## Snapshots of travel time.

• Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Snapshots of travel time.

Let's assume I have a lightspeed arcrail track one light year in length, and a car which rode on this track at light speed.

Let's say we have camera positions along the length of this track where the exposure speed of these cameras is set to take a nice clean picture of the car going by on the rail. The car was made with large windows to in and out of...and in these pictures you could see very clearly the pilot inside the car...he doesn't have to wear a helmet because we made the car good and the track straight.

Let's say we agreed to just take a picture of the car at the end of the light year long track, as the car passed the finish line at light speed.

We know the car took off exactly one year earlier toward the finish line...we know it was going light speed, and we knew it would take a year before the car would pass the finish line..

The question is: Will the pilot look a year older (let's say he wasn't allowed to shave for that whole year in the car). Will the pilot look younger?

Here are the known variables:

Solid object moving through space at light speed.
Object traverses through a light year's worth of space.
And it takes exactly a year for it to do so.

Was the speed at which the pilot was moving producing a profound new physics law whereas time and aging decreased or increased for the car and pilot inside?

Remember...we have experimentally shown the car moved from the beginning of the track to the end in one year...no matter what condition it arrived in.

We have taken pictures of this car moving down the track...we can see the pilot in each one of those pictures.

We have been taking pictures of the car and pilot inside for a whole year. The test is over. The car passed the finish line, and we clocked it taking exactly one year.

Are we going to see the age of the car in the pictures from start to finish get older and older and older...will the pilot's beard grow and grow and grow...

Do you think moving the car faster down the track will make a difference? We can just speed up the shutter time of the cameras remember.

What if the pilot could make the trip in half a years time? And we accumulate half a years worth of photos from start to finish....

When will the "Einstein" effect happen?
The "time residue bubble" oozing along the track from start to finish....where is it?

Nuimshaan

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

Well, since "you" have shown experimentally that the car have traveled for 1 year, then it is your measurement, not the pilot's...For you, the car have traveled for one year at the speed of light (it is impossible, so assume that it is only a fraction of the speed of light, say 0.8c), but the time measured by the pilot is maybe a few days long. In his reference frame, the straight track would be shortened in length so he had to travel a shorter distance. But in your frame, the track is way longer, so you have observed the process for the whole year. As a result, you are 1 year older, but the pilot would enjoy a Sean Connery beard, I presume (=

What do you mean by the Einstein effect?

edit: by the way, in the Earth, it would be a loop rather than a straight track which has a separate beginning and ending, since one year of travel at such speeds would mean some hell of a distance.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

So you are saying the pilot would hallucinate for a year? Because you and I are not hallucinating when we look at the years worth of pictures collected during the year long experiment.

The pilot can hop out of that car saying whatever he wants to...we have him on camera...we have the proof...it doesn't matter what he "experienced"...we saw the condition of the car he was traveling in every few miles down the track...we know it was exposed to the elements whilst it moved...we know he needed food, we know he would grow a beard...we knew before we started the test. We put the food and everything he would need to care of himself for a year in the car...we built it into it.

It moved a said distance in a certain amount of time. We have the pictures to prove it. The car and pilot did not go into another dimension...it stayed on the track, and the pilot inside stayed alive..we have the pictures to prove it. I don't care what the pilot says, we had our eyes on him the whole way...and we can prove he is lying...no matter how long he said the trip took...he hallucinated...and we can prove it.

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

There will be exactly one years worth of damage to the car...it will be exactly one year older as a result. Moving the car around for a year probably made it get damaged a lot quicker. It may have stayed in good condition for a really long time if it just stayed parked in the bay. However...whether it stayed put or moved real fast...a year passed by...and it is what is after that year...it was physical for the whole year, and therfore all laws of physics were applied to it...no matter how fast it moved around for that year. No defying the laws of physics with enough speed.

There exists no speed at which the laws of physics are defied..it was the laws of physics which allowed the speed of said object in the first place.

When the object starts disobeying the laws of physics...is when the object begins to be destroyed by the laws of physics...

If you move faster and faster...you become destroyed faster and faster until you fizzle out completely...so your time machine motor broke down a long time ago.

Newton told you it had to move to cause a movement. And the faster it moved...the faster it broke down...so you have just destroyed your chances of time travel because you sought to achieve it through moving an object faster and faster...the very thing which would destroy the object and destroy all chances of achieving time travel...

Let's say your ship doesn't have fast moving parts...it just sits there and humms....well...do you see the environment around the ship moving around real slow? Say we are standing in a hanger where the ship is parked and humming away...is it causing us to walk around the ship real slow..like we are caught in a time warp?

