Your acceleration would decrease at an ever-increasing rate as your speed increased, if my understanding is correct (assuming your engines maintain the same force). So you'd soon get to a state in which you are accelerating closer to the speed of light but by such a small amount that it's not going to matter in your time frame.
Stephen Hawkins Universe - Time Travel
- Thread starter Amp34
- Start date
Your acceleration would decrease at an ever-increasing rate as your speed increased, if my understanding is correct (assuming your engines maintain the same force). So you'd soon get to a state in which you are accelerating closer to the speed of light but by such a small amount that it's not going to matter in your time frame.
Yeah, I'm sure the OP didnt say 0.99r times c, he said 0.99x the speed of light, where x means 'times'.
At 0.99 times c, the equation gives approximately a 7:1 ratio. As I explained the closer you get to c, the closer to infinity and so the greater the ratio.
I wasn't being pedantic like he claims, just pointing out that the 0.09999999r is extremely significant with regards to the math and the resulting ratio.
Don't they both just experience exactly the same, but time is just said to be different, therefore not really making any difference at all at the end of the journey? They'll both be the same age, and one will have been away for the same amount of time as the other one has spent on earth.
All sounds a bit pointless tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 6,038
- Location
- North Leicestershire
really confusing stuff is the program on any kind of catch up tv at all
so again if i went on a 10 year journey when i came back my daughter would be 22(she's 2 now) but would i
a. Be 20 years older, by which i don't mean time as in just time, i mean actual physical time spent ageing
b. Be 10 years older, by which i don't mean time as in just time, i mean actual physical time spent ageing
so again if i went on a 10 year journey when i came back my daughter would be 22(she's 2 now) but would i
a. Be 20 years older, by which i don't mean time as in just time, i mean actual physical time spent ageing
b. Be 10 years older, by which i don't mean time as in just time, i mean actual physical time spent ageing
Last edited:
Surely they'll still be the same age? Meh, I don't get any of this.
Its relative to the individual. For example the hubble telescope is seeing the farthest stars as they were 13billion years ago, so those photos that look so cool are really pictures taken today of 13billion years ago. Right now in that part of the universe, those stars have long since died.
Simply put, we all experience a time speed of 10, we are moving at a speed of 2, so time is running at 8 for everyone. if we start to move at a speed of 5, then time is running at 5, which is less/slower than 8! We can only ever move at a speed of 9.99, meaning that for everyone moving at 2, time is 8, where for the traveller at nearly light speed it is 0.01
Make sense?
Make sense?
hawkins clearly stated that the one on the ship will come back to a future earth, the ship gets to i believe he said 99% the speed of light and travels for say 1 year, when the ship returns to earth, its now 2 years since leaving.
Don't they both just experience exactly the same, but time is just said to be different, therefore not really making any difference at all at the end of the journey? They'll both be the same age, and one will have been away for the same amount of time as the other one has spent on earth.
All sounds a bit pointless tbh.
no, because the twin who travelled completed the journey in 5 years, although 10 years passed on earth due to time dilation of relativistic speed.
he basically travelled 10 years in 5.
proof would be sweet but i fear its mathmatics at play or some nerd phyics nab who made a guess
physics is the route of all evil and can prove anything whether true or false
My vague estimate in the middle of the night is that an airline pilot would need to fly about 100 million miles to experience 2 seconds of time dilation.
Hawkings might be a smart man but as I've said before all of this time travel craic is not possible given it would take an infinite amount of energy to travel at the speed of light. Even to get close to it wouldn't be possible. Even if we did manage to achieve them speeds, the human body could not withstand such a speed. Your organs would be mush.
90 million would give 8 seconds at c. I worked it out at around 0.004seconds per year for mach 2, I cant find the reference online.
I'll keep looking.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 6,038
- Location
- North Leicestershire
why, theres no mavity in space to act upon your body, no G force to experience?
Okay, here's a silly scenario. Let's say each twin had a calendar and a clock and both ticked off each day. When the twin gets back to earth, surely they will have ticked off the same amount of days right? Or am I being utterly stupid?
Yes, I'm not a physics person
You seem to miss the point, I quoted your post not the OP, it is your post that contains 99.99r which is 100
Why not just put 100?
b.
There is no absolute time. We pretend there is because it's extremely convenient to do so and time dilation is negligable in normal life, but it is just a pretence. So if you live for 10 years in your frame of reference, then you will have physically aged 10 years because 10 years will have passed for you. The fact that 20 years passed for your daughter would be irrelevant to that - in her frame of reference, 20 years has passed, but that's her frame of reference, not yours.
Headbender, isn't it? We think of time as absolute, an immutable thing that passes at a fixed rate. Our language, our way of thinking, has that idea deeply engrained into it. I know it isn't true, but I still think that way.
Last edited: