flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > theory of relativity

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8939
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
sorry, i just couldn't understand this theory.(well, i admit, i did read and have a little bit idea of what it is, but still kinda vague)

now, i am thinking of this situation, what if i could move faster than speed of light, (eg. blink of eye).

so, assume now is 9:00 pm here, i am in Kuala Lumpur, now in a blink of eye, i travels to sun 1000 times and back to Kuala Lumpur.

now, what could happened. the local time still 9:01 pm (assume i only use 1 second to blink my eye).

so, how speed could get relate to time? (my question)
Post 01 Jul 2007, 11:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
m



Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 304
Location: in
m
Same here. This theory has always confused me Shocked
Do you have a Science backround?

_________________
Attitude!
Post 01 Jul 2007, 11:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HyperVista



Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 691
Location: Virginia, USA
HyperVista
hello sleepsleep! i really like how you think.
Here is a link that provides some animation that describes Einstine's Special Relativity time dialation effect casued by bodies traveling at speeds nearing the speed of light. Time passes at a constant speed for both, it's only when the "speeder's" clock is observed by the stationary one from a distance that time is observed to slow down. Take a look at the animation, it enlightens! fyi, you'll have to scroll down a little and push the "play" button. you will see that from the perspective of the observer (stationary) the light beam of the speeder has to travel further, thereby "slowing" of the speeder's clock. the animation explains it better.
Post 01 Jul 2007, 12:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
sleepsleep: first, you should decide if you are talking about special theory of relativity, or general.

special theory is simpler, it's just that thing about observer's time passing differently than subject's time.

general theory is hell, it is about 4d space (3d + time), where mass changes shape of this space, and that causes many forces (gravitation, etc..)

but i don't know any of theories good enough Sad
Post 01 Jul 2007, 15:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8939
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
yo yo,
i don't have solid science background, just a little bit here and there but somehow i really enjoy the process of thinking something i don't know.

and thanks hyper Smile glad u like my thought.

i think the problem i have is more with the twin paradox example. like if one person move at speed of light, after he came back, his twin would be older than him... (just doen't make sense to me)

assume {planet A =pA} distance to {planet B =pB} distance is 5 light years.
H1 = human 1 to travels from pA to pB then back to pA at speed light

if i put 1 clock in pA and another one on H1 bag, and i adjust them to same time and minute and second, then i set both alarm to ring after 5 years. Would they ring at the same time? and where is H1 when {his clock ring OR pA clock ring}? (on journey from pA to pB, reach pB, or on journey back from pB to pA, or reach pA)

i think, both clock would ring at the same time, and when it rings, H1 just reached pB.
Post 02 Jul 2007, 18:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Would they ring at the same time?

bad question... same time perceived by whom? Remember, time is subjective, there is no universal "same time".
Post 02 Jul 2007, 19:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8939
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
back with this thread, because i thought something new today.

In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in Special Relativity, in which a person who makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket will return home to find he or she has aged less than an identical twin who stayed on Earth.

assume (eg), our heart beats 100,000 times each year. and to reach the age of 50 from 20, our hearts would need to beat 100,000x(50-20) years = total beats. (roughly)

now, if we put this case to the 2 person at the twin paradox examples. something strange will happen.

1. even person A who travels at high speed rocket, beat at the roughly same total heart beat as person B who is on earth, he is more younger than his twin on earth who already aged.

2. if person A who travels at high speed rocket beats at significant slower rate, is that possible? would heart functions at significant slower rate? and why heart beat at slower rate?

3. does their total heart beats about the same? maybe plus minus 3%
Post 25 Apr 2008, 21:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
the time is a spacial dimension. the dimension that permitts to everythings to not be at the same place.
without the time, the planets, the stars, in general, all things, will not be distinct.

just imagine, you are in a strange environment without time. what will you see? a sort of result the same of the one observed if the refresh of the screen is made without clearing the buffer, or direct write on the screen, with clearing the screen.

then, as time is a dimension, the fact that we are moving at high speed will act as antitime effect, because you will be more like a ray than a distinct object.

it is just a theory. not a truth accepted by science.
Post 25 Apr 2008, 22:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17327
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
edfed wrote:
it is just a theory. not a truth accepted by science.
Time dilation has been proven. Calculation of satellite positions and timing must take into account the time dilation effect else one will get incorrect results. Moving objects will experience a slower passage of time. Everything slows down, hearts beats, clock ticks, chemical reactions etc.
Post 25 Apr 2008, 23:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sakeniwefu



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 29
sakeniwefu
Special relativity has already been proven by infinitesimal deviations(just as predicted) in atomic clocks that have been flying in commercial airlines.
It might be slightly wrong like Newton's mechanics, or just incomplete, but if the real laws are discovered some day, they will be very similar to it.
Newton's mechanics are wrong for any calculation, but the error is so small in our everyday life that we don't care.
With Einstein's the error(if there is any) is far from anything we can appreciate experimentally, so, they are basically a fact you should accept.
Think of it as using fixed point hacks for a pre-GPU 3D game engine(Newton) vs using the FPU with double precision for calculations(Einstein). The latter is an approximation as well, but you don't trust the former to do your maths homework.
Post 26 Apr 2008, 00:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
Quote:
Moving objects will experience a slower passage of time. Everything slows down, hearts beats, clock ticks, chemical reactions etc.

one evident proof are the reverse effects.
if the distance is bigger, time needed to join A to B is longer.
if the quatity of matter used for the chemical reaction is bigger, the time needed to achieve wil be longer.
and it is the same for all things.