Is the pilot in the ship seeing us walk around the ship real slow, even though we are really walking around the ship like normal?

My point is simple...physical objects obey all laws of physics no matter how fast they move, or how slow they move. It's like a temperature scale....really slow moving objects are really cold. Really fast moving objects are hot.

But neither go through a year without actually going through the whole year...fast or slow...they are still here for a year under the laws of physics...

Nuimshaan

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

nuimshaan wrote:So you are saying the pilot would hallucinate for a year? Because you and I are not hallucinating when we look at the years worth of pictures collected during the year long experiment.

The pilot can hop out of that car saying whatever he wants to...we have him on camera...we have the proof...it doesn't matter what he "experienced"...we saw the condition of the car he was traveling in every few miles down the track...we know it was exposed to the elements whilst it moved...we know he needed food, we know he would grow a beard...we knew before we started the test. We put the food and everything he would need to care of himself for a year in the car...we built it into it.

It moved a said distance in a certain amount of time. We have the pictures to prove it. The car and pilot did not go into another dimension...it stayed on the track, and the pilot inside stayed alive..we have the pictures to prove it. I don't care what the pilot says, we had our eyes on him the whole way...and we can prove he is lying...no matter how long he said the trip took...he hallucinated...and we can prove it.

Nuimshaan.

I think it is tricky a bit, to take pictures of the process. Either you view the process out of the car, stationary in the ground, or you'll view it in the car. But, let's assume for a moment that you have that much equipped camera and you take picture of the pilot for a whole year.

You will take pictures for one whole year yes, that does not mean the pilot has hallucinated, in his time it was not one year, but maybe two weeks had passed. It is hard to grasp, but this time dilation phenomenon is observed many times. Time is just not independent of the observer. Each one will measure a different time gap in their own frame of the same process.

Now, the tricky part is, you see the pilot for the whole year, so how come does he not age thusly (say why not he doesn't have gandalf the gray beard) ?..Now, in order to understand this problem, you have to believe that: 1) 1 year had passed in ground observer's frame, 2) 2 weeks had passed in pilot's frame..

This is an observed fact, if you move with high velocities time passes slowly for you, so you better believe it. Now, generally in such problems, we talk about the clocks of the ground observer and the pilot, and compare them. In this example you have elevated the observation process such that the ground observer is able to observe the face of the pilot. Well, what then? What happens in those pictures taken for 1 year.

Something extraordinary happens, you will observe a 2 week long process elongated to 1 year long time interval. So, what you will see is something like a slow-motion 2 week process which takes 1 year to watch. Thus, rather then comparing clocks which is boring, you have actually seen the time dilation phenomenon with your eyes!

In short, you have taken pictures of the pilot with a Sean Connery beard, not Gandalf's..Isn't it amazing?

nuimshaan wrote:There will be exactly one years worth of damage to the car...it will be exactly one year older as a result. Moving the car around for a year probably made it get damaged a lot quicker. It may have stayed in good condition for a really long time if it just stayed parked in the bay. However...whether it stayed put or moved real fast...a year passed by...and it is what is after that year...it was physical for the whole year, and therfore all laws of physics were applied to it...no matter how fast it moved around for that year. No defying the laws of physics with enough speed.

There exists no speed at which the laws of physics are defied..it was the laws of physics which allowed the speed of said object in the first place.

When the object starts disobeying the laws of physics...is when the object begins to be destroyed by the laws of physics...

If you move faster and faster...you become destroyed faster and faster until you fizzle out completely...so your time machine motor broke down a long time ago.

Newton told you it had to move to cause a movement. And the faster it moved...the faster it broke down...so you have just destroyed your chances of time travel because you sought to achieve it through moving an object faster and faster...the very thing which would destroy the object and destroy all chances of achieving time travel...

Let's say your ship doesn't have fast moving parts...it just sits there and humms....well...do you see the environment around the ship moving around real slow? Say we are standing in a hanger where the ship is parked and humming away...is it causing us to walk around the ship real slow..like we are caught in a time warp?

Is the pilot in the ship seeing us walk around the ship real slow, even though we are really walking around the ship like normal?

My point is simple...physical objects obey all laws of physics no matter how fast they move, or how slow they move. It's like a temperature scale....really slow moving objects are really cold. Really fast moving objects are hot.

But neither go through a year without actually going through the whole year...fast or slow...they are still here for a year under the laws of physics...

Nuimshaan

Well, we have just conducted a "gedanken experiment" which was highly theoretical. You cannot build a ship or a car which reaches such velocities, just because it would consume tremendous amounts of energy. And doing this in a planet with an atmosphere would indeed cause decay due to friction. So, just do it in outer space, where you wouldn't observe any decay.

