the sense that the charge to the drive is conducted along a portion of the mass itself, no, the charge is 'attached' to the mass and is moving relative to it the whole time.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Eloise wrote:carx wrote:1)

Eloise wrote:

carx wrote:

1) the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest thing we know.
2) Electrons and other particles/forces move slower then the speed of light.

Basically, but they are also able to move at speeds very close to c, within the ranges of extreme time dilation which you saw on that graph.

Basically the point is that the electron speed is the limit for this device.

Eloise wrote:

carx wrote:

3) Imagine a infinite energy source and a engine that will convert this energy into movement in outer space (we have no friction)
4) lets fallow the path of electrons while they enter  the engine to generate movement ,

So do you mean the electrons are providing an electrical charge to your hypothetical engine?

YES
It would use electricity for gaining speed.

Eloise wrote:

carx wrote:

while we are increase the speed the electrons will move slower and slower to their goal at the engine because the engine is “running away from the electrons”.

So you are saying that the charge cannot reach the drive mechanism because the drive mechanism is moving away from the charge at a faster velocity?

I think your reasoning runs into a problem here because the charge would be carried along a conductor that forms part of the accelerated mass, so to the electronic charge the conductor is a stationary frame that it is running across. The conductor doesn't outrun the charge in this case.

On the other hand as your hypothetical vehicle approaches lightspeed it gains mass  and in order to accelerate it further you would have to increase the charge exponentially. This result would manifest physically in a similar way to what you're describing, the charge could not get to the drive mechanism fast enough to accelerate the vehicle and its speed would plateau just the same.

carx wrote:

5) if the  engine or the ship approached electron speed the addiction of more speed is impossible because the electrons will stand still and if we move faster they start “moving backwards “.

Well if the electron charge is required to jump a gap or tunnel a vacuum in the mass to get to the drive mechanism then that would make sense, but in the sense that the charge to the drive is conducted along a portion of the mass itself, no, the charge is 'attached' to the mass and is moving relative to it the whole time.

Really this seams to contradict because for light the electron would travel faster then the speed of light.  If we can add speed to a electron isn’t it traveling faster hen the speed of light with mass at 0.9c ?
I need experimental confirmation of this concept. Aren’t electrons(particles) and other forces like gravity near the speed of light however never supposing it ?

And its easy to test you simply need something that conducts electricity speed it up to a speed that would technically move faster  the speed of light (1+[light speed – speed of electrons in this mass])and on this mass give a laser in the same distance that the electron conducting mass path move the mass to the required speed use a electron burst to travel to the laser and simultaneously to the electron conducting mass and have a detector to determine if the electrons arrived first or the laser beam. O and this needs to be conducted in a vacuum .

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Hmac
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
Offline
carx wrote:Really this seams

carx wrote:
Really this seams to contradict because for light the electron would travel faster then the speed of light.  If we can add speed to a electron isn’t it traveling faster hen the speed of light with mass at 0.9c ?

The electrons aren't travelling faster than light, they are travelling through the electrical system of the ship and engine in relation to the ship.

Think of a fly sitting on a car seat, with the car moving at 100 miles per hour. The fly isn't moving, the car is. If the fly takes off and flies toward the front of the car at 1 mph, it's relative to the car, not the ground

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Hmac wrote:carx wrote:Really

Hmac wrote:

carx wrote:
Really this seams to contradict because for light the electron would travel faster then the speed of light.  If we can add speed to a electron isn’t it traveling faster hen the speed of light with mass at 0.9c ?

The electrons aren't travelling faster than light, they are travelling through the electrical system of the ship and engine in relation to the ship.

Think of a fly sitting on a car seat, with the car moving at 100 miles per hour. The fly isn't moving, the car is. If the fly takes off and flies toward the front of the car at 1 mph, it's relative to the car, not the ground

And relative to the lesser beam fired In the car in the same frame of reference ?

Especially that the speed of light is independent on the frame of reference.

Speed is not relative its absolute , absolute like the absolute speed of light. If you use a laser clock of DG example or more correctly a laser gyroscope with 9 axis you can determine the absolute speed of the fly and your car with is actually greater then your measuring equipment is showing because you are on a planet that is moving.

