A theory on how eternal life could be possible

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by docpoco

Originally posted by spy66

All you actually need to use to solve this problem is this equations:

Distance = Speed x Time.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

HAHAHA. You sure could have saved Einstein a lot of trouble had you been around to help him sort out his theories of relativity.

Here is the formula you need to calculate time dilation:

l'=l*sqr(1-v²/c²)

You are a little out of your league hot stuff.

If i was i would not debate this.

Lets retract again.

1. The guy is in a space ship.

2. The space ship travels .999999 the speed of light.

3. He travels inside this space ship for 10 years.

My question is: Have you picked the right equation from the wiki page?

You cant just pick and choose your equation if you dont know if they apply to his travel.

If you are travelling in a spaceship at .999999% the speed of light, because of the laws of time dilation (Lorentz contraction) you would experience time at a rate that is approximately 707 times SLOWER than someone who is not travelling (i.e. on earth)

That means that for you, 10 years would go by, but for earth, over 7000 years would have passed.

So if you turned around and came back after ten years at the same speed you left, another 7000 years would have passed.

That means almost 15,000 years would have passed on earth by the time you returned, althought you would only be 20 years older.

This is not a simple D = v * t equation, and as I said before - you don't understand what you are talking about.

Well rather then carry on with discussing if time dilation is real or not I'm going to try and think about the original post.

I guess what I would see as being the problem is that time is relative to your own personal frame of reference, so in the example you gave at first where someone is travelling at near the speed of light away from the earth and then comes back, although it would seem to the people from earth that you had been away for hundreds of years you still would only have actually been alive for ten years.

So if you stayed in the ship from when you were born until you died at 90 years old you would still only have actually lived 90 years from your own perspective although to others it would seem like you have been around for thousands of years.

Would those rules be different if you actually travelled AT the speed of light, I have no idea

Originally posted by docpoco
Do you not understand the concept of time dilation?

Originally posted by spy66
Yes i do. Do you?
...
I bet if you do the math. You will not find any time dilation at all.

That's pretty entertaining to say the least, and I'm sure some people laughed at me when I've been wrong posting here (I have been wrong twice that I know of).
Spy66 I think when someone points out you're wrong you should really do some research, that's what I did and I found out the other guy was right.

But I can sort of identify with your position, because I personally went through a phase of denial upon learning about this dilation and other relativity stuff, it just seemed too counter intuitive. Actually, the part that's still hard for me to swallow is if I am in a spaceship that's moving very slowly, and shine a flashlight, the light moves at the speed of light. Then I accelerate the spaceship to half the speed of light, it seems like when I shine the flashlight it will go at 1.5 times the speed of light (but it doesn't!?!?), because I know if I throw a baseball at 10mph from a train moving at 5kph, the baseball will be going 15kph relative to the ground, not 10kph. But what I logically expect to happens is not what happens, therefore I have to agree that maybe it's not logical. That doesn't mean it's not true. So this relativity stuff can seem illogical, crazy, and counter-intuitive. Don't feel too badly about that.

Yes time would pass at the same speed on Earth but the guy going really fast in a spaceship (99.9999% the speed of light) would only age one day in roughly 2 years, and his clock on the spaceship runs slower than the one on Earth. I agree it seems strange but it's true.

Back on the topic of the OP, there may only be a small perceptual difference between time stopping completely and really slowing down a lot, but it may be hard to tell the difference sometimes near the event horizon of a black hole:

Gravitational time dilation

An extreme example of gravitational time dilation occurs near a black hole. A clock falling towards the event horizon would appear (to observers far away) to slow down to a halt as it approached the horizon. A small and sturdy enough clock could conceivably cross the horizon without suffering adverse effects at the horizon, but to far away observers it would "freeze" and be flattened out on the horizon.

And if you orbited a black hole:

when our orbiter's orbital circumference is merely one meter longer than the circumference of the black hole's event horizon, about eight years and nine months will pass for the outside observer per orbiter day. If the observer could somehow watch the action going on inside the orbiter, she would perceive everything as occurring at a staggeringly slow pace, while the orbiter crew would feel time passing normally. If the crew could watch the life of the outside observer, it would appear to be passing by at a very fast pace, while the observer would feel time passing normally.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by docpoco
Do you not understand the concept of time dilation?

