|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Time travel
Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? I understand it's not possible to travel 'back' in time, only forward. Layman's terms or don't bother.... ; ) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Whisper" wrote in message ... Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? How: Time dilation afforded by Einstein Special Relativity. The faster you travel the slower your internal clocks runs with respect to someone stationary or traveling slower. If someone 40 years old with a newly born child were to leave earth (alone, leaving the child behind) traveling at 98% of the speed of light and come back 10 years of his clock after he left, he would be 50 years old, his newly born child would also be 50 years old!! Google it for more information. Guillermo |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Whisper" wrote in message ... Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? How: Time dilation afforded by Einstein Special Relativity. The faster you travel the slower your internal clocks runs with respect to someone stationary or traveling slower. If someone 40 years old with a newly born child were to leave earth (alone, leaving the child behind) traveling at 98% of the speed of light and come back 10 years of his clock after he left, he would be 50 years old, his newly born child would also be 50 years old!! Google it for more information. Guillermo |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Whisper
writes Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? I understand it's not possible to travel 'back' in time, only forward. Actually, one of the problems with relativity is that it has no problems with time travel into the past. I don't usually discuss anything to do with relativity, because it gives me a headache :-) but I'll just note that the time dilation effect (and the related apparent shrinkage of rulers moving at high speeds) is because there is no such thing as absolute time, because the laws of science are the same for everyone, and in particular the speed of light is the same. If you are moving close to the speed of light you see it cover less distance in a given time than if you are stationary. The speed is the same, so time "must" be passing more slowly. -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Whisper
writes Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? I understand it's not possible to travel 'back' in time, only forward. Actually, one of the problems with relativity is that it has no problems with time travel into the past. I don't usually discuss anything to do with relativity, because it gives me a headache :-) but I'll just note that the time dilation effect (and the related apparent shrinkage of rulers moving at high speeds) is because there is no such thing as absolute time, because the laws of science are the same for everyone, and in particular the speed of light is the same. If you are moving close to the speed of light you see it cover less distance in a given time than if you are stationary. The speed is the same, so time "must" be passing more slowly. -- "Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of void" Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:27:24 GMT, "G.P" wrote:
"Whisper" wrote in message ... Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? How: Time dilation afforded by Einstein Special Relativity. The faster you travel the slower your internal clocks runs with respect to someone stationary or traveling slower. If someone 40 years old with a newly born child were to leave earth (alone, leaving the child behind) traveling at 98% of the speed of light and come back 10 years of his clock after he left, he would be 50 years old, his newly born child would also be 50 years old!! Google it for more information. Guillermo That makes some sense, but in reality if one were to travel to the nearest star at light speed it would take only 4.something years to get there, Your watch may be wrong, but elapsed time will have been those 4. years. If once you got there you discovered that there were no planets and no reason to be there and promptly went home, you would find that just about 9 years have elapsed since you left So in reality no time dilation has really occurred. It just seems from your perspective that it didn't take that long to make the trip. Why it would be like that has never been explained to me in a way that I would understand it though. I have seen the illustrations and get that, but why would it be like that? There seems to be no logical reason for it. I guess it could be counted as a perk of space travel. Once you get to C the immense distances seem smaller and long trips become much less time consuming to the astronauts. But why does that happen? What is the mechanism that causes the effect of time "squeezing" for those going at or near C? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:27:24 GMT, "G.P" wrote:
"Whisper" wrote in message ... Can someone explain in layman's terms how time travel is possible the closer we get to speed of light? How: Time dilation afforded by Einstein Special Relativity. The faster you travel the slower your internal clocks runs with respect to someone stationary or traveling slower. If someone 40 years old with a newly born child were to leave earth (alone, leaving the child behind) traveling at 98% of the speed of light and come back 10 years of his clock after he left, he would be 50 years old, his newly born child would also be 50 years old!! Google it for more information. Guillermo That makes some sense, but in reality if one were to travel to the nearest star at light speed it would take only 4.something years to get there, Your watch may be wrong, but elapsed time will have been those 4. years. If once you got there you discovered that there were no planets and no reason to be there and promptly went home, you would find that just about 9 years have elapsed since you left So in reality no time dilation has really occurred. It just seems from your perspective that it didn't take that long to make the trip. Why it would be like that has never been explained to me in a way that I would understand it though. I have seen the illustrations and get that, but why would it be like that? There seems to be no logical reason for it. I guess it could be counted as a perk of space travel. Once you get to C the immense distances seem smaller and long trips become much less time consuming to the astronauts. But why does that happen? What is the mechanism that causes the effect of time "squeezing" for those going at or near C? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ookie Wonderslug wrote:
That makes some sense, but in reality if one were to travel to the nearest star at light speed it would take only 4.something years to get there, Your watch may be wrong, but elapsed time will have been those 4. years. If once you got there you discovered that there were no planets and no reason to be there and promptly went home, you would find that just about 9 years have elapsed since you left So in reality no time dilation has really occurred. It just seems from your perspective that it didn't take that long to make the trip. Why it would be like that has never been explained to me in a way that I would understand it though. I have seen the illustrations and get that, but why would it be like that? There seems to be no logical reason for it. I guess it could be counted as a perk of space travel. Once you get to C the immense distances seem smaller and long trips become much less time consuming to the astronauts. But why does that happen? What is the mechanism that causes the effect of time "squeezing" for those going at or near C? Maybe this section of the Usenet Physics FAQ will help: http://tinyurl.com/p0s0. Here's a site with more links to pursue: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html. -- Odysseus |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ookie Wonderslug wrote:
That makes some sense, but in reality if one were to travel to the nearest star at light speed it would take only 4.something years to get there, Your watch may be wrong, but elapsed time will have been those 4. years. If once you got there you discovered that there were no planets and no reason to be there and promptly went home, you would find that just about 9 years have elapsed since you left So in reality no time dilation has really occurred. It just seems from your perspective that it didn't take that long to make the trip. Why it would be like that has never been explained to me in a way that I would understand it though. I have seen the illustrations and get that, but why would it be like that? There seems to be no logical reason for it. I guess it could be counted as a perk of space travel. Once you get to C the immense distances seem smaller and long trips become much less time consuming to the astronauts. But why does that happen? What is the mechanism that causes the effect of time "squeezing" for those going at or near C? Maybe this section of the Usenet Physics FAQ will help: http://tinyurl.com/p0s0. Here's a site with more links to pursue: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html. -- Odysseus |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Whisper Time can only stop,slow down or move towards the future. If
we could find a blackhole a LY away and parked our spaceship outside the event horizon for a year when we came back to Earth 10,000 years would have gone by. That seems the easiest way to go to the future. It proves Einstien was right again strong gravity and great speed are the same thing. Inertia and gravity are the same thing. Finding the sameness the way nature creates and evolves stuff can show reality. Bert |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error. | Robert | Astronomy Misc | 133 | August 30th 04 01:31 AM |
SEVEN MINUTE INTERSTELLAR SPACE TRAVEL | REM460 | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 27th 04 05:56 AM |
when will our planet stop rotating? | meat n potatoes | Amateur Astronomy | 61 | March 27th 04 01:50 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 08:33 PM |
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies. | The Ghost In The Machine | Astronomy Misc | 172 | August 30th 03 10:27 PM |