A Blog for the Curious and the Scientifically Perplexed

This is the story of a great journey that started with a great thought. One day in 1895 a boy looked into a mirror and wondered what the universe would look like if he could travel on a beam of light. That sixteen year old boy was Albert Einstein and that one thought started him on the road to discover his Theory of Relativity. The great man has been reinvented as Albert 2.0 to come back and blog about a journey through space on a beam of light and explain the science behind everything from atoms, blackholes to global warming. The most recent posting is on this page. If you've just joined and want to start at the beginning use the index on the left. If you're bored try these links below just for fun.


Saturday, July 7, 2007

Relatively Weird. How to get younger, thinner and fatter all at the same time.

“OK, Albert. Go on hit me with the weird stuff from your relativity theory”

You’ve got the idea that movement is relative from our last conversation?

“That bit’s fine.”

Good. The rest of the theory is based on the simple idea that the speed of light in space is constant. It doesn’t matter how fast the source of light is moving, or the speed of someone looking at that beam of light. Also nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

"If I came out of the headlights of a car that was flying through space at half the speed of light, I'd end up going one and a half times faster than you, wouldn't I?"

Unfortunately not, but a good question. Light from the headlights of a car isn't travelling at the speed of light plus the car's speed, but simply at the speed of light.

“How can that happen?”

It’s simple enough really you just have to change a few other rules to make sure that the speed of light is always the same. If the speed of light is always going to be the same, it just means that time slows down as you get faster. The good news is you stay younger longer. The bad news is you get squashed and get heavier and heavier. I’m afraid this next part will sound more like something out of Alice in Wonderland than science so I hope you are ready for this. And you people reading out there, if you are a bit sensitive it might be better to read on with your eyes closed.

“So basically you invented the idea that clocks slow down just to make your theory about the speed of light work?”

Well not exactly, I just started imagining how the universe would work if the speed of light was constant. The rest, slowing down clocks and even E=Mc2 followed from that.

“OK Albert, start by explaining to me why fixing the speed of light makes you convinced that clocks can change speed.”

Imagine someone leaning out of a train travelling at 100 miles per hour and another person standing beside the track. Both of them throw an apple in the direction the train is moving. Which apple will be moving faster?

“The one from the train. It’s starting at 100 miles per hour so it must be moving faster than the one thrown from a standing start.”

Exactly. So change the apple for a torch. Does the light leave the torch faster if the torch is moving?

“I would think so, but you just told me I’m wrong.”

Yes, you are wrong. Even stranger is that to the person on the train and the person beside the track the same beam of light will appear to be going the same speed.

“How can that be true? If I am following a beam of light at half its speed it will move away from me at only half the speed of light.”

Unless time slows down, of course. There is a fairly simple formula that tells you how much time must slow down to make sure that the speed of light will always be the same no matter how fast you are moving.

“Of course, why didn’t I think of that? Albert are you crazy? Why would time slow down?”

To make the universe work properly, time has to slow down as you speed up.

“So why had no-one noticed this slowing down of speeding clocks before you?”

Because it doesn’t happen until you are going very fast.

“How fast is very fast?”

A reasonable fraction of the speed of light, which is something no human has ever done except in their imagination.

“What’s the fastest speed a human has ever travelled at?”

The fastest humans are astronauts. They have to reach a speed of more than 25,000 miles per hour to escape the earth’s gravity. But that’s a tiny fraction of the speed of light, only 0.004%.

“So go on explain what happens at almost the speed of light.”

If you could buy a ticket for a space ship going at 99% of the speed of light, time would go seven times slower than on Earth. If you tried just to spend your sleeping hours whizzing around the moon at 99% of the speed of light, you would face a slight problem. Everything in your body would, from an Earth point of view, slow down. From your point of view, if you could see what was happening on Earth, it would be like watching a video on fast forward. So if you go to sleep on your spaceship for eight hours sleep on Monday evening and came back to Earth the next morning it wouldn't be Tuesday but Thursday morning.