Originally posted by spy66
Yes i do. Do you?
...
I bet if you do the math. You will not find any time dilation at all.

That's pretty entertaining to say the least, and I'm sure some people laughed at me when I've been wrong posting here (I have been wrong twice that I know of).
Spy66 I think when someone points out you're wrong you should really do some research, that's what I did and I found out the other guy was right.



Gravitational time dilation

An extreme example of gravitational time dilation occurs near a black hole. A clock falling towards the event horizon would appear (to observers far away) to slow down to a halt as it approached the horizon. A small and sturdy enough clock could conceivably cross the horizon without suffering adverse effects at the horizon, but to far away observers it would "freeze" and be flattened out on the horizon.

And if you orbited a black hole:

when our orbiter's orbital circumference is merely one meter longer than the circumference of the black hole's event horizon, about eight years and nine months will pass for the outside observer per orbiter day. If the observer could somehow watch the action going on inside the orbiter, she would perceive everything as occurring at a staggeringly slow pace, while the orbiter crew would feel time passing normally. If the crew could watch the life of the outside observer, it would appear to be passing by at a very fast pace, while the observer would feel time passing normally.

edit on 6-10-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

Well i am not wrong: I am the one who actually see what you two are doing wrong.

In this example you are talking about what the observers would observe. The time dilation you are really referring to in this example is the time dilation of received light which the observers would observe.

An extreme example of gravitational time dilation occurs near a black hole. A clock falling towards the event horizon would appear (to observers far away) to slow down to a halt as it approached the horizon. A small and sturdy enough clock could conceivably cross the horizon without suffering adverse effects at the horizon, but to far away observers it would "freeze" and be flattened out on the horizon.

Conclusion:
What you have used as time dilation in this case is the "received reflection" of light reflected back at you from the object. The observer is seeing a signal in the past. Because the light must travel a distance in a opposite direction from which the object is moving. That is why the object seams to be stationary and flat.

So as you can see. We can't use the received signal to determine if the object is actually gaining time.

In the second example you are using observers as well. That means you are still observing received time dilation's from a distance.

reply to post by docpoco


You should read up on Lorentz contraction again. I don't think you got it right.

Originally posted by docpoco

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by docpoco

Originally posted by spy66

All you actually need to use to solve this problem is this equations:

Distance = Speed x Time.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

HAHAHA. You sure could have saved Einstein a lot of trouble had you been around to help him sort out his theories of relativity.

Here is the formula you need to calculate time dilation:

l'=l*sqr(1-v²/c²)

You are a little out of your league hot stuff.

If i was i would not debate this.

Lets retract again.

1. The guy is in a space ship.

2. The space ship travels .999999 the speed of light.

3. He travels inside this space ship for 10 years.

My question is: Have you picked the right equation from the wiki page?

You cant just pick and choose your equation if you dont know if they apply to his travel.

Listen dude. You need to do a little bit of research first.

You CLEARLY, and I can't stress this enough, CLEARLY don't understand the theories of relativility, including time dilation.

Time dilation works like this.

www.walter-fendt.de...

Seriously man, do yourself a favor and check it out. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you are making a fool out of yourself. (Even the other guy in this thread told you you were wrong)

t' ... time indicated by the spaceship clock
t ... time indicated by the clocks of the Earth-Pluto-system
v ... speed of the spacecraft relatively to the system of Earth and Pluto
c ... speed of light

"v" describes the relativity to two different observers. Earth and Pluto.

The time of the ship is wrong. The time on the ship should be how earth observes the light received from the space craft. That is what the "v" is. Since the space ship is moving towards Pluto. The "v" observed by Pluto should be different than that which is observed by earth since the ship is moving in that direction.

I have a challenge for you to see if You really understand what you are arguing.

If the ship is traveling away from Earth towards Pluto. Would the space ship be at Pluto in the future, Past or present time it arrives. If the space ship is traveling at .999999 the speed of light?

Originally posted by spy66
Well i am not wrong: I am the one who actually see what you two are doing wrong.

In this example you are talking about what the observers would observe. The time dilation you are really referring to in this example is the time dilation of received light which the observers would observe.

While the example talks about that, it's irrelevant if the observers observe what the other is doing or not, they don't HAVE to observe it, they just explain that to try to help you understand better.

Go back to the example on page one, with the astronaut traveling 10 years in one direction, then turning around and traveling 10 years back to Earth, as time is measured by the clock in the spaceship. (and to simplify the math let's just disregard the acceleration and deceleration time and assume constant velocity). Let's say he travels at 99.9999% the speed of light which comes out to a time dilation of about 700:1.

Let's also say that once the astronaut leaves our solar system, we can no longer see him, so that takes any "observation" out of the picture.

Let's say the astronaut leaves in the year 2010, and by his clock arrives at his destination in 2020, then returns to Earth in the year 2030, according to his clock. Time seemed to pass normally to him, but it didn't. When he gets back to Earth in what his clock says is 2030, the actual year on Earth will be something like 2010 + (20 years times 707.107 time dilation factor) which comes out to 2010 plus 14,142 years, so if earth was still using the same type of calendar it would actually be the year 16,152 on Earth, not the year 2030 as the astronaut's clock says. And none of this has anything to do with one party observing the other party or reflecting anything.

Please do some more research on this and let us know when you figure it out, we're just trying to help so you can ask questions if you don't understand. I'll be gone for a while but I'll check up when I get back, I'm not ignoring you, just not around for a while. See you later and good luck with this challenging concept!

www.popsci.com...

Here is a cool article on the concept. Its really simple once you accept it. The faster you go, the slower you perceive time. This occurs at any speed but its insignificant until you get very close to the speed of light.



In any case, if anyone cares to debate the original post of the topic before the junior high physics wiz popped in to devastate Einsteins theories, I'd be happy too.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
Well i am not wrong: I am the one who actually see what you two are doing wrong.

In this example you are talking about what the observers would observe. The time dilation you are really referring to in this example is the time dilation of received light which the observers would observe.

While the example talks about that, it's irrelevant if the observers observe what the other is doing or not, they don't HAVE to observe it, they just explain that to try to help you understand better.

Go back to the example on page one, with the astronaut traveling 10 years in one direction, then turning around and traveling 10 years back to Earth, as time is measured by the clock in the spaceship. (and to simplify the math let's just disregard the acceleration and deceleration time and assume constant velocity). Let's say he travels at 99.9999% the speed of light which comes out to a time dilation of about 700:1.

Let's also say that once the astronaut leaves our solar system, we can no longer see him, so that takes any "observation" out of the picture.

Let's say the astronaut leaves in the year 2010, and by his clock arrives at his destination in 2020, then returns to Earth in the year 2030, according to his clock. Time seemed to pass normally to him, but it didn't. When he gets back to Earth in what his clock says is 2030, the actual year on Earth will be something like 2010 + (20 years times 707.107 time dilation factor) which comes out to 2010 plus 14,142 years, so if earth was still using the same type of calendar it would actually be the year 16,152 on Earth, not the year 2030 as the astronaut's clock says. And none of this has anything to do with one party observing the other party or reflecting anything.

Please do some more research on this and let us know when you figure it out, we're just trying to help so you can ask questions if you don't understand. I'll be gone for a while but I'll check up when I get back, I'm not ignoring you, just not around for a while. See you later and good luck with this challenging concept!

When he finally "gets it" , he is going to feel like a goobersmooch.

he probably hasn't even taken the time to read any of the links that have been posted.

Originally posted by spy66
If the ship is traveling away from Earth towards Pluto. Would the space ship be at Pluto in the future, Past or present time it arrives. If the space ship is traveling at .999999 the speed of light.

"The future" is not an absolute concept, it is relative, which is why we call it "relativity".