No matter fast any object moves, laws of physics are obeyed, as you say. This is actually a postulate of Special Theory of Relativity. Space ship moving for two weeks, yet us observing it moving for 1 year does not change this fact. As I have said, time is dependent on observers and each one will measure something else, but the physical laws are all going to be same! It is the beauty of physics, there are symmetries which allow us to move from one frame to another. Certain things change when you change the frame but no problem! Because you would have the right recipes to transform between them.

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

I actually did not understand this part:

nuimshaan wrote:Let's say your ship doesn't have fast moving parts...it just sits there and humms....well...do you see the environment around the ship moving around real slow? Say we are standing in a hanger where the ship is parked and humming away...is it causing us to walk around the ship real slow..like we are caught in a time warp?

Why would the pilot see the environment slow, if it is stationary?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

Here's the problem...let's assume the pilot said it only took a week....he would still be wrong...because his car was on the track for a whole year. You showed him the pictures to prove it. You even showed him how a rust spot had gotten larger on his car...because it went a whole year without being treated...it doesn't matter what the pilot experienced...he hallucinated...and we can prove it.

Let's say for instance the car never moved off the start line...just sat there for a year....radio carbon dating was done after that year was over...let's say now the car moved down the track at light speed for a year...radio carbon dating done after that year was over still reveals...whether it sat still, or moved around fast...it aged for a whole year during the experiment.

For this experiment the time frame was the same for the stationary object, and the object in motion. Stationary observers witnessed a year long race down the track by a super fast car...the car went through a grueling year long race, and so did the observers. Both were real physical objects...and both remained real physical objects. For one years time they were both either moving around or sitting still.

For one whole year, both the high velocity and no velocity objects in this experiment were recorded.

The pilot states it was only a couple of weeks.

Since he and his ship did not disappear for a whole year, in fact were proven to be located exactly where they should be (on the track)...they are in fact a year older, no matter what he says.

Since the observers and their gear did not disappear for a whole year, in fact were proven to be located exactly where they should be (close to the track on the ground)...they are in fact a year older, no matter what they say.

Are you getting me?

It doesn't matter how fast you move around in a year...your still a year older. The Earth...and everything in the universe is a year older...no matter how fast anything moves in this universe...a year from now...they are all a year older...are you getting me now?

Right now everything is located exactly where it should be.

Everything in the universe is located exactly where it is right now. And now..

From right now...on...everything in this universe is getting older....it doesn't matter where things are located in this universe...right now they are getting older. A year from now, they may not be located where they were, but they are without a doubt a year older....no matter what. No matter how fast they buzzed around in that years worth of time...they still aged for a whole year, or were "exposed to the elements for a year." Or, "existed in the universe for a year".

You can't say something moved so fast it existed for longer than anything else, or that it existed for a shorter period of time than everything else. It either existed for a year or not. No matter how fast something moves in a years worth of time...it either existed for a year or not.

Uh...I moved so fast man, that you guys don't even exist anymore!

I swear dude! I hopped in my lightspeed car and cruised around for only 10 minutes, and when I got back...nothing existed anymore...it had all grown old and died....

And we're like shyeah, no duh...you may have thought you were gone for only ten minutes...but you were moving so fast you didn't realize millions of years were going by for us....we are long gone man!!!

Every single one of you who think like that needs to learn the basic principles of physics...because it is simply a lie that with enough speed time will slow down.

It won't. Time is not bound to whether something moves or not....so you can watch a rock for years...or you can watch a nascar race for years...the years still tick by....

You can observe stationary objects...or objects in motion...but time still goes by independent of what your looking at.

Since time doesn't care how fast your going...if your trip took two years...it took two years for you, and two years for everybody else...

If your watch clocked the trip taking one year. But the pilots watch clocked the trip taking half a year...then watches shouldn't be worn by pilots, because they can't take the g-forces. They no longer function properly because gravitational forces have exerted against the mechanical moving parts, or the electrical current in them. Either way, they do not function properly.

We can check this by observing the stationary watches worn by the observers. These watches consistantly function with predictable precision. And until an outside force acts upon the observer's watches, they will continue to consistently function with predictable precision.

Seeing that placing a watch in a subtrifuge will apply an outside force to the mechanical moving parts, and electrical current in the watch...you should KNOW the watch will NOT keep track of time correctly.... Newton told you the watches would behave differently BECAUSE you are applying an outside force to them...DUH!!!