“Is that like time travel?”

It is a sort of time travel but it only lets you go into the future, you can't go back in time with this trick. If you slow down even a bit the effects gets much less. At 10% of the speed of light, a mere 67 million miles per hour, you’d gain less than two days if you spent a whole year travelling. At the end of the day it is easier, cheaper and more effective just to lie about your age like everyone else does than use relativity to stay young.

“How fast is time travelling for us then?”

We are travelling at the speed of light, so for us it is passing normally but compared to earth our clocks are ticking infinitely slowly.

“Infinitely slowly?”

Well when we started out, earth was back in 1223 BC and it’s now 1905 the year I published my theory of special relativity. Does it feel like we’ve been travelling for three thousand years?

“No, but…”

Well there you have it. We could travel the entire universe in no time. We can travel as fast as imagination. You can imagine yourself anywhere in the blink of an eye.

“If we went faster than the speed of light would time go backwards?”

We'll never know because nothing can go faster than the speed of light.

“Why not?”

Because as you get near to the speed of light your mass increases very rapidly. At half the speed of light, a space ship would have a mass 15% more than parked in a space dock. At 99% of the speed of light the mass would have increased sevenfold. At 99.99999% of the speed of light the mass would have increased by over two thousand times. As the mass of a space ship increased it would need more and more energy to accelerate. If it ever reached the speed of light, its mass would be infinite and it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate it to a speed greater than the speed of light. Since that would take more energy than is in the whole universe, it can't happen.

“Talking about energy, where does E=Mc2 fit in?”

There are some other laws of the universe about conserving energy or momentum that I needed to tweak to work with relativity. These formula were worked out for moving objects but it turned that at rest, there was one part of the formula still needed. That leftover bit was E=Mc2 which showed that mass and energy are related to each other.

“Tweak? The atomic bomb exists because you worked out how to tweak a mathematical formula. Is there anything else you are going to tell me changes?”

The other thing that changes as you approach the speed of light is your length. In fact everything you try to measure in the direction you are travelling, including distances, shrinks. Everything travelling with you shrinks by the same amount, so you could never measure this shrinkage because anything you tried to measure yourself with would also have shrunk. But someone else travelling slower than you, in relative terms of course, would see you as squashed. Since squashing sounds a little unscientific, scientists call this squashing the Fitzgerald Contraction, named after an Irishman George Francis Fitzgerald who invented it in 1889 more than fifteen years before I worked out special relativity in 1905.

“So Fitzgerald discovered relativity before you?”

No he was trying to explain how ether could exist even if we couldn’t detect it in experiments. He was changing the rules of physics to make old theories work, I was changing them to make my new theory work.

“So what’s to say you are right and he is wrong?”

I kept the strangest fact about relativity until now. When scientists have tested some of these crazy relativity ideas, like time slowing down, they have turned out to be true. Perhaps we’ll talk about that next time, just to prove to you that even though I may be dead I’m not dead crazy.

Enjoyed it? Then Digg it.

[Note. The limericks used here are attributed to that famous author Anonymous, if anyone knows their origin I will give their creator(s) the belated fame they deserve.]


  1. Chuck said...
    Light is the way information gets aroung the Cosmos, isn't it. (I like the word Cosmos rather than Universe for no particular reason. I just do; I try to be consistent in that, but slip up sometimes.) Yet a bit of light energy, a photon let's say, travels at a constant velocity (the max). Therefore?: for that photon time is stationary -- does not advance. Perhaps that is why it must always contain the information it started out with - time cannot degrade where it does not advance. Photons cannot mislead. (A quip: photons can't lie because they haven't got time to think!)