If the astronaut and the Earth synchronize their clocks when the astronaut leaves, and then when the astronaut arrives on pluto they check their clocks, it will still be the present for Earth and for the astronaut, but they will find that their clocks are out of sync, as the clock on the astronaut's ship ran 707 times more slowly than the clocks on Earth.

Originally posted by docpoco
In any case, if anyone cares to debate the original post of the topic before the junior high physics wiz popped in to devastate Einsteins theories, I'd be happy too.

Actually it's a cool thought that I never thought about before, even if it's not actual immortality, even living for 20,000 years of Earth time sounds pretty cool. However aside from the practical problems of getting to such a high velocity which are legion, the biggest problem I see, is that time seems to pass normally for the astronaut traveling at the speed of light (or just a hair under it to keep it almost realistic). So it really wouldn't seem like immortality unless you went back to Earth and found out everyone you knew had been dead for ten thousand years, your life would still seem to pass by normally from your perspective.

It's thought provoking in any case.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
Well i am not wrong: I am the one who actually see what you two are doing wrong.

In this example you are talking about what the observers would observe. The time dilation you are really referring to in this example is the time dilation of received light which the observers would observe.

While the example talks about that, it's irrelevant if the observers observe what the other is doing or not, they don't HAVE to observe it, they just explain that to try to help you understand better.

Go back to the example on page one, with the astronaut traveling 10 years in one direction, then turning around and traveling 10 years back to Earth, as time is measured by the clock in the spaceship. (and to simplify the math let's just disregard the acceleration and deceleration time and assume constant velocity). Let's say he travels at 99.9999% the speed of light which comes out to a time dilation of about 700:1.

Let's also say that once the astronaut leaves our solar system, we can no longer see him, so that takes any "observation" out of the picture.

Let's say the astronaut leaves in the year 2010, and by his clock arrives at his destination in 2020, then returns to Earth in the year 2030, according to his clock. Time seemed to pass normally to him, but it didn't. When he gets back to Earth in what his clock says is 2030, the actual year on Earth will be something like 2010 + (20 years times 707.107 time dilation factor) which comes out to 2010 plus 14,142 years, so if earth was still using the same type of calendar it would actually be the year 16,152 on Earth, not the year 2030 as the astronaut's clock says. And none of this has anything to do with one party observing the other party or reflecting anything.

Please do some more research on this and let us know when you figure it out, we're just trying to help so you can ask questions if you don't understand. I'll be gone for a while but I'll check up when I get back, I'm not ignoring you, just not around for a while. See you later and good luck with this challenging concept!

Well your not helping me much.

How can there be time dilation if he travels at 99.99% the speed of light?

I need you to explain to me how you find the time dilation.

Time on earth = t

time in space ship = t2.

Speed of travel is .999999% the speed of light.

Speed of light is 100% = c

Explain the time dilation with proper math please. I dont want to see a equation with v and v2 since we are not using observers.

I will give in if you can show time dilation to me with proper math and no links.

Time on earth = t

Time in space ship = t2

Traveling speed = .999999 the speed of light

Speed of light = c

NB: I assume that the habitat inside the space ship is suited for survival. So you have to take that into your account, because that is where he will be observing time.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Ok i see that my last question became a problem. In that case i have another one.

If this space ship travels 150 million km. At .999999 the speed of light to reach earth. How much time has passed on earth when the space ship arrives after approximately 8.5 min?

Lets say the space ship leaves at 10:00 O`clock on the 7th of October 2010. And travels 150 million km in 8.5min.
When the space ship leaves its location a 150 million km away, the time on earth is also 10:00h and the 7th of October 2010.

When the space ship arrives after 8.5 min. What is the actual time that has passed on earth?

reply to post by docpoco


reply to post by docpoco


I have read everything you have written, and i have even taken the time to view the links you have given. I have even taken the time to do the math.

I know for a fact that you have not taken the time to do the math. Especially on the link you presented with the space ship traveling from earth to Pluto. Because what it presents is totally wrong. It is missing at least two clocks to be right.