this is THE evident proof of time as a dimension, not as a mystical thing.
but we cannot see or touch the time. just try to feel it ( not the feeling of heart beats of course ).
Post 26 Apr 2008, 01:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
When time = 0, you can't even think, because thinking requires time Wink

when people say they can't divide by 0 (or any other mystical thing, including religions), ask them if they can imagine a space without time.

you can't think of it, you can't imagine it...
but somehow you imply it isn't true. Actually a world without time is much more common than you think around in the world. Maybe not in this Universe, but since there must be a plane associated with each 3D 'frame', I hope you get the idea.

this is where common sense, which all sciences are based upon (excluding math, if you count it as science), fails.. Math can express a 3D world (e.g without time, the 4th dimension). math can explain a lot because it represents our thinking. But the others are like democracy: supply a large number of votes, and the so-called explanation wins (i.e it becomes 'correct'). Maybe you can't think of a better system, and somehow maybe there isn't. But this does not make it true at all, any more than an explanation in which only 1 person agrees (understands). It's not "more probable" to be correct, see, if the world had 99 monkeys and 1 human, no matter how probable the monkey explanations were (because they were a lot more), they would still be incorrect. And we are all monkeys I'm afraid.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 12:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
it is just a theory. not a truth accepted by science.

This is like 3rd time I am explaining that "theory", in context of science, is something accepted by science. What you said is oxymoron.

sleepsleep: Hope I don't screw it, relativity is not my strong point:

Person A stays on earth, person B is on spaceship.

From point of view of person A, his heart beats 40 times a second, and person B's heart beats 39 times a second.

From point of view of person B, his heart beats 40 times a second, and person A's heart beats 41 times a second.

Times goes faster for A then B... not subjectively, you won't notice n difference in YOUR heartbeat, but relatively to something else.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 14:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17327
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vid: Looks good to me. From a local perspective, you would not notice a slowing (or quickening) of your own self. You can only measure it relation to something else, either you see others ageing faster or slower than yourself and would think to yourself 'their time is changing, not mine'.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 15:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8939
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

When time = 0, you can't even think, because thinking requires time

one thing ponders me a lot. what is time?
time is just the distant from prev (start to record moment) to another moment (where you stop record)

it is invented in order to know the distant of an event to another event.
we can use lots of measurement to get the distant of 2 events.

if gravity is a factor that could affect the tools we use to measure the distant of 2 events, then it is not accurate anymore.
Post 28 Apr 2008, 20:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
sleepsleep: That's correct - there is some very complicated math used for computing "spacetime" position in general relativity. I remember that even Tomasz said it is "too much", and that means rest of us are screwed Wink

I think this could be good starting point, if you are so bold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity
Post 28 Apr 2008, 20:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Xorpd!



Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Xorpd!
vid wrote:
it is just a theory. not a truth accepted by science.
Person A stays on earth, person B is on spaceship.

From point of view of person A, his heart beats 40 times a second, and person B's heart beats 39 times a second.

From point of view of person B, his heart beats 40 times a second, and person A's heart beats 41 times a second.


No, from point of view of person B, his heart beats 40 times a second, but person A's heart also beats 39 times a second. The situation is symmetric except at the times B is accelerated. A ages very fast at this time from B's perspective. And unless they are hummingbirds, I hope that's 40 & 39 times a minute... wait, hummingbirds are only about 20 times per second, perhaps they need to sustain the higher heart rate to achieve relativistic velocities in your experiment. Too bad you don't have any hummingbirds over there.
Post 30 Apr 2008, 02:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
A ages very fast at this time from B's perspective

A ages faster than B from B's perspective, yet A's heart beats slower? Doesn't make much sense to me.
Post 30 Apr 2008, 08:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Xorpd!



Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Xorpd!
vid wrote:

A ages faster than B from B's perspective, yet A's heart beats slower? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, maybe that's because you're expecting the world to be something it's not. If you think about it from B's perspective (recall that B is the one who suffers acceleration in our paradox) on his trip out to the distant star what he really sees when he observes A moving to the rear at 0.2222c (assuming γ = 40/39 so β = √(1-1/γ²) = 0.2222) is a very red-shifted A so the frequency at which heartbeats from A are detected by B is slow. After B has turned around and is going back towards A at 0.2222c, he sees a blue-shifted A so that the frequency at which he detects A's heartbeats is higher than normal.

On arrival at the star, assumed 1 c-yr away in A's reference frame, B considers that the star, moving at 0.2222c towards him from an initial distance of (39/40) = 0.975 c-yr has reached him, so he has been traveling for 4.388 yr. He considers that A has been aging at a rate 1/γ slow compared to him, so he gets A's age as 4.388/γ = 4.278 yr.

Now he could have gotten this information by asking someone at the star: since that observer would be in A's frame, he considers that B has traveled 1 c-yr at 0.2222c so that A's time should be t = 1/0.2222 = 4.500 yr. Applying the Lorentz transformation x' = γ(x-βct) = (40/39)*(0-0.2222×4.500) = -1.026 c-yr, that is 1.026 c-yr behind him, and t' = γ(t-βx/c) = (40/39)*(4.500+0.2222×0) = 4.616 yr. So we can see a disagreement: what is simultaneous in B's frame is not simultaneous in A's frame. Whoops, gotta run. Check my arithmetic while I'm gone, could you please?
Post 01 May 2008, 02:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Check my arithmetic while I'm gone, could you please?

Hardly, too much for my weakly educated hangovered brain today Wink
Post 01 May 2008, 09:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.