    So we know about the Cosmos (and our local bit of it) from photons (cris-crossing?) the Cosmos. What I'm contemplating now are several notions, wondering whether they have meaning. E.g. Is the Cosmos in a web of timeless information about itself. (Except for Black Holes, which I call css (Cosmic singularities -- both singular and plural, because I tend to feel nausious when I try to imagine being near one) ,

    So is there an element of timelessness in the Cosmos? Does time have any meaning to a photon? A beam of photon says it came from a Hydrogen atom that was traveling away from my location at 0.16x the speed of light as it crosses my frame of measurement. Is that the same batch, beam, bunch of photons that left he H atom all those time intervals ago? If time has not passed for it, then is it telling me something that has not experienced time?

    I know I wallow in verbage, but for me it's satisfying to keep trying to put things together. Lots of people say the Higgs is the mystery; to me it is time. And time for me to go to lunch. Bye.
    Alvyn Nacman said...
    In 1917 - about 12 years after Albert Einstein wrote his famous formula, E = mc2, he changed it by adding a sub-zero after the ' E '. This the correct way to write it! On a test my student are given the opportunity to chose the correct formula and given a reason why Einstein changed it.
    Oscar said...
    So it follows then that if people travel at the speed of light they would not age any more than the photon that travels at the speed of light. So if those people periodically stopped to visit a planet, whether it be every thousand years, ten thousand years, or billion years they will be relatively the same age they were the last time they visited the planet. Interesting.
    Anonymous said...
    Sounds like Bullsh*t to me
    Anonymous said...
    Einstein theorized only future time travel is possible. Past is impossible.

    Modern physicists speculate past-time may be possible if you were approaching a strong gravitational pull such as a black hole. The black hole's gravity would pull everything in (imagine a big tornado in space) including the fabric of space and time.

    If you had a vehicle strong enough to escape it's gravity, you could cut across the top of the black hole, while everything else is being pulled in (including time).

    Cutting straight across the top, while time and all else is going in, would effectively bring you into what was the past.
    Santiago said...
    hay que tener en cuanta que no puede haber aceleraciones atngenciales para hablar de medir objetos etc. tiene qeu ser un sistema incercial ... entonces no podriamos vovler a la tierra nunca an o ser que el universo fuera esferico .... Alguien puede explicar bien la paradoja de bell? ... esa esta itneresanet ..

    ahh the guy that said that this was bull.... I pitty you, the more I know about realtivity and quantum mechanic's the more y want to know .. it's amazing to scrach the surface of how the universe work's ..
    purebloke said...
    Time doesn't slow down at all. A ticking clock covers more ground between ticks.While travelling at light speed the clock,to the observer, still ticks,correct? Or the clock ticks slower and slower until it halts.To the stationary observer the clocks pattern could be predicted, at light speed,because we know that light takes eight minutes to travel from the sun, therefore the clock ticks 480 times. On board,the clock also ticks 480 times, so now it appears that distance 'goes less' with the stationary observer, before TIME slowed down. When the two clocks travelling at different speeds meet up the time will be identical, because only distance increases, NOT time becoming less. It is a Tautology.With regards E=mc^2,it is the work of a Genius.However where is the distinction between measurements of Joules and fact? How about during puberty? Can a mans energy increase, 'Yes, with his weight',but what about the Potential Energy increase. Also,bacteria, and plant-life,dont seem to follow the rule. If an Electron travels at light speed, what is the velocity when I throw the atom? In his opening argument einstein says that a stone dropped from a train moves in a parabola. I dont think it does, not if it doesn't have horizontal speed.Am I correct in this?Sorry to be a party pooper but Relativity by Gallileo is not wrong.
    Anonymous said...
    If we study the refraction of light we will reach to this conclusion that refraction is a matter of the change of light in different matters. It says that the speed of light is grater in water than its speed in the air. That is understandable to think that the speed of light is constant in the same medium. As the speed of light is a function of the electromagnetic properties of the medium. It doesn’t mean that the speed of light doesn’t change and is constant every where. Other wise formation of mass was not possible. Haidari mass equation.
    Anonymous said...

