I think the rule is that gravity makes time slower, so it would be faster in space. Slower on Earth, and even slower on Jupiter. Secondly, it would only be faster relative to earth, not relative to your own watch or whatever.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Under what principle would sitting a couple of thousands miles above the Earth cause you to age less due to slower time?
Correct, Beattie. If two clocks were synchronized, then one was sent to space while one stayed on Earth, the clock in space would elapse faster than the clock on Earth. Time machine!
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You would age less because time elapses faster for the observer in space compared to an observer on the ground.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
If you're near a gravity well, time for you slows down. If you're moving fast, time slows down.
GPS satellites in orbit lose time because they're moving fast. Earth's gravity well isn't really all that strong, so I don't think you'll see much in the way of time effects from being in or out of it. But then, the speed that a satellite orbits at isn't really all that great, either. I don't remember what it is exactly, something like a few millionths of a second a day, that the GPS satellites would lose if they didn't account for relativity. The result of that would be huge inaccuracies in their calculations, and so your car might tell you that you're 500 feet from the next traffic light - 500 feet above it. Oops.
So just *pop* appearing in space suddenly, moving right along at the same speed as Earth, but being away from its gravitational influence, I think that time would move a wee bit quicker for you. But if you start speeding up, then it'll slow down again.
Apparently it also can be achieved on a rotating platform. A clock nearer the center would run faster than a clock placed near the perimeter. Of course, to produce a measurable difference, you'd need a damn big platform, rotating pretty damn fast.
GPS satellites in orbit lose time because they're moving fast. Earth's gravity well isn't really all that strong, so I don't think you'll see much in the way of time effects from being in or out of it. But then, the speed that a satellite orbits at isn't really all that great, either. I don't remember what it is exactly, something like a few millionths of a second a day, that the GPS satellites would lose if they didn't account for relativity. The result of that would be huge inaccuracies in their calculations, and so your car might tell you that you're 500 feet from the next traffic light - 500 feet above it. Oops.
So just *pop* appearing in space suddenly, moving right along at the same speed as Earth, but being away from its gravitational influence, I think that time would move a wee bit quicker for you. But if you start speeding up, then it'll slow down again.
Apparently it also can be achieved on a rotating platform. A clock nearer the center would run faster than a clock placed near the perimeter. Of course, to produce a measurable difference, you'd need a damn big platform, rotating pretty damn fast.
Time is relative to the observer.
AFAIK, time is never slower anywhere if you are using the same reference point...e.g. the orbit of the Earth around its sun.
AFAIK, time is never slower anywhere if you are using the same reference point...e.g. the orbit of the Earth around its sun.
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,920
- 2,161
- 126
This is correct. For instance, the ISS is moving at about 8km/s relative to the earth. This would mean that people on earth are experiencing time at a faster interval than those on the ISS. However, the difference would only be able to be measured on an atomic clock.
If they were to speed up to say...1/10 of the speed of light, there would be very noticable time dialation. The faster you go in relation to another object, the slower time will flow as compared to that object. This is where the "Relative" comes from in "Relativity".
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
So much bad physics in this thread
If you synchronize two clocks here on earth and then:
1. Instantly transport one out into space far away from other objects, the one on earth would run slower.
2. Stuck it in orbit around the earth, the one in orbit would run slower (the time dilation effect of special relativity due to the clock moving in orbit slows that clock down more than the dilation effect due to general relativity does for the clock on earth).
3. Shoot one on a rocket into space where it accelerates to some very high velocity, then returns, the one on the trip would be slower.
If you synchronize two clocks here on earth and then:
1. Instantly transport one out into space far away from other objects, the one on earth would run slower.
2. Stuck it in orbit around the earth, the one in orbit would run slower (the time dilation effect of special relativity due to the clock moving in orbit slows that clock down more than the dilation effect due to general relativity does for the clock on earth).
3. Shoot one on a rocket into space where it accelerates to some very high velocity, then returns, the one on the trip would be slower.
cKGunslinger
Lifer
- Nov 29, 1999
- 16,408
- 57
- 91
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
You would age less because time elapses faster for the observer in space compared to an observer on the ground.
Again, based what?
I understand how velocity and acceleration affect observed time, but the only difference between a person on Earth and a person who was instantaneously teleported to space would be the difference in gravity.