1. On earth there should be two clocks. One for real earth time and one for observing the space ship. In the equation presented on that page "v" describes the relativity of time between earth and the space ship. Relativity "v" is what causes time dilation. "v" could for instant represent a radar signal reflected back to earth. Hence c is the constant speed of light.

2. The space ships clock should read earth time. Time does not slow down on the space ship.

When you travel at .999999 the speed of light,, time is very close to a constant. That does not mean that time slows down, because then time would not be constant. Right?
Constant means that time is moving along as usual. It is even more precise than the time monitored on earth and maybe Pluto depending on its atmosphere.

3. The clock on Pluto is correct. It should read the same as earth "real time".

4. The space ship should reach Pluto when it has covered the distance of some where between 4.2 or 7.5 billion km. with .999999 the speed of light.

5. The space ship will arrive at Pluto in real time. That means after it has traveled the distance. There is no time dilation except that the clock on the space ship might be showing a different time, do to the constant "c". But it would still be real earth and Pluto time.

I suspect that if we can travel at the speed of light. Our perception and monitoring of time would be as precise as the constant c. That means Time would be calculated by. Time = Distance / speed.

As we calculate the time Sun light use to travel the distance to earth. It uses 8.3 min. There is no time dilation when they calculated the time sun light takes to reach earth. The light traveled for 8.3 min. That means we have to wait 8.3 min for the light to reach us. You can add that to the real time.

To be honest man, I'm kind of tired of trying to convince you. Its not that I don't think you are an intelligent dude, I just don't think you are allowing yourself to have an open mind. I think you are overthinking it a bit.

Time WOULD pass normally on earth. It would pass MUCH more slowly for the person travelling, in this case the astronaut, because what effectively happens is travelling at that speed causes everything to lengthen (including distances)... Its very bizarre and humans don't even completely understand it.

very very funny things happen at those speeds.

BUT...It has been scientifically proven that time dilation exists. And if you travelled for 10 years at that speed, when the 10 years was up by your perspective, 7,000 years would have passed on earth. The closer you get to C, the more time dilates for you.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ok i see that my last question became a problem. In that case i have another one.

If this space ship travels 150 million km. At .999999 the speed of light to reach earth. How much time has passed on earth when the space ship arrives after approximately 8.5 min?

Lets say the space ship leaves at 10:00 O`clock on the 7th of October 2010. And travels 150 million km in 8.5min.
When the space ship leaves its location a 150 million km away, the time on earth is also 10:00h and the 7th of October 2010.

When the space ship arrives after 8.5 min. What is the actual time that has passed on earth?

The answer is, a little over 4 days would have passed on earth.

This is the coolest example of this I have found:

www.pbs.org...

This is pulled directly from the page:

"...Einstein came up with an example to show the effects of time dilation that he called the "twin paradox." It's a lot like the Time Traveler game you just played. Let's try it out with a pair of pretend twins, Al and Bert, both of whom are 10 years old in their highly futuristic universe.

Al's parents decide to send him to summer camp in the Alpha-3 star system, which is 25 light-years away (a light-year is the distance light travels in a year). Bert doesn't want to go and stays home on Earth. So Al sets out on his own. Wanting him to get there as quickly as possible, his parents pay extra and send him at 99.99 percent the speed of light.

The trip to the star and back takes 50 years. What happens when Al returns? His twin brother is now 60 years old, but Al is only 10 and a half. How can this be? Al was away for 50 years but only aged by half a year. Has Al just discovered the fountain of youth?

Not at all. Al's trip into space lasted only a half year for him, but on Earth 50 years passed. Does this mean that Al can live forever? Nope. He may have aged by only half a year in the time it took 50 years to pass on Earth, but he also only lived half a year. And since time can slow down but never goes backwards, there's no way he could grow younger....."

Originally posted by docpoco

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ok i see that my last question became a problem. In that case i have another one.

If this space ship travels 150 million km. At .999999 the speed of light to reach earth. How much time has passed on earth when the space ship arrives after approximately 8.5 min?

Lets say the space ship leaves at 10:00 O`clock on the 7th of October 2010. And travels 150 million km in 8.5min.
When the space ship leaves its location a 150 million km away, the time on earth is also 10:00h and the 7th of October 2010.