    Guess Albert 2.0 cannot spell
    Don Saar said...
    Learn Einstein Special and General Relativity mathematics cosmology physics history and philosophy using Macintosh (Mac) Relativity Calculator software.
    Anonymous said...
    re Spelling problems.

    Practise is indeed the correct verb. Practice is a noun in those
    parts of the world where grammer
    still counts.
    exeterpublishing said...
    Would you be interested in articles on relativity?

    There are seven of them and they could be released every 5 days.

    Vertner Vergon
    Anonymous said...
    If an object moving at the speed of light has infinite mass, then it would also have infinite inertia. Why then, does an electron or photon not blast through anything in it's path as an unstoppable projectile?
    Anonymous said...
    You have misconceptions about the theory.

    Mass is velocity invariant. That is the consensus among the advanced physicists today.

    In fact none of the weird things that Al claims happen.

    The PROOF is in a book entitled

    Also in this book is an explanation of what happens when a beam is emitted from a moving emitter.

    You can read more about it in
    Saroj said...
    If Einstein is right with his equation, I think light wave(photons, which are unable to propagate)would create something like a sonic boom may be creating some energy explosion or some kind of particle never imagined.
    Anonymous said...
    I have to agree with the comment above that you appear to have a number of misconceptions about special relativity.

    Take for example your explanation of time dilation, where according to you processes on earth as viewed from a relativistically moving spaceship appear to be running at a faster rate than usual. This is utter non-sense, as either observers in the earth or spaceship reference frame can see the other one moving. The key point is we are talking about relative motion. This is usually explained with the standard argument that if you are on a train standing in a station and another train moves past your window you can not with out looking at some external reference tell if it is you moving or the other train. This give rise to the famous twin paradox (one of the twins does in fact age less, however this is because one can not do this experiment with only two inertial frames, as one of the twins has to turn around, breaking the symmetry).

    As pointed out above you do not get more massive when moving fast. E=mc^2 is telling us that mass and energy are equivalent, hence how can I say a spaceship gets more massive as it moves faster so it requires more energy to continue increasing it's speed, when mass and energy are effectively the same thing?

    If you are interested in special relativity recommend reading any modern physics book such as Serway [1] or Krane [2].


    [1] http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Saunders-Golden-Sunburst/dp/0030196825
    [2] http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Kenneth-S-Krane/dp/0471828726
    albert2.0 said...
    Many thanks for all your comments. I’d like to address a few negative comments, though these are also gratefully received.

    As the great man himself is reputed to have said “Everything should be made as simple as possible but no simpler”.

    In reducing relativity to these few introductory pages errors of simplification are inevitable. For more advanced readers including some commentators it should be noted that the notion of mass in relativity and relativistic mass (the mass that is deemed to increase with velocity) in particular is most certainly not a simple concept, but as T. R. Sandin has written in the American Journal of Physics:
    “The concept of relativistic mass brings a consistency and simplicity to the teaching of special relativity to introductory students.”

    With respect to comments disagreeing that for the photons the earth’s history would be seen to be happening on fast forward, I humbly offer that it is their understanding of relativity and the direction of this journey that is at fault. The counter-claim that events on earth would appear to pass more slowly would be true ONLY if our photons were moving away from the earth. When moving towards the earth, as we are in this thought experiment, the relativistic Doppler effect makes images of events on earth appear to proceed faster - an effect relevant to the mathematics of the twin paradox. Sadly if we were traveling with our photons at the speed of light, then light arriving from earth would be infinitely blue-shifted as we approach rendering it invisible!

    In relation to the symmetry and relativity of the situation some of the commentators may wish to ponder the fact that for an object with mass to travel at the speed of light is deemed to be impossible even when the concept of relativistic mass is replaced by considerations of momentum. Hence for a photon monitoring events on earth it is impossible for symmetry to apply as the earth cannot be moving at the speed of light and the photon stationary. It also means that no observer could travel on a light beam rendering this entire imaginary journey impossible but the beauty of imagination and thought experiments is that they make the impossible possible.