Unless you're assuming that the person in space is completely stationary (from some universal standpoint) and thus that removes the velocity of the person on Earth flying through space. Then you would have differences in motion between the two observers, and thus, differences in the observed elapse of time.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
To measure time, use a universal constant: the speed of light in a vacuum. Regardless of where you are - on earth, in a spaceship, or somewhere else, when you measure how long it takes light to go exactly 1 meter through a vacuum, (assuming you have incredible precision and accuracy in your measurements), you'll find that it takes light exactly 1/299792458th of a second.
Imagine for a moment that you're standing on a train that's moving 20mph. At the moment you're passing an observer, you throw a ball at 30mph relative to you in the same direction that the train is moving. The observer watching you go by is going to note that relative to that observer, the ball is traveling 50mph. Our intuition might suggest that the same is true if you were to shine a flashlight while going by the observer.
Now, imagine for a moment that you're driving a spaceship toward the earth, moving at 200,000,000 m/s. You turn on your headlights and measure how fast the beam of light is moving away from you. You discover that it's moving away at 299792458 meters per second. How fast do you expect the light to be traveling relative to the observer. This is where intuition may break down a bit. The observer on earth is going to measure the speed of light that you shined at the same 299792458 meters per second. How can this be??!
Well, relative to each observer, the speed of light is the same. Therefore, there must be something different about the two frames of reference. That difference is time. Time doesn't tick at the same rate relative to different frames of reference. Within any frame of reference, a second is exactly one second long. But exactly one second isn't the same as exactly one second in another frame of reference.
Imagine for a moment that you're standing on a train that's moving 20mph. At the moment you're passing an observer, you throw a ball at 30mph relative to you in the same direction that the train is moving. The observer watching you go by is going to note that relative to that observer, the ball is traveling 50mph. Our intuition might suggest that the same is true if you were to shine a flashlight while going by the observer.
Now, imagine for a moment that you're driving a spaceship toward the earth, moving at 200,000,000 m/s. You turn on your headlights and measure how fast the beam of light is moving away from you. You discover that it's moving away at 299792458 meters per second. How fast do you expect the light to be traveling relative to the observer. This is where intuition may break down a bit. The observer on earth is going to measure the speed of light that you shined at the same 299792458 meters per second. How can this be??!
Well, relative to each observer, the speed of light is the same. Therefore, there must be something different about the two frames of reference. That difference is time. Time doesn't tick at the same rate relative to different frames of reference. Within any frame of reference, a second is exactly one second long. But exactly one second isn't the same as exactly one second in another frame of reference.
Originally posted by: silverpig
So much bad physics in this thread
If you synchronize two clocks here on earth and then:
1. Instantly transport one out into space far away from other objects, the one on earth would run slower.
2. Stuck it in orbit around the earth, the one in orbit would run slower (the time dilation effect of special relativity due to the clock moving in orbit slows that clock down more than the dilation effect due to general relativity does for the clock on earth).
3. Shoot one on a rocket into space where it accelerates to some very high velocity, then returns, the one on the trip would be slower.
Faulty clocks, obviously they are not space or rocket proof.
Is it also possible then that time dilation due to speed is actually time dilation due to the mass increase of speed causing a larger gravity which causes the perceived time change?
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
i saw this topic a few days ago and thought it was pretty interesting and then all the sudden i see this article on digg which was pretty cool and feel that it explains this thread perfectly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7360762.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7360762.stm
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 20
- 81
Was my post at all accurate?Originally posted by: silverpig
So much bad physics in this thread
If you synchronize two clocks here on earth and then:
1. Instantly transport one out into space far away from other objects, the one on earth would run slower.
2. Stuck it in orbit around the earth, the one in orbit would run slower (the time dilation effect of special relativity due to the clock moving in orbit slows that clock down more than the dilation effect due to general relativity does for the clock on earth).
3. Shoot one on a rocket into space where it accelerates to some very high velocity, then returns, the one on the trip would be slower.
To clarify further for some who still might not quite see it:
Speed is a factor of distance and time, say, Meters per Second. At slow speeds, time is considered constant, so the only way to change speed is to change the numerator, Meters traveled in a constant amount of time.
But if you start dealing with relativistic speeds, the denominator, time, can no longer be considered constant. If you alter the speed at which time "works" in your frame of reference, something's speed can change without altering the relative distance it travels.
So if you're in that fast-moving spaceship, and you fire a beam of light out the front, time for you is running slowly, so that light beam has a chance to get 299,792,458 meters ahead of you while your sluggish 1 second takes its sweet time elapsing.
Ah, just to be able to tell Einstein, "Hey, check it out. You were right about relativity."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter