Hey all, this is my first post here.
I'm having a hard time remembering why it is that motion effects time. I remember watching Cosmos many years ago and Sagen explained it by showing a guy on a moped taking off, going near light speed, and returning to find his friends all much older than he. I have read some books on the subject and yet I just cannot grasp the theroy. It has been stated that any motion at all will do this to a lesser or greater degree, all realitive to that which is moving or not? I understand, sort of, that nothing is actually "still"in space....right? I go near the speed of light and my watch will read a different time than those who do not? Any explanation or link would be appreciated, THANKS!

PS where is the spell check feature on this board? I'm not a very good speller.

Welcome to AllForums. Enjoy your stay with us.

One place to get an answer is here (http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/lightspeed.htm).

Best explaination I've ever seen would be the first chapter in The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.
This would explain the basics of it:

Thanks for the information! Hope this reply goes to right place!

the trick is that to obtain that speed the molecules of your body would have to withstand the pressure. or the vehicle you are in would have to endure it.
question is, in space, can there ever be a build up of pressure , or other forces on a human or vehicle at those speeds?
what are ya doing, planning on trying to time travel?

the trick is that to obtain that speed the molecules of your body would have to withstand the pressure. or the vehicle you are in would have to endure it.
question is, in space, can there ever be a build up of pressure , or other forces on a human or vehicle at those speeds?
what are ya doing, planning on trying to time travel?

Nah, no time travel for me....except that which occurs at 55 -60 mph.:)

Sure, I'd time travel. Got any clue on how to do it?

Originally posted by es347fan
Sure, I'd time travel. Got any clue on how to do it?

no, without studying physics, and such it just seems that travel at the speeds to try to find out if time travel is possible would crush the human body.

The entire universe moves through time at the speed of light. Any object's entire velocity is equal to the speed of light, such that motion through space slows motion through time.

Ordinarily it's no problem because ordinary motion is such a small fraction of light speed, but if you were to move vertically at half the speed of light then you would move half as fast through time.

The closer you get to the speed of light, the closer you get to standing still in time.

(I think I did read that in "The Elegant Universe")

It's a strange phenomenon because intuitively it would seem that time is absolute and that the speed of light is dependent on time. And at our biological scale that makes sense and is the most practical way to think about things (I'm not talking about perception of time varying due to sleep, boredom, drugs etc).

But strangely the speed of light is absolute and time is dependent on motion at other scales of the universe.

but time for yourself is always a constant - it's just time relative to others.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
The entire universe moves through time at the speed of light. Any object's entire velocity is equal to the speed of light, such that motion through space slows motion through time.

Ordinarily it's no problem because ordinary motion is such a small fraction of light speed, but if you were to move vertically at half the speed of light then you would move half as fast through time.

The closer you get to the speed of light, the closer you get to standing still in time.

(I think I did read that in "The Elegant Universe")


call me science ignorant, which i admit to some degree since i've never taken physics, or read anything on it, but if the universe travels at the speed of light, then wouldn't any light from any place seem to stand still? ya know, when it leaves a spot it will have no time at all to reach your eyes since you would be moving at the same rate towards it that light is traveling to you? um, never mind...........

Originally posted by ivan
call me science ignorant, which i admit to some degree since i've never taken physics, or read anything on it, but if the universe travels at the speed of light, then wouldn't any light from any place seem to stand still? ya know, when it leaves a spot it will have no time at all to reach your eyes since you would be moving at the same rate towards it that light is traveling to you? um, never mind...........

It has zero mass so it moves at the fastest possible speed and it does, from it's own standpoint, stand still in time.

This is a theory, though so it could be wrong.

call me science ignorant, which i admit to some degree since i've never taken physics, or read anything on it, but if the universe travels at the speed of light, then wouldn't any light from any place seem to stand still? ya know, when it leaves a spot it will have no time at all to reach your eyes since you would be moving at the same rate towards it that light is traveling to you? um, never mind...........
The general understanding of the "speed of light" is the speed of light in a vacuum. Light is just as susceptible to slowing down as anything. The universe itself doesn't travel at the speed of light, matter doesn't move that fast, it in fact hardly ever moves even close to that speed. Electrons often fly around near the speed of light, but they have no effect on the actual relative speed of what it makes up. Blank probably misunderstood the motion of objects. There are two speeds of an object, one is relative to a force of either acceleration or gravity(perceptably the same thing), and absolute speed only measureable by third party. Comparatively it is impossible to tell between two objects(as one of the objects) moving at a constant speed who is actually moving and who is still. From either's viewpoint the other is the one that is moving and they are both correct. Without the effect of gravity or acceleration to differentiate they are both moving and both are still.

It has zero mass so it moves at the fastest possible speed and it does, from it's own standpoint, stand still in time.
As previously mentioned, this happens to everything at constant speed.

This is a theory, though so it could be wrong.
What's a theory? Because if you're talking about the motion, then you're wrong. It's an observed and empirically determined fact of nature.