    If instead of traveling on a beam of light we were on space ship traveling towards earth at close to the speed of light then concepts of relative movement do apply and our life on the space ship would also appear to pass in fast-forward mode as we approached.

    Complicated? Yes, hence the need for potentially over-simplified introductions!
    sam said...
    I believe you and Einstein had a language problem. For instance, in your language there were such words: "If you could buy a ticket for a space ship going at 99% of the speed of light, time would go seven times slower than on Earth." In these words there was the word "time". This word "time" would be interchangeable to the word "clock", according to your language elsewhere.
    Hence your language I just quoted should be equivalent to "If you could buy a ticket for a space ship going at 99% of the speed of light, clock would go seven times slower than on Earth." Such a language that "clock" would go seven times slower than on earth" is impossible to understand. If it were possible, would you explain it?
    sam said...
    I had great difficulty in understanding the Einsteinian imagination of travel at the speed of light.

    The word "speed" is always relative. When Einstein imagined to travel at the speed of light, he did not say "relative to what". For instance, he should have said he is traveling at the speed of light relative to his friends, to the earth, to the sun, etc. Following the same logic, we could say that he is traveling at the speed of light relative to [ight] tself. As a matter of fact, every thing is traveling at the speed of light relative to light. You and me are traveling at the speed of light relative to light. Since we are already traveling so fast, as fast as light, has our time come to a stop? Has our clocks stopped functioning? Has our aging process stopped? No, nothing like what Einstein has said is happening. Hence, I think Einstein had a language problem and you, Albert 2.0 inherited the same problem.
    Anonymous said...
    if a partical of matter has the energy of the the universe at a point very close to the speed of light,then,some how, exceed the speed of light,it would have to leave this universe and create a new universe.Yes?
    Anonymous said...
    I would like you to explaine how the "Proof of the Special Relativity Length Contraction Equation" discussed at http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=724
    can be "proof" it looks more like a "spoof" to me.
    Anonymous said...
    Comment a few above is absolutely correct. These 'theories' refer to something travelling at or a fraction of the speed of light but from that objects relative position everything else is travelling at at least that relative speed, more if travelling in the opposite direction. If, effectively, everything is travelling 'relatively' the same speed all effects cancel each other out. It time people will look back on these effects as coming from the same dark place as ideas on a flat earth and an earth centred planetary system.
    Anonymous said...
    Do we witness,in the spiralling and then the 'disappearance'of matter in a collider,a cause of the big crunch,of the universe?

    If a partical of matter disappears at the point of exceeding the speed of light,it does not exceed the SOL it only tried to and the SOL remains an absolute.

    Only by understanding the nature of the death of a universe, we will know the necessity for life in a universe.

    Anonymous said...
    Interesting as it is to hypothesise I believe we border here on the fancilful and some speak with confidence because no one has the abilty to prove them wrong with physical proof. It is the same in the art world - You have those pieces where the is undenyable skill which all can accept, but then when art becomes abstract people begin to see things that aren't there but without criticism because it's open to interpretation. Let us remember that even those with all the confidence speak only THEORIES and in no way undisputed facts.
    Anonymous said...
    I can understand most of this, but why the heck does mass increase and length decrease as you approach the speed of light?
    Anonymous said...
    Mass increases because the faster an object goes the harder it is to stop,so it is building up energy.Its length decreases,because of the constant that is the speed of light.

    We live within a sphere,so is it no wonder that space and time is curved.

    The big bang theory is becoming to be known as the big bang fact,however we will always need our imagination.