So yes a fly sitting in a car is actually traveling at the speed of the car you can really see this if you manage to bring your car to a rapid stop then everything that is not attached will still move forwards because they will still have their past speed. And equally if you start your car everything lose  will move or correctly stay  still because while the car moves and  the car didn’t manage to transmit its direction and speed more properly to the atoms that compose this stuff.

And that’s why you need seatbelts or you will fall out of you car or more correctly your body will move away from the car because it doesn’t move at your speed and you still have the speed of the car before it stops and the atoms that compose you will still travel forward.

Or how do you explain this phenomena during rapid stops of cars  ?

Speed is absolute , and the absolute measure of it is the speed of light in a vacuum.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

Hambydammit
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
Offline
Ok, I can't help but be ask

Ok, I can't help but be ask this, since we're on the subject.  DG, it's my understanding that standard motion (I'm not a physicist, never claimed to be.  Sorry if I'm getting any terminology wrong.) for lack of a better term, is limited by c, and because of Lorenz contraction, any attempt to move biological organisms anywhere close to c would result in the death of the organism.  Am I then correct in saying that moving linearly through space-time, near light speed travel is physically impossible for humans?

Now, addressing non-standard motion, what I'm talking about is the much touted idea of bending, folding, or otherwise manipulating space-time so as to allow one to traverse what would ordinarily be a staggering distance with almost no ordinary movement.  It's my understanding that the concept of a wormhole is highly theoretical, but that if it is possible, it would require energy on an order of magnitude approaching that of a significant astronomical event, perhaps a supernova.  Is this correct?

Regardless of the energy requirement to form a wormhole, am I correct in my understanding that there would be a phenomenon similar to an event horizon, and that a biological organism could not hope to pass through a wormhole alive?  (Assuming it was big enough for that to be possible, which seems unlikely to me, but then again, I'm not a physicist.)

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

Hmac
Posts: 93
Joined: 2008-08-03
Offline
carx wrote:Or how do you

carx wrote:

Or how do you explain this phenomena during rapid stops of cars  ?

Speed is absolute , and the absolute measure of it is the speed of light in a vacuum.

Inertia.

From the inertial frame of the car, the fly is moving at 1 mph.

I'll agree that from OUTSIDE the car, outside that inertial frame, the fly would appear to be moving faster than the car.

carx
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
Offline
Hmac wrote: I'll agree that

Hmac wrote:

I'll agree that from OUTSIDE the car, outside that inertial frame, the fly would appear to be moving faster than the car.

Your last sentence makes no sense if the fly would be slower then the car it would not move forward. Its not appearing it is faster if its moving in the same vector like the car !

If you calculate the difference between the speed of a car inside the car and the fly you will get the speed difference between the car and the fly and the same speed difference is true for you calculating it on a plain , on the ground , or in a tree. You simply think that a moving body somehow haze its own speed is wrong you simply calculate the speed difference between the fly and the car inside if you add the real sped measured with a laser gyroscope you will get the true speed of the car and the fly.

Your conception is write however you are measuring speed difference not actual speed inside a car the same speed difference is true if measured out side its speed difference of fly to car + the velocity of the car or use a laser gyroscope it uses light in a vacuum.

BTW :

In common usage, however, people may also use the term "inertia" to refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), and sometimes its momentum, depending on context (e.g. "this object has a lot of inertia&quot. The term "inertia" is more properly understood as a shorthand for "the principle of inertia" as described by Newton in Newton's First Law of Motion which, expressed simply, says: "An object that is not subject to any outside forces moves at a constant velocity, covering equal distances in equal times along a straight-line path." In even simpler terms, inertia means "A body in motion tends to remain in motion, a body at rest tends to remain at rest." On the surface of the Earth the nature of inertia is often masked by the effects of friction which brings moving objects to rest relatively quickly unless they are coasting on wheels, well lubricated or perhaps falling or going downhill, being accelerated by gravity. This is what misled classical theorists such as Aristotle who believed objects moved only so long as force was being applied to them.[2]

~From wikipedia

And Velocity is linked to speed you simply described the same concept like me not even knowing this .

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline
Bump , wow,  > time <

Bump , wow,  > time <

deludedgod
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
Offline
Quote:Am I then correct in

Quote:

Am I then correct in saying that moving linearly through space-time, near light speed travel is physically impossible for humans?