Originally posted by Blibblob
call me science ignorant, which i admit to some degree since i've never taken physics, or read anything on it, but if the universe travels at the speed of light, then wouldn't any light from any place seem to stand still? ya know, when it leaves a spot it will have no time at all to reach your eyes since you would be moving at the same rate towards it that light is traveling to you? um, never mind...........
The general understanding of the "speed of light" is the speed of light in a vacuum. Light is just as susceptible to slowing down as anything. The universe itself doesn't travel at the speed of light, matter doesn't move that fast, it in fact hardly ever moves even close to that speed. Electrons often fly around near the speed of light, but they have no effect on the actual relative speed of what it makes up. Blank probably misunderstood the motion of objects. There are two speeds of an object, one is relative to a force of either acceleration or gravity(perceptably the same thing), and absolute speed only measureable by third party. Comparatively it is impossible to tell between two objects(as one of the objects) moving at a constant speed who is actually moving and who is still. From either's viewpoint the other is the one that is moving and they are both correct. Without the effect of gravity or acceleration to differentiate they are both moving and both are still.

It has zero mass so it moves at the fastest possible speed and it does, from it's own standpoint, stand still in time.
As previously mentioned, this happens to everything at constant speed.

This is a theory, though so it could be wrong.
What's a theory? Because if you're talking about the motion, then you're wrong. It's an observed and empirically determined fact of nature.

You are an arrogant fucking pipsqueak

Quote (from The Elegant Universe)

"Einsten proclaimes that all objects in the universeare always traveling through spacetime at one fixed speed-that of light. This is a strange idea; we are used to the notion that objects travel at speeds considerably less than that of light. We have repeatedly emphasized this as the reason relativistic effects are so unfamiliar in the everyday world. All of this is true. We are presently talking about an object's combined speed through all four dimensions-three space and one time-and it is the object speed in this generalized sense that is equal to that of light.... The speed of an object through space is thus merely a reflection of how much of it's motion through time is diverted"

It goes on to explain that if you are moving through space at light speed then you stand still in time.

Again, this sounds lovely and I like the logic but it is a THEORY which can't be verified experimetally.

Again, this sounds lovely and I like the logic but it is a THEORY which can't be verified experimetally.
Poor reading comprehension? Empirically it has been shown that time for particles slow down. If you took the time to understand the rest of the book you'd see that with particles that have a set, very short, lifespan, their lifespan "increases" for us at speeds close to light speed. I have absolutely no idea why you spent the time to quote from the book, it says nothing more than what I already did.

Originally posted by Blibblob
Again, this sounds lovely and I like the logic but it is a THEORY which can't be verified experimetally.
Poor reading comprehension? Empirically it has been shown that time for particles slow down. If you took the time to understand the rest of the book you'd see that with particles that have a set, very short, lifespan, their lifespan "increases" for us at speeds close to light speed. I have absolutely no idea why you spent the time to quote from the book, it says nothing more than what I already did.

Whatever, kid. The above paragraph is not relevant to the discussion at hand. I am not talking about "particles that have a set, very short, lifespan". I know that a muon traveling at near light speed lasts for a thousanth of a second instead of a millionth of a second (or whatever the actual particles/figures may be). You have added nothing (except a distinct odor).

I made a post about why objects slow down in time as they approach light speed through space. You said I didn't understand and I quoted from the book, which says exactly what I said it said in the first place.

I busted your ass.

If you make another post on this subject, point out exactly where I am wrong here.

What the fuck are you talking about? I daresay, I do detect poor reading comprehension. I merely expounded upon the short sentence that you said in reply to ivan which I didn't think fully explained the issue. The only thing that I had said to you was regarding your comment on theory. I understood your statement of "This is a theory, though so it could be wrong.", to be in relation to all that we were talking about and contested you on that as time slow down has been empirically supported. I even qualified my statement with: "What's a theory? Because if you're talking about the motion,...". You were fully capable of further explaining what you were talking about instead of spewing crap. I conceed that the actual fact that time stands still at light speed is still a theory as we cannot reach that speed, but I do not believe I made any motion to say that that was what I was talking about.

Actually, Blib, I've never heard of a theory that "time stands still at light speed." All I hear is that travelling at light speed takes an infinite amount of force to do, therefore travelling at light speed is theoretically impossible.

Originally posted by Blibblob
What the fuck are you talking about? I daresay, I do detect poor reading comprehension. I merely expounded upon the short sentence that you said in reply to ivan which I didn't think fully explained the issue. The only thing that I had said to you was regarding your comment on theory. I understood your statement of "This is a theory, though so it could be wrong.", to be in relation to all that we were talking about and contested you on that as time slow down has been empirically supported. I even qualified my statement with: "What's a theory? Because if you're talking about the motion,...". You were fully capable of further explaining what you were talking about instead of spewing crap. I conceed that the actual fact that time stands still at light speed is still a theory as we cannot reach that speed, but I do not believe I made any motion to say that that was what I was talking about.

Translation: "I can't really find anything wrong with what you said, I am so combative I just had to call you wrong and now I can't bring myself to backpeddle"

It's okay.

The "theory" in question is the assertion that the universe generally moves through time at the speed of light and objects divert their speed through time by moving in space.

That's just a very logical speculation (which I subscribe to, but must qualify). We could never prove it, no matter how many muons we create in a particle accelerator.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Actually, Blib, I've never heard of a theory that "time stands still at light speed." All I hear is that travelling at light speed takes an infinite amount of force to do, therefore travelling at light speed is theoretically impossible.

Photons do it, and for them there is no motion in time (theoretically).