The speed of light and Einstein's theory of relativity (vehicle, physics)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I've been reading some posts on here about speed of light travel which show that some folks are not familiar with Einstein's special theory of relativity.
Briefly, it states that:
As an object approaches the speed of light, there is length contraction and time dilation.
What this means is that if you're in a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light, then the distance to an object becomes shorter. So, for example, a star that was 100 light years away when you were at rest may now be only a few light years away at your current speed.
Also, time slows down. So, even though your journey to that star takes only a few years inside the spaceship, once you arrive there you're actually thousands of years in the future.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there as food for thought.
So I've been reading some posts on here about speed of light travel which show that some folks are not familiar with Einstein's special theory of relativity.
Briefly, it states that:
As an object approaches the speed of light, there is length contraction and time dilation.
What this means is that if you're in a spaceship traveling close to the speed of light, then the distance to an object becomes shorter. So, for example, a star that was 100 light years away when you were at rest may now be only a few light years away at your current speed.
Also, time slows down. So, even though your journey to that star takes only a few years inside the spaceship, once you arrive there you're actually thousands of years in the future.
Anyway, I thought I'd throw this out there as food for thought.
From my understanding of length contraction and time dilation, the distance that an object travels does not come in to play. Time dilation as I interpret it, relates to the notion that time moves increasingly slower for an object as it approaches the speed of light. Therefore, an astronaut in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light would age far slower than a person on earth.
Hence time travel into the future is thought to be possible if we were able to place someone in a vehicle that is able to orbit the earth at light speed. Since time moves slower at light speed, 10 years for the person in the orbitting vehicle would be akin to 50 years for the people on earth. If the orbitting individual left the earth at age 30, he'd be 40 y/o when he lands while his friends would be closer to 80. In essence he travelled 40 years into the future.
From everything that I've read, length contraction references the object in motion and not the distance travelled. Therefore, a spaceship travelling the speed of light will look shorter to an outside observer than the same ship that is not travelling at that speed.
If travelling at light speed distorted the actual distance that is travelled then how could the speed of light be used as a constant (speed of light=c) in all mathematical equations? That would not seem possible if the actual travelling distance distorts as you move closer to the speed of light.
Please correct me if I am understanding this wrong...
From my understanding of length contraction and time dilation, the distance that an object travels does not come in to play. Time dilation as I interpret it, relates to the notion that time moves increasingly slower for an object as it approaches the speed of light. Therefore, an astronaut in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light would age far slower than a person on earth.
Hence time travel into the future is thought to be possible if we were able to place someone in a vehicle that is able to orbit the earth at light speed. Since time moves slower at light speed, 10 years for the person in the orbitting vehicle would be akin to 50 years for the people on earth. If the orbitting individual left the earth at age 30, he'd be 40 y/o when he lands while his friends would be closer to 80. In essence he travelled 40 years into the future.
From everything that I've read, length contraction references the object in motion and not the distance travelled. Therefore, a spaceship travelling the speed of light will look shorter to an outside observer than the same ship that is not travelling at that speed.
If travelling at light speed distorted the actual distance that is travelled then how could the speed of light be used as a constant (speed of light=c) in all mathematical equations? That would not seem possible if the actual travelling distance distorts as you move closer to the speed of light.
Please correct me if I am understanding this wrong...
OK... forget my last post. I now understand that distances are shortened in relation to an observer travelling at the speed of light. This is observed in the Lorentz-Contraction. This observation occurs only in the direction of motion and without it the speed of light could not remain constant. I thank you for your "food for thought" as it did in fact help increase my understanding of this concept
Quantum Entanglement crushes Relativity from my understanding.
Now if we could only figure out how to use it for space travel or teleportation
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjg5
I never liked the time dilation theory myself anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EHCT
From my understanding of length contraction and time dilation, the distance that an object travels does not come in to play. Time dilation as I interpret it, relates to the notion that time moves increasingly slower for an object as it approaches the speed of light. Therefore, an astronaut in a spaceship travelling at the speed of light would age far slower than a person on earth.
Hence time travel into the future is thought to be possible if we were able to place someone in a vehicle that is able to orbit the earth at light speed. Since time moves slower at light speed, 10 years for the person in the orbitting vehicle would be akin to 50 years for the people on earth. If the orbitting individual left the earth at age 30, he'd be 40 y/o when he lands while his friends would be closer to 80. In essence he travelled 40 years into the future.
From everything that I've read, length contraction references the object in motion and not the distance travelled. Therefore, a spaceship travelling the speed of light will look shorter to an outside observer than the same ship that is not travelling at that speed.
If travelling at light speed distorted the actual distance that is travelled then how could the speed of light be used as a constant (speed of light=c) in all mathematical equations? That would not seem possible if the actual travelling distance distorts as you move closer to the speed of light.
Please correct me if I am understanding this wrong...
Time is always the same in all inertial frames (i.e. moving at constant velocity and without any gravity). For two frames moving relative to each other, both frames would observe clocks running slowly in the other frame and normally in their own frame.
Do you not like that it occurs, or actually question whether it's true?
Hasn't it been proven with very accurate atomic clocks and planes anyway?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