    Anonymous said...
    There we go again - confidence implying undisputed fact when when it certainly isn't. All natural phenomena can always be expressed in the simplst terms and equations. It has been said many times before that this model badly lacks that simplicity!!! Einstein himself saud that when we properly understand it we should be able to teach it to children. It only survives because no one has come up with anything else yet. It still can't be proved.
    Anonymous said...
    "Mass increases becuse the faster an object goes the harder it is to stop" - eh? So the faster my car goes the more mass it takes on?? Where does it get this mass from? You confuse mass with momentum.
    "We live within a sphere so it is no wonder space and time are curved" - ??? I live in a box shaped house, is space and time square shaped here then??!! What are you talking about?!! You make a fool of yourself.
    "however we will always need our imagination." - Way too much of it going where relativity is concerned!
    Dr. Strangelove said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    Anonymous said...
    In reference to what Albert 2.0 commented last. Despite your attempt at making it sound complicated and not understandable to the lay of the world, the concepts you were putting forward are not complicated at all... just pie in the sky. I really must applaud some of the above comments which show that even those who don't have all the gen are able to put forward credible arguments against ideas which, despite the best efforts of some who with bluster deride the "cranks" that point out a distinct lack of evidence, really are unproven. The special relativity model is not pretty. You claim that it is distorted when 'over simplified' - it shouldn't be. Forgetting the nitty gritty and looking at an overview alone it doesn't fit. It should be expressable in the simplest terms and it isn't. If it isn't then it's not right. - A word of advice, though, use language that is understandable to all. It's not your concepts that complicate but your expression of them... or maybe that's the idea.
    Anonymous said...
    light travels so fast it is impossible to run it in a race
    Anonymous said...
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee hhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    Anonymous said...
    All observed dimensions of space are a function of time. We can't move in any direction without traveling foreward through time. We can't see in any direction without looking back in time. Thus time is the common variable in all observable dimensions.
    Anonymous said...
    I don't see that. Time travels forward even if we remain stationary. If we 'move in any direction' it has absolutely no bearing on the measure of time. When we 'see in any direction' we aren't 'looking back in time' but rather we are seeing that light at last strike our retina. The event still happened at a particular and fixed time in the past. It's a bit like watching a video recording of an event, it's just an image and not variable time. I know everyone seems desperate to support the idea that time is in some way liquid but I would argue that, though clocks, etc may be affected by external forces, time is absolutely absolute. It is simply a measure of age.
    jonniex said...
    If time travel was or is possible.how would you travel into the future?when the future would not be there yet.You would beam into tomorrow and it could be gone.So how do you go to something that is not there yet?
    Anonymous said...
    Put a clock in a lit room.You see the time of day it is .According to our perceived notion. Turn out the light and we have, after several hours do not know what time it is. Without the rreflection of light we do not know the the time. So therefore light is information in relevence to "our" time. As light travels at approximatley 186,000 mps, if we were to back away from it at that speed then information (time) would cease to be. Not stretchy nor contracted but still. Light bends in a vacuum creating an arc which we know is part of a circumference.A circumference comes back on its self to form a circle so in space which is a vacuum does time repeat its self? Time is verticle! Not lineal! All directions, not past or present. Just now.
    Anonymous said...
    Urm, light is not time. Simply argued by pointing out that time continues when the light goes out. "... 186,000 mps, if we were to back away from it at that speed then information (time) would cease to be." - We don't need to back away from it at 186,000 mps as it travels from us at that speed. If we were to switch on a torch and then turn it off again it would have exactly the same effect. It dissappears instantly according to our perception as it went at 186,000mps. If we were to switch it on then off and then back away from that light at 186,000 mps (ignoring that fact that this is impossible)it would simply disappear even quicker. After all this time remains unaltered.
    Anonymous said...
    and forever
    iraboy said...
    All these physical things are just imagination of our corrupted mind - the ego. There is something faster than light which is our original mind - not the corrupted mind. Once we rid of all these material things there is no need to measure time - no future no past - no relativity. that is because we will see everything as one.