When the space ship arrives after 8.5 min. What is the actual time that has passed on earth?

The answer is, a little over 4 days would have passed on earth.

This is the coolest example of this I have found:

www.pbs.org...

This is pulled directly from the page:

"...Einstein came up with an example to show the effects of time dilation that he called the "twin paradox." It's a lot like the Time Traveler game you just played. Let's try it out with a pair of pretend twins, Al and Bert, both of whom are 10 years old in their highly futuristic universe.

Al's parents decide to send him to summer camp in the Alpha-3 star system, which is 25 light-years away (a light-year is the distance light travels in a year). Bert doesn't want to go and stays home on Earth. So Al sets out on his own. Wanting him to get there as quickly as possible, his parents pay extra and send him at 99.99 percent the speed of light.

The trip to the star and back takes 50 years. What happens when Al returns? His twin brother is now 60 years old, but Al is only 10 and a half. How can this be? Al was away for 50 years but only aged by half a year. Has Al just discovered the fountain of youth?

Not at all. Al's trip into space lasted only a half year for him, but on Earth 50 years passed. Does this mean that Al can live forever? Nope. He may have aged by only half a year in the time it took 50 years to pass on Earth, but he also only lived half a year. And since time can slow down but never goes backwards, there's no way he could grow younger....."

Ok, so what you are saying is that if the sun light takes about 8.3 min to reach earth. About 4 days have gone on earth?

Do you see why i dont get it?

I exchanged the Sun light with the the space ship. And i added just a little bit extra to the time so that you wouldn't notice it. The Sun light uses about 8.3 min to travel the 150 million km to earth. That is 8.3 earth minutes. How can 4 day's have gone on earth?

You can read up on that if you like, right here: en.wikipedia.org...

And you can do the math with this equation:

Time = 150 million km / 300 000km/s

reply to post by docpoco


This is what you dont get about this. You dont get that the space ship is traveling in the same space - time dimension.

That means everything is present time or real time. No matter where you are or how fast you are going. Period.

You have been fooled.

I have made a imgae for you to illustrate this:

reply to post by docpoco


I am going to check up on the equation that is used in the video example. To see if it will make me change my mind.

If it is a Einstein theory i guess it has to be right. I will be back

Originally posted by spy66


Ok, so what you are saying is that if the sun light takes about 8.3 min to reach earth. About 4 days have gone on earth?

Do you see why i dont get it?

I exchanged the Sun light with the the space ship. And i added just a little bit extra to the time so that you wouldn't notice it. The Sun light uses about 8.3 min to travel the 150 million km to earth. That is 8.3 earth minutes. How can 4 day's have gone on earth?

You can read up on that if you like, right here: en.wikipedia.org...

And you can do the math with this equation:

Time = 150 million km / 300 000km/s

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

You're right. i miscalculated for that last example. It still would have taken 8.3 minutes. Only to whomoever was on board, it would have only seemed like less than a second. Time is "relative" to whomever is experiencing it.

Let me give you an example to help.

Lets say that you build a rocket and put your twin brother in it... and send him off to a star system that is 10 light years away. So you launch him away towards the star at very near the speed of light (lets say 99.9999%).

And lets say that you watch him through a telescope the whole way (probably not possible due to telescopic limititations but lets just pretend).... it will take him 10 years to get there. So lets say he gets there, says hello to some aliens, and turns around and comes back, and you watch through your telescope and wait for his return again. 10 years later, he arrives back at earth.

So now your brother steps out of the spaceship and you haven't seen him for 20 years. You hug him because it has been an incredibly long amount of time!

Only he looks at you strangely because you looks so much older! You see, to him, (and this is the part that is difficult to accept), it has only been about 10 days! (20 years x 365 days = 7300 days/700x time dilation).

I know this is a confusing concept and it took me a while to believe it too. But it has already been scientifically proven with atomic clocks.

Time slows down when travelling at high speeds. This is not my theory. you can google search 100's of articles on the issue.