What I'm saying is that you applied the outside force only as long as you ran the subtrifuge....if you ran it for a year....then the watch would not function properly for one whole year. But a year passed by for that watch...even if it doesn't believe it....

For any watch moving in uniform motion...while functioning properly....that watch will continue to function properly according to the way it was built in uniform motion.

In short....the observer's watches on the ground register time quite accurately because they are functioning properly....and identical watches worn by a pilot moving in uniform motion should both clock time the same. No matter how fast the pilot is moving...as long as it is uniform motion...then no outside forces are acting upon his watch to make it malfunction. And if he sees it took a year...then it really took a year. No matter how fast he's moving...do you get that?

Since we are moving in uniform motion, and our clocks are calibrated to register 24 hours in a day...they will always register 24 hours in a day....as long as they are functioning properly....no doubt about it.

Since a pilot could hypothetically be moving at speeds in excess of light speed, but moving in uniform motion...on autopilot...he can get up and walk around inside the ship just like I can get up and walk around in my ship. Since my watch is the same kind his watch is....both calibrated to register 24 hours in a day..both of them will always register time going by at the same speed as long as they are functioning properly....

EVEN THOUGH MY SHIP IS MOVING WAY FASTER THAN LIGHT...And his ship is only moving twice as fast as light. Because he and I and several observers on the ground, are all moving in uniform motion...all wearing the same kind of watches...all of our watches say the same thing, that an hour has gone by....

Why is this? Because time doesn't care how fast your moving...if an hour went by, it went by, sorry, that hour is gone.

In short, the pilot never gets out and says "man that only took two weeks"....he gets out and admits it took a year, and his beard is proof enough...remember he was traveling in uniform motion and he got up and moved around for that year because he put the car on autopilot...

The observers on the ground got up and moved around that year too, because they put their camera gear on autopilot...

Do you get me yet? The pilot was moving fast...the observers were not...but both were able to get up and move around the exact same, and both experienced time EXACTLY the same...even though the pilot was moving at superluminal speeds...because he was moving in uniform motion at that speed....he experienced being able to put the ship on autopilot, get up, and walk around and experience time, EXACTLY the same as the observers on the ground....do you get that?

Nuimshaan...

mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

Ok nuimshaan, just play the game according to the rules. Be a physicist, built your hypothesis and write a paper. Then apply for an international article publisher to inform other physicist that you have disproved Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Well, then they will say that what about these processes in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation, which are only explained by Einstein's theory? You'll say blah blah, but your theory would never explain "physically observable" phenomena such as those in the links, like how then Muon's reach the surface of the Earth.

There is something called "Time Dilation". We detect it, we observe it, and if you set up your gedanken experiment, you will see that the car is on the track for one year according to YOU. If the pilot has a camera with him, he will likewise prove you that only two weeks have passed and YOU are hallucinating.

If you do not believe it, that's fine for us. But, you can use your imagination for better work other than trying to disprove what is already clearly observed.

Before that, please follow the link above and try to explain those observed phenomena with your hypothesis. Science is not only speculation, you have to know.
Last edited by mrrsnhtl on Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

I would love to...I tackled this muon trick a long time ago...here's what is said:

Rossi and Hall (1941) compared the population of cosmic-ray-produced muons at the top of a mountain to that observed at sea level. Although the travel time for the muons from the top of the mountain to the base is several muon half-lives, the muon sample at the base was only moderately reduced.

People fail to realize...the speed of the muons at the top of the mountain, was the same speed of the muons at the base. That is unless, as muons approach sea level they accelerate all of a sudden...and maybe they do...maybe they are being accelerated as they get closer to the sea level.

Then this experiment would not show time dilation, and no time dilation would be detected.

This muon experiment is supposed to show how measuring the speed of a subatomic particle allows you to see something take a shorter period of time to arrive than normal.

Like, the detectors are supposed to register that the muon arrived on time (because it's speed was constant from the top of the mountain to sea level)...but it should have already decayed...it somehow aged very little from the top of the mountain to the water below.

This must be because time is slowing down for the muon. And allowing it to make a trip in less time than it actually takes. Like the detector proved it took this long...but the age of the muon says otherwise.

How could this be? Because your an idot for believing this crap in the first place.

Your an idiot if you think the muons at the top of the mountain are any different than the ones at the bottom.

Your measuring some on top of the mountain, and your measuring some on the ground. If the ones on the ground live longer than the ones on top of the mountain...it is because they can't take the altitude man...the air is too thin...but the ones that manage to make it to sea level live longer...