    In a way Einstein theory almost hit it but not quiet because he is limited by the speed of light. As I said out original mind is the fastest
    Anonymous said...
    And God said let there be light........BANG.
    Anonymous said...
    wrong wrong wrong yous people r all wrong thee reason that albert invented time travel was to perk your imagination i will explain the theory and flaws its simple can you imagine u wait in a quiet dentists romm the mins go like hours why ? because you have to be in that space !time and sppace are not 2 diminsions but !111 i mean 1 its simple physicis i hate people who mare trapped in the wrong thinking just think outside the square you leave and use what albert has opened up in other words to move time your must move space and to do ythat wouldnt take much but do we want tot open that pandooras box think about it when you are doing something you like ,like listening to a rock band time goes so quick but a quit bus stop ?
    Anonymous said...
    time and space can be manipulated by sound ways basic but if we were to move into philladelpa experiment waves who knows marty
    Anonymous said...
    thats why you people the idiots of tomorrow follow wrong phyics wow he was cool and all that
    Anonymous said...
    wrong his physics was wrong he assumed space and time were serperate a basic mistake for a mathimaticion
    Anonymous said...
    wat you wont post my theory? because it mite upset albert ? i dont think so his theory and most of his science was wrong marty
    Anonymous said...
    What on earth are you people going on about???!!! Prove time and space are the same thing! Motion through space has no bearing on time. If you stay stil time passes just the same! Bieng 'in a quiet dentist room' doesn't have any effect on time at all!!! Your perception of it might alters but what does that matter? The last number of comments must have been posted by the same person... and he's nuts!!!
    Anonymous said...
    time and space are the same thing. try moving through time without being in space. try moving through space without taking time. take one or the other away nothing
    Anonymous said...
    To say "take one or the other away - nothing" is like saying take water away from the fish or the fish from the water and the fish can't exist. That may be true but it's not the same as saying that the fish and the water are the same thing. One is simply dependant on the other. - Besides which what you said is a fallacy as time is not an entity. All that there is is the now. Time as an entity is the stuff of science fiction - created to entertain. What happens to time in your argument if you stay still? Time moves on just the same as it is only what we use to measure age and to plan for the future.
    Anonymous said...
    You may as well say any of the four fundemental forces (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity) are time as you can't move through space or time without them either. To argue that space and time are the same thing because 'try moving through time without being in space. try moving through space without taking time' is a poor argument indeed.
    Tarra Slovan said...
    Your blog shows up on mine. Interesting.
    Anonymous said...
    so what is albert e remembered for?
    Anonymous said...
    e=mc2 and this relativity 'IDEA'.
    Anonymous said...
    I was windsurfing in a storm a few years ago when a gust of wind picked me up into a tunnel, at 90mph I saw everything around me stop for what seemed like an hour? I could not move at all untill I felt a hard pull down, then I was windsurfing again and I was dry as a bone hair and all of me dry.I did look at my watch when I was in the tunnel because it was in view on my arm, It did not move untill I started windsurfing again. When I got back to the beach, I asked a friend if he saw me get sucked up in a tunnel and he said no but everyone saw you jump and then you were gone we called 911 because we thought you had drown or something. Now I thought hey I better not say anything or he will think I'm nutts!! as he was leaving he said yo dude what time is it I looked down at my watch and said 2:30 he started to laugh and said ya right!! Thats the time I got here.

    If I had hit my head or something I could understand but I did not find a scrach or bump anywhere on my body, Can it be that time stopped in that tunnel.
    Anonymous said...
    No, but maybe your watch did. Time can't stop, slow or speed up as time is not an entity. When you say 'tunnel I assume you mean a twister or inside a wave? Interesting story.
    Vertner Vergon said...
    To those who believe that time slows down, length decreases, and mass increases -- I hate to burst your bubble but that simply isn't so.

    I have written a paper that proves the point.
    Disproving those assertions, develops new concepts.

