I wrote previously that time is not a straight line but curved.Here I'll explain the significance of that.

On earth,gravity is felt,in space the effect is zero.Time warping is more pronounced at extreme speeds [light-speed] and zero gravity.

According to special relativity,time slows at higher speeds of the reference frame relative to another frame of reference,a phenomenon known as time dilation.Two clocks were synced,one placed on earth and the other aboard a spaceship.The one on the spaceship was slower as compared with the one on earth!

This effect would be more pronounced if the spaceship travelled at light speed.If an astronaut leaves earth on a mission 40 lightyears away,on returning the astronaut would see that he has spent 80 years on his spaceship,while the earth control station would show that he spent 81 years!

From the astronaut's frame of reference,time has slowed while from earth the astronaut would be a year younger!

Increased velocity slows time,decreased gravity speeds it.

Stay Put...

I have been following you.
I have always been interested in this relativity theory and I find your explanation incomprehensive.
Please, you need to revisit part 6 and 5 again. You can do more on this theory, you definitely can. Dumb it down!

paranorman:
I have been following you.
I have always been interested in this relativity theory and I find your explanation incomprehensive.
Please, you need to revisit part 6 and 5 again. You can do more on this theory, you definitely can. Dumb it down!

Wow!

Did you know that Einstein never won a Noble prize for his work on relativity? This was because the theory was too controversial and there was fear that it might turn out incorrect.

It is said that when Einstein initially put his theory forward there were only about 3 people in the world who fully understood it...just 3 people!

So don't feel bad if you don't get it at first,you're in great company!
I have deliberately left out maths equations and scientific jargons to make the concept much lucid.If you have any questions still,ask them specifically.I'll answer what I can and those I can't,I may refer you to the internet.

So,what is the nature of your misunderstanding on the subject specifically?

Sheikwonder:


Wow!

Did you know that Einstein never won a Noble prize for his work on relativity? This was because the theory was too controversial and there was fear that it might turn out incorrect.

It is said that when Einstein initially put his theory forward there were only about 3 people in the world who fully understood it...just 3 people!

So don't feel bad if you don't get it at first,you're in great company!
I have deliberately left out maths equations and scientific jargons to make the concept much lucid.If you have any questions still,ask them specifically.I'll answer what I can and those I can't,I may refer you to the internet.

So,what is the nature of your misunderstanding on the subject specifically?

I shall get back at you, lemme think.

paranorman:
I have been following you.
I have always been interested in this relativity theory and I find your explanation incomprehensive.
Please, you need to revisit part 6 and 5 again. You can do more on this theory, you definitely can. Dumb it down!

Intresting.... But scientists have claimed our body has it's own "clock". So even if we perfect time travel (an impossibility, I think) and we travel to pluto, we will still age the same way as we did on earth! I look forward to your explaination.

www.spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.html


SirWere, The above link may be of help. Do check it out.

SirWere:
Intresting.... But scientists have claimed our body has it's own "clock". So even if we perfect time travel (an impossibility, I think) and we travel to pluto, we will still age the same way as we did on earth! I look forward to your explaination.

Please see the link directly below your initial post,thanks.

Sheikwonder:
www.spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.html


SirWere, The above link may be of help. Do check it out.

So everything still rests on traveling at the speed of light eh? A far- fetched theory at best, a foolish dream at worst

Sheikwonder:


Please see the link directly below your initial post,thanks.

Why did you stop your analysis on the fourth dimension Just when you were finally leading on to something....................

SirWere:
So everything still rests on traveling at the speed of light eh? A far- fetched theory at best, a foolish dream at worst

Far-fetched? Foolish? No!

If you read that article,you'd note that the author mentioned that we are always travelling through time at the rate of an hour per hour.Future time travel would mean increasing that rate to say a month per hour,a year per hour etc

I have to do sth...i'll continue soon...