I don't know. The effects of Relativity aren't very noticeable until nearly .9c. You can see from the Lorentz transforms that a tick of 1s in the stationary frame takes 1.4s at 0.7c, but will take 2.3 seconds at 0.9c. The same transforms apply to contraction. I actually don't know the answer as to what will happen to an object below those speeds.The Lorentz contraction can be computed by the same transform. It's very hard to conceptualize because the actual "object" is not compressed (which would kill an organism), but the space-time around the object contracts. An observer would therefore see a compressed object. But the actual object wouldn't notice. That's why I actually couldn't answer with complete confidence that an object at, say, 0.8c, wouldn't survive. At, say, 0.9999c it would be irrelevant since any spaceship would become a pancake.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Eloise
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
Offline
carx wrote:Eloise wrote:So

carx wrote:

Eloise wrote:

So you are saying that the charge cannot reach the drive mechanism because the drive mechanism is moving away from the charge at a faster velocity?

I think your reasoning runs into a problem here because the charge would be carried along a conductor that forms part of the accelerated mass, so to the electronic charge the conductor is a stationary frame that it is running across. The conductor doesn't outrun the charge in this case.

On the other hand as your hypothetical vehicle approaches lightspeed it gains mass  and in order to accelerate it further you would have to increase the charge exponentially. This result would manifest physically in a similar way to what you're describing, the charge could not get to the drive mechanism fast enough to accelerate the vehicle and its speed would plateau just the same.

Really this seams to contradict because for light the electron would travel faster then the speed of light.  If we can add speed to a electron isn’t it traveling faster hen the speed of light with mass at 0.9c ?

You've hit on one of the more difficult to believe and not so intuitive portions of special relativity, Carx. The velocities don't add like that.

The velocity of the ship distorts the space-time metric and the composite velocity of the electron flow is then calculated along the hyperbolic curve of the space time it's in. This retards the velocity of the electrons relative to space-times that are away from the ship.

Recall that the central equation of velocity is dx/dt and in this case the axes of x and t are bent and twisted due to lorentz forces so the additional velocity of the electrons is divided by the warpage factor of the metric to get the total velocity relative to the outsider.

So say the electrons are being conducted at .5c relative to the ship, then .9 + .5 c is divided by how much the ship has warped space-time and it comes out more like .9 + 0.05c (yeah I'm too lazy to calculate ..) ergo vf<c. As the ship approaches c the warpage rises toward infinity so if the ship was going .99c then the .5c of the electrons would add an even smaller velocity because it would be divided by a larger number, ya dig?

But remember because the ship and the electrons are both together in the same space-time curve the according to the ship the electrons are travelling at 0.5c, the ship observes from a different reference frame.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

Eloise
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
Offline
carx wrote: Or how do you

carx wrote:

Or how do you explain this phenomena during rapid stops of cars  ?

That is momentum which is the velocity multiplied by the mass; a vector multiplied by a scalar so that momentum is basically an increase in the magnitude of the velocity vector given by the mass of the object. Because of that similarity between momentum and velocity it's not easy to discern them in a cursory observation. One intuitive way to look at the difference is to consider momentum as transferable kinetic energy of which velocity plays a part but is not itself transferable. ie the car does not transfer velocity to the person, it transfers momentum enough to propel the person at the same velocity.

Now the person in the car is propelled along at the velocity of the car and you can say this is because it is part of the car's mass in the instance that they are travelling along concurrently, they have the same velocity but they each carry their own momentum.

When the car brakes its momentum is transferred through the braking system as heat and sound and friction which tears away some of the brake lining. The person in the car does not transfer momentum energy via this process so that when the system velocity winds down during braking the human is carrying the energy of it's momentum and must transfer it somewhere the same way the car has done.

So basically the phenomenon is not due to the person travelling independently of the car but rather having a mass of left over energy due to the speed which must be discharged independently of the car. This momentum has been transferred by the car to the person and by doing so the car and the person have become unified as one system moving at velocity but the person cannot just hit a button to transfer that energy back to the car on braking. The human body has to use up the energy it has gained and the only practicable method from within the car is movement.

BTW The seat belts absorb the energy via elastic collision with the body.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com

I AM GOD AS YOU
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
Offline