A theory on how eternal life could be possible

reply to post by docpoco


The thing is i have tried all these theories of time dilation and can't get them to fit in.

If i do all your examples and fallow your explanation i do get the same result, but when i for instant do the experiments with figures. The theory doesn't add up.

I will give you an example of how i check a theory.



After two years 730 days the figure will look like this image.



The image might seam a bit confusing. But pay attention to the triangles. They all add up and they are all the same. There is no time dilation according to my set up.


The complete image after two years of traveling at .999999 the speed of light.





After 8 years of traveling at .999999 the speed of light. The figure will look like this:



What i dont understand is how some one can get time dilation within this figure. You can chart every thing within this figure.

Can you explain it to me please, since this is so clear to you?

Maybe This page will help out.

reply to post by davespanners

3) Perhaps the most interesting change is that 1 year to you would seem to be 2.294 years for someone back on Earth.

Ok. I have a question. Does seem to be! mean the same as real time/present time?

Its that also why this is just a relative theory of time dilation. Because its just something we would imagine?

reply to post by spy66


No it's an actual change, as I posted in the link before you can measure it with a very accurate clock on a jet plane, even if the change is only a tiny tiny amount at those speeds..

It's a hard abstract concept to think about, and the maths is way beyond me, but I guess I can only trust in Einstein I certainly can't prove him wrong anyway

Special relativity discusses the relationship between time and motion

# Relativity of simultaneity: Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion.
# Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock.

General relativity discusses the relationship between Gravity and motion Gravity as well as speed also effect how fast time travels for you

Clocks run more slowly in regions of lower gravitational potential This is called gravitational time dilation.

Theory of relativity

Here Is an experiment that used atomic clocks to test gravitational time dilation

And researcher James Chin-Wen Chou explained that even if you lived at the top of the Empire State Building throughout your life, you would only lose 104 millionths of a second.

Here Is the experiment I mentioned that tested both gravitational and Kinetic time dilation

Originally posted by spy66
I will give you an example of how i check a theory.

I mentioned I'd be gone for a while and couldn't answer right away, I just got back, and see I missed a question.

You're not drawing the graph right, here's an example of a graph illustrating time dilation:

www.astro.ucla.edu...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3a1136c5408.gif[/atsimg]Note that point Z on the bottom would be the departure time where the spaceship leaves Earth for Pluto, but the times on the two clocks (Earth and astronaut) diverge after that.

See the link for an explanation of that graph

Both Earth observer and astronaut will see the same departure time, but they will have different elapsed times and arrival times and the way you set up your graphs doesn't allow for that factor, as far as I can tell. Also, assume that the observer on Earth knows that light from Pluto takes 300 minutes to reach us so that would not be a discrepancy in the arrival time, the Earth observer will know the astronaut arrived on Pluto 300 minutes before they see it so they can calculate the arrival time accordingly. Thus, let's say the departure time is 0100 GMT for both the astronaut and the Earth clocks.

And here's some facts to get you started with your Earth to Pluto example graph. Someone already mentioned it takes sunlight 8 minutes to reach Earth and that doesn't change much as the earth's orbit isn't very eccentric, whereas Pluto's is quite eccentric so the time for sunlight to reach it varies from a little over 4 hours to just under 7 hours.

Just to keep the math simple I suggest we pick a value in the middle such that the distance from earth to Pluto measured in light hours is 5 light hours or 300 light minutes. If the astronaut travels at .999999 the speed of light (again to keep it simple and assume no acceleration and deceleration, not realistic but just to illustrate the point of time dilation) then the time to travel 300 light minutes will be 300/0.999999=300.0003 minutes, or it just takes him a fraction of a second longer than a light beam would, so I think we can round it off to 300 minutes, Earth time.

The astronaut's clock is running 707 times slower, so 300/707 is 0.42 minutes, which is (0.42x60)=25.45 seconds. The arrival time as measured by Earth's clock would be the departure time plus 5 hours which is 0100 + 500 hours which makes the arrival time 0600 hours. According to the astronaut's clock, the arrival time is 0100 + 0000:25 so the astronaut's arrival time is 0100:25 hours. And the landing on Pluto event occurs with these 2 clocks at drastically different times, because the high speed travel made the clock out of sync.

So redraw your graphs such that you show both the 25.45 seconds travel time perceived by the astronaut, and the 300 minutes travel time observed from Earth, as applying to the same distance traveled. The way Einstein's math works, he has reference frame 1 and reference frame 2 and their relative velocity and he relates them to each other mathematically.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3a1136c5408.gif[/atsimg]

This image you brought in displays communication between two time lines. Hence the red line from S - R to T. And from U to V.

If i was to "ping" the traveler and the traveler was to ping me back "in my graf" I would get the same result as your image above.