Sheikwonder:
www.spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.html


SirWere, The above link may be of help. Do check it out.

good one there. I have a question though:
space and time are different aspect of the same thing. In the article, for the 'rocket going to space' analogy, I am travelling at a faster rate than 1 hour per hour and I (personally) infer that both time and space are changing simultaneously.
So, what happens if one of the aspects of space-time is changing and the other one remains constant? Is that even possible?
Take for example, I am sitted here and time's flying away at the rate of 1hr/hr and the guy flying in the rocket stays younger even after travelling outta earth. So I infer that relativity's effect is felt only when travelling at a speed of light or very close to it..

Let's break it down.

It has been established that the speed of light is the fastest that can be observed.At such speeds different predictions relating to special relativity are much apparent such as time dilation,time contraction etc

However,if you read my previous articles I stated that space and time are interwoven and are not mutually exclusive.The model which seeks to unify these two is referred to as the space-time continuum.

If I travel at 50km/hr and you travel at 51km/hr,we'll get to the same destination in about the same time despite you travelling faster.The difference in speed is negligible and it would not impact much on our time of arrival except we travel over an extremely long distance.

Time travel is possible,but if it happens it won't feel like it because the time lag will be minimal... Over an extreme distance and over long periods it can be felt....

paranorman:

good one there. I have a question though:
space and time are different aspect of the same thing. In the article, for the 'rocket going to space' analogy, I am travelling at a faster rate than 1 hour per hour and I (personally) infer that both time and space are changing simultaneously.
So, what happens if one of the aspects of space-time is changing and the other one remains constant? Is that even possible?

Haha... 2 years ago,a group of scientists won the Nobel prize in physics for prooving that the universe is constantly expanding.

That means space is not constant,it keeps getting bigger.
Same goes with time. As they say "Time waits for no man". If you stand on one spot for a year,time will still pass you by,and space would still expand.

The answer to your question then is that space and time are always on the move. They may move fast or slow,but they are always moving.

Sheikwonder:


Far-fetched? Foolish? No!

If you read that article,you'd note that the author mentioned that we are always travelling through time at the rate of an hour per hour.Future time travel would mean increasing that rate to say a month per hour,a year per hour etc

I have to do sth...i'll continue soon...

Still on the fringes of science........ I was a bit surprised though, why didn't Einstein win a Nobel for this

Sheikwonder:


Haha... 2 years ago,a group of scientists won the Nobel prize in physics for prooving that the universe is constantly expanding.

That means space is not constant,it keeps getting bigger.
Same goes with time. As they say "Time waits for no man". If you stand on one spot for a year,time will still pass you by,and space would still expand.

The answer to your question then is that space and time are always on the move. They may move fast or slow,but they are always moving.

Wait, this is a bit confusing....... So are you saying that for every second that passes, space grows a fraction larger? Granted, a very small fraction but it actually grows

SirWere:
So everything still rests on traveling at the speed of light eh? A far- fetched theory at best, a foolish dream at worst

I wrote earlier that if you put 2 atomic clocks one at the top of Mt. Everest & another at the bottom of the sea,the one at Everest will gain time than the one below but just like in the car analogy earlier,it would be negligible,in nanoseconds.

However over a larger time frame like the age of the earth [about 4.5 billion years],the clock at Everest will gain 39 hours.Why?

Gravity.The closer an object is to a gravitational source,the slower time travels.

In summary,gravity and speed have a warped effect on time.It is merely a question of intensity.If you travel at light speed,time will seem slow to you.If you are close to a gravitational source,time will also pass slowly than when farther away.

It all depends on one's frame of reference which is what relativity tries to explain.

Sheikwonder:


I wrote earlier that if you put 2 atomic clocks one at the top of Mt. Everest & another at the bottom of the sea,the one at Everest will gain time than the one below but just like in the car analogy earlier,it would be negligible,in nanoseconds.

However over a larger time frame like the age of the earth [about 4.5 billion years],the clock at Everest will gain 39 hours.Why?

Gravity.The closer an object is to a gravitational source,the slower time travels.