    If anyone wants a copy of the paper just request it and I will e-mail you a copy. (17pp)

    Anonymous said...
    I have a paper too if anyone is interested in reality

    Anonymous said...
    wow i feel stupider after reading people comments RELATIVELY to how i felt previous to visiting the site. Maybe guests shouldn't comment if you really don't understand what you are talking about.
    Anonymous said...
    a quote from the introductory paragraph at www.quarks.com .... "Many physical experiments has been done..." HAHA learn grammar before you try to convince me Einstein is wrong and you are right, and FYI, NASA proved his theory of special relativity in the 1970's using atomic clocks, both stationary and on aircraft, which traveled around the earth, the atomic clocks did in fact show a difference in time you idiot. Hence proving Einstein correct. Just because you are too stupid to understand it doesn't mean it is not correct.
    Anonymous said...
    Einstein 2.0,
    Great blog. Thanks for going to all the effort. Question: Every example I've ever come across has the observer and the emitted light beam travelling in the same direction along the x-axis, necessitating the need for length contraction and the slowing of time for the physics to work. Does this imply that if the light beam were emitted in the opposite direction along the x-axis so that the observer were not 'chasing' the light beam, that measuring rods would have to expand and time to speed up to make the physics work, according to relativity? Keep up the good work. I enjoy reading a little bit every day. Jeff
    Louis said...
    Where are the stretched out, over massed, black hole transcending, faster than light time travelers of the future if all of this is right?
    Anonymous said...
    The comment three above obviously uses abuse to make a point rather than logic. On top of that his or her puntuation could do with a bit of work and so they have no right whatsoever to criticise someone elses typing error. - Getting back to the logic: NASA's atomic clock experiments prove what? That the clocks were effected and nothing else. That is why they didn't end the discussion. A clock is not 'time' itself, it is simply a way of gaugeing it's passing. Atomic clocks are based in a physical process and it wasn't until the 1990's that major advances were made in their reliability. Even then the most accurate clock wasn't working until 2008. As I said the clocks themselves are still a mechanism monitoring a physical process and as such could still be susceptible to external influences. Einstein's theory is simply a theory and, I believe, a fantasy.
    Anonymous said...
    I agree. Keep the abuse to yourself! Proper, reasoned agrument here only please!
    Vertner Vergon said...
    First of all, atomic clocks accurately mark time.

    Before discussing time, it would do well to define it.

    Time is the comparison of motions to a standard --- nothing more.

    The standard is the rotation of the Earth. A bullet goes 3000 feet a second, a car goes 60 miles in an hour, etc.

    Atomic clocks tell time by a frequency. A clock in orbit is traveling tangentially to the receiver of its signal. Ives @ Stilwell proved that an emitter traveling transversely to an observer WILL EMMIT A REDUCED FREQUENCY.

    That is the Doppler rate will will be (by coincidence)the same as Einstein's time dilation.

    Einstein's dilation is wrong anyway because he has a clock IN APPROACH ticking time SLOWLY.

    But an atomic clock in approach will "tick" FASTER (as per Doppler)

    Theory cannot buck empiricism.
    Anonymous said...
    I would just like to applaud the comment above. A little empiricism is overdue here. Your logic Mr Vergon is refreshing. It gives me confidence that I may understand your paper when you are able to send it.
    Anonymous said...
    does rhe speed of light remain constant as the mass surpasses the event horizon and what effect does gravity vaccum and mass density affect speed of light and time ass after the event horizon i believe that mass travels faster than the speed of light due to gravity mass and vaccumany formulas?
    Anonymous said...
    louis lemieux said...
    Our galaxy is moving away from other galaxies at incredibble speed and so are we then. Our sun is circling the center of the Milky Way at tremendous speed and so are we too also.The earth moves around the sun and spins on itself and so we're still moving fast on top of all this.How fast are we really going before we take to our car? Close to the speed of light!?

    Does light really move? Maybe it just disturbs the fabric of space.A wave in the ocean ten miles away will evntually reach shore but the water where that wave was is still pretty much at the same place.Could it be similar for photons and lightwaves?
    Anonymous said...
    i was going to post a revolutionary coment about the speed of time, but i though not to, as the internet tends to steal alot of things
    Anonymous said...
    Unless time slows