Remember you have no particle tagging capability to know if your measuring the muons that moved from the top of the mountain to you or not. You are either measuring muons already there at sea level...or muons already there at the top of the mountain...It could be that the half-life of muons is effected by how far above sea level it is...just like if we go up a mountain. Or, being born on a mountain top, then going down to sea level...either way it would make you sick.

The life expectancy of a muon cruising by the top of a mountain compared to a muon near sea level might be totally different...The rate of their half-life decay might be totally different, and this is what you are observing...again....nothing to do with time dilation.

thank you,

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

Since it is already held that muons do accelerate toward the Earth...then it is reasonable that the muon would seem to decay 10 times slower at sea level, because even though the travel time from the top of the mountain to the bottom is several half-lives (at a constant speed)...the travel time from the top of the mountain to the bottom is NOT several half-lives, because the muons are accelerating toward the Earth...they are making the trip from the top of the mountain to sea level, faster and faster as they get there, and therefore; they still have some time before they decay....

So muons accelerate toward Earth...move faster and faster as they get closer and closer...and because they are moving so fast by the time they reach sea level, they can travel further and further in less time....whereas near the top of a mountain they are only moving say 1/2 light speed, near sea level they have accelerated so fast they can now travel even further in less time....

That's not time dilation either.

So this experiment has been debunked as one showing time dilation.

Muons keep on speeding up as they approach the Earth, so yes...it seems they live longer compared to ones far away from Earth, because they can cover ground a lot faster and faster, and their travel time is less and less to get there before they die.

Only an idiot would miss the obvious difference between muons moving at a constant speed...and ones accelerating toward Earth. Of course the ones accelerating toward Earth will be able to travel a further distance before they decay...they're moving faster...duh....

And they are moving faster and faster...so watch out! They can even go from the top of a mountain to sea level before they die!!!! I mean they can pass the finish line way before their cousins far away from Earth.

Ones way out there can only go like half a mile before they die...but man, the ones accelerating toward Earth seem to be able to stay alive long enough to make like a 2 mile trip before they die!!!! DUH!!!
They are moving faster, and go further before they fizzle out....no time dilation there either....

Thank you.

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

Say for instance I was a muon...

I'm only going to live for 1 second...

But if I move fast enough through space...I can go really far before I die...and the faster I move through space, the further I can travel before my second is up...

Since the seconds tick by at a constant rate for any and all objects moving in uniform motion...then no matter how fast I move...I will die in one second, even if I move from the top of a mountain to the bottom in half a second, or a tenth of a second...nine tenths of a second later I die, or half a second later I die...

This is not time dilation. There are no contractions of travel length. The distance remained the same. However far it is from the top of a mountain to a sea level base. Let's say 5 miles.

When you say time dilates near or at light )speed(, you are simply saying you can go further and further in distance before you die...because you are getting there faster...doesn't make you age any differently. )speed( just makes you get there faster.

If you are getting there faster and faster...pretty soon it will seem like you haven't even left yet. But you have..because you traveled such a great distance...even though you did so quite fast.

Traveling a distance at any speed does not determine the AGE of the object traveling.

How fast an object can move does not determine if time will slow down for that object or not. No matter how fast the object moves...it's amount of time experienced is what it is...even if it traveled very very far.

Since speed is a gradient scale...and for all speeds relatively slow...we know pilots and airline stewardesses do not live longer than other people. In fact compressing and decompressing the human body results in jet lag...compression, decompression fatigue.

The g-forces are also compression, and decompression.

Once the altitude and acceleration are constant...it doesn't matter how fast your going...you won't live longer...you'll just be able to travel further into space before you die.

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

### Re: Snapshots of travel time.

Oh, and the truth about airline stewardesses and restaurant employees taking a fifteen minute long break, regardless the speed of the jumbo jet, or the speed of the Earth...both take fifteen minute long breaks...

This is Quad Erat Demonstratum. It is infinitely true. Regardless of speed.........15 million times the speed of light across an infinite ocean on board a starship, and the pilot takes a fifteen minute break, and at the same time a server at a restaurant takes a fifteen minute break...and no matter where they are located in infinite space....fifteen minutes later both of their breaks are up...one has to go back serving tables...the other has to climb back in the cockpit and watch the dials.

Quad Erat Demonstratum...infinitely true...for anything in uniform motion (constant speed, and constant direction). Even though the speed can be different between two reference frames.

As long as both reference frames are in uniform motion, speed is irrelevant. Seconds tick by as seconds, and even if you are located millions of miles apart moving at different speeds, one being slow, and the other as fast as light, neither reference frame will experience time dilation. They won't even know they are moving that fast until they look out the window.