The red line is the time line of a traveling signal or an observation between A and B. It does not represent the time line of the travelers time "B" or the time line of real time "A". The red line represent the distance and heading it must travel between time line A and B. Hence the red line get its own time line.



Why can't i see time dilation in my graf?

1. The traveler is traveling at "constant speed".

2. The traveler is traveling a "constant distance" because he travels at a constant speed..

3. Since 1 and 2 are constant, so is the traveling time.

4. Stationary real time time is constant. Hence i have not taken measures for the correction we do for stationary time for simplicity.

Now i am going to add the same red time line in my graf, as your image above displays: But first i will display my original image which i have used in all my experiments. Than i am going to display the "ping" signal between the two time lines A and B. Hence the red time line in your image S to R.



Image 1.



Image 2.


In this image time line A pings time line B at stage 1. Hence the green line.

As you can see. Time line B will not receive this ping until it has traveled to stage 4. Hence the distance and time between time line A and B which the ping must travel. The blue line represents the space between A and B which the ping must travel to reach B.

If "A" didn't ping "B". Both A and B would be at the horizontal Blue line. " A " would be at it's time line and "B" would be at the other end of the blue line.

NB. The scale is not 100% but it illustrates the points i made about.

1. Constant speed.

2. Constant distance.

3. Time is constant because the speed and distance is constant.

4. The ping signal is constant.

Since everything is a constant there can not be time dilation. There can only be time dilation "Between time line A and time line B". That is proven by the green line in my illustration and the red line in your illustration.

reply to post by davespanners


I will illustrate this with change of mass as well. I just have to make the illustrations first.

I just want to say that a mass which is already moving at a constant speed will not change mass. It already has its true mass. Because it has it's true velocity.

An object will only change mass:

1. when moving from a stationary position.

2. The pressure surrounding the stationary object changes.

3. Or the surface which the object is stationary on changes velocity.

4. Or the object is taken apart.

reply to post by spy66
I see, you're still drawing graphs to show Einstein is wrong without any real world measurements to support your graph.

Then how does your graph explain this experiment proving Einstein was right and you're wrong?

Aircraft Time Dilation

For an aircraft flying over the equator, its clocks will show a time shift relative to a fixed surface clock...

For travel eastward, v has a positive sign and the shift will be negative (aging more slowly). But for a westward flight the time shift is positive (aging faster) for the aircraft speeds involved. Hafele and Keating predicted time shifts of -184 ns for an eastward flight around the world and a shift of +96 for a westward flight.

If you plug in numbers for a 48 hour round trip flight at constant speed at the equator, you get -260 ns and 156 ns for the eastbound and westbound flights respectively. The predicted values obtained by Hafele and Keating presumably were based upon detailed measurements of the speeds, etc.

Hafele and Keating are credited with an experimental measurement which confirms time dilation and matches predictions with an accuracy of about 10%.

If you try to use too much logic to understand this stuff, you will not understand it, you have to make measurements in the real world, and explain the measurements. While we couldn't fly atomic clocks around until sometime in the last century, it was long before a century ago that astronomers knew there was a problem with the orbit of mercury using the standard logical explanations and Einstein's theory explained that too, he knew about that problem with observations. The fact that his theory explains observations he didn't know about also, is pretty good validation of his theory.

Originally posted by spy66
I will illustrate this with change of mass as well.

First, you're right, there's no real change in mass, but this isn't what Dave was talking about. It's the relativistic mass which changes.

If you take the brakes off a freight train and try to push it, it takes a lot of force to accelerate a certain amount.

If you try to accelerate a marble, it takes much less force to accelerate it the same amount.

If you accelerate the marble to near the speed of light, at some velocity close to the speed of light, it will take just as much force to accelerate the moving marble as it does the stationary freight train. That's what is meant by "relativistic mass". The marble doesn't actually gain any "real mass" but when you try to accelerate it, it behaves like a much more massive object than it really is...it no longer accelerates like a marble would when you push on it.

And the reason you're embarrassing yourself is that this is the basic fact that physicists at the LHC deal with every day in their experiments. They know exactly how hard it is to accelerate protons in the collider so they deal with this relativistic mass increase every day and even designed the machine around this principle, so don't bother trying to prove there's no such thing.

From the LHC Machine Outreach:

What need is there for such large dimensions of your particle accelerator as you cannot accelerate particles beyond speed of light?

For the answer to this we have to turn Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Basically the relativistic mass of a particle increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light.

In practical terms our protons are moving a very small fraction below the speed of light. As we increase the energy (and momentum) they only get a very small fraction closer to the velocity of light - never reaching it. However, their energy and momentum do increase considerably.

For a given momentum, our magnets need to provide a force necessary to bend the beam around in the 27 km. The increase in momentum is exactly reflected in the increased force we have to apply with these magnets as we increase the energy of the beam.

The size of the LHC is basically determined by the maximum strength of our dipole magnets. If the ring were smaller they would have to be a lot stronger.

So they know this effect quite well and designed this massive machine around the relativistic mass increase principle laid out by Einstein.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am paying attention to the measurements. Hence the graf. Pay attention to the angles. If the angles don't change there is no time dilation. The only thing that changes in my grafs is the size. And that is because of three things.

1. Speed.
2. Time.
3. Distance.

I am not saying Einstein is wrong. I am saying that you are wrong.

reply to post by spy66
And how do you explain the clocks that were measured to be running at different speeds?

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by spy66

 

And how do you explain the clocks that were measured to be running at different speeds?

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

I was hoping you would notice it by reading the information in the link you presented.

They are flying a atomic clocks around the world. Of course there will be differences. The clock which we measure time with is directly influenced.

The clock you have on your hand would not show the same changes. Because it is made to resemble the pulses of an atomic clock at sea level. Your watch is made to show the same time no matter where you are. It is made to show real time.

Originally posted by spy66
They are flying a atomic clocks around the world. Of course there will be differences.

You haven't explained why there are differences. "of course" is not an explanation. Why are they running at different speeds if not due to time dilation, etc?

According to your explanation, time dilation is not real so there should be NO DIFFERENCE!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
They are flying a atomic clocks around the world. Of course there will be differences.

You haven't explained why there are differences. "of course" is not an explanation. Why are they running at different speeds if not due to time dilation, etc?

According to your explanation, time dilation is not real so there should be NO DIFFERENCE!

edit on 8-10-2010 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)

Here is what I want Spy66 to say:

I am smarter than Einstein, and I intend on using basic physics equations to prove his incredibly complex (but somehow scientifically proven theorems) incorrect.

reply to post by docpoco
It's even more bizarre than that. Spy66 doesn't disagree with Einstein, only with you and me, but apparently doesn't realize we are only stating Einstein's theory for him.

Spy66 we are only saying what Einstein said so if you disagree with what we say you are disagreeing with Einstein, unless you can show us how what Einstein actually said is different than what we are saying.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
They are flying a atomic clocks around the world. Of course there will be differences.

You haven't explained why there are differences. "of course" is not an explanation. Why are they running at different speeds if not due to time dilation, etc?

According to your explanation, time dilation is not real so there should be NO DIFFERENCE!

edit on 8-10-2010 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)

I have not said time dilation does not exist. I said it exists between two time lines. Not on the time lines it self.

Originally posted by docpoco

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by spy66
They are flying a atomic clocks around the world. Of course there will be differences.

You haven't explained why there are differences. "of course" is not an explanation. Why are they running at different speeds if not due to time dilation, etc?

According to your explanation, time dilation is not real so there should be NO DIFFERENCE!

edit on 8-10-2010 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)

Here is what I want Spy66 to say:

I am smarter than Einstein, and I intend on using basic physics equations to prove his incredibly complex (but somehow scientifically proven theorems) incorrect.

Personally i think we are getting some where. I am not going to say i am smarter than Einstein. But i might understand his equations. I do agree that you have to be a good thinker and a observer to understand the theory's.

Most people just read without checking. And if they do check, most people usually go to a site which they have no clue have understood the theory either. But since they have some equations and maybe a video. Its all hunky Dorey.

That's like going to a religious site and learning facts about God.

Originally posted by spy66
I have not said time dilation does not exist. I said it exists between two time lines. Not on the time lines it self.

So you DO disagree with Einstein!

Take the en.wikipedia.org....

If it was just between the timelines, then each twin would expect the other to have aged more slowly, but that's not the way Einstein's math works:

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity, in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed on Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as traveling, and so, according to a naive application of time dilation, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly. In fact, the result is not a paradox in the true sense, since it can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in airplanes[1] and satellites.

So your interpretation is what Wikipedia refers to as "naive".

If one twin travels at 86.6 percent of the speed of light:

If a pair of twins are born on the day the ship leaves, and one goes on the journey while the other stays on Earth, they will meet again when the traveler is 5.14 years old and the stay-at-home twin is 10.28 years old. The calculation illustrates the usage of the phenomenon of length contraction and the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation to describe and calculate consequences and predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

This is clearly affecting the timeline of the traveler.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes i disagree with the link. And i have given grafs to illustrate it.

A space ship that travels at .9 the speed of light does not travel faster than time.

Time does not slow down or speed up when a speed is constant.

haha i am a good fighter right

I am going to own in the debate.

I would love to see either of you pick my graf apart. If you knew what you where supporting you would have done it a long time ago.

I have illustrated where you two went wrong. But where is your work?