In summary,gravity and speed have a warped effect on time.It is merely a question of intensity.If you travel at light speed,time will seem slow to you.If you are close to a gravitational source,time will also pass slowly than when farther away.

It all depends on one's frame of reference which is what relativity tries to explain.

True, however, Mother nature would balance up the scales by eroding everest in a couple of million years. My point is the relativistic theory is still more like half fable, half fantasy. It does deserve a noble prize, yes! But, it's still just............... I don't know what to say

SirWere:
Wait, this is a bit confusing....... So are you saying that for every second that passes, space grows a fraction larger? Granted, a very small fraction but it actually grows

Yes!

Think about it.We have trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe,each one of them emitting light & energy. Yet at night,the sky is still dark.Why is that?

It's because the universe is constantly expanding.Astrophysicsts usually describe the cosmos by calling it the "observable universe",which means there are some parts which cannot be observed due to expansion.

A team of scientists are currently working on mapping out the universe.It is hoped that by 2025,they may have mapped out about 1/8th of the universe.

Sheikwonder:


Yes!

Think about it.We have trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe,each one of them emitting light & energy. Yet at night,the sky is still dark.Why is that?

It's because the universe is constantly expanding.Astrophysicsts usually describe the cosmos by calling it the "observable universe",which means there are some parts which cannot be observed due to expansion.

A team of scientists are currently working on mapping out the universe.It is hoped that by 2025,they may have mapped out about 1/8th of the universe.

It's still pretty hard to grasp. If the universe keeps expanding like you said, shouldn't there be some visible side effects APART from the star light (weather conditions also affect starlight, you know). Also, if the universe keeps expanding, say at the rate of 1 cm per second, (You don't wanna know how that sounds), how would scientist map 1/8 th of it And how long will it last

SirWere:
Still on the fringes of science........ I was a bit surprised though, why didn't Einstein win a Nobel for this

I wrote something on this earlier.At the time the theory was controversial and the Royal Academy wanted to avoid the embarrassment that would occur if it turned out untrue[this had happened before].

Because Einstein was popular with the public,the Academy tried to solve this conundrum by awarding him a prize for his discovery of the photoelectric effect.

SirWere:
It's still pretty hard to grasp. If the universe keeps expanding like you said, shouldn't there be some visible side effects APART from the star light (weather conditions also affect starlight, you know). Also, if the universe keeps expanding, say at the rate of 1 cm per second, (You don't wanna know how that sounds), how would scientist map 1/8 th of it And how long will it last

That does not follow.The earth is a very,very minute part of the universe.Like a dot on a vast expanse of land.Supernovas occur quiet frequently as well as asteroids colliding,but these have no impact on the earth's weather pattern.

The universe expands rapidly,much,much more than 1cm/sec.
As to how the mapping will occur,I cannot honestly say.But I think the idea is simply by measuring how long it takes light from distant planets to reach their telescopes.It's similar to tracing a computer's IP address by pinging it[you'll understand this analogy if you're into IT].

SirWere:
True, however, Mother nature would balance up the scales by eroding everest in a couple of million years. My point is the relativistic theory is still more like half fable, half fantasy. It does deserve a noble prize, yes! But, it's still just............... I don't know what to say

The Everest analogy is simply to show a difference in vertical distance from Earth's peak to it's lowest point.If you like you could replace Everest with a much permanent edifice of similar height,the point still stands.The analogy is germane to understanding how gravity affects time.

Sheikwonder:


Yes!

Think about it.We have trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe,each one of them emitting light & energy. Yet at night,the sky is still dark.Why is that?

It's because the universe is constantly expanding.Astrophysicsts usually describe the cosmos by calling it the "observable universe",which means there are some parts which cannot be observed due to expansion.

A team of scientists are currently working on mapping out the universe.It is hoped that by 2025,they may have mapped out about 1/8th of the universe.

2025 is next year, I'm not aware of any progress on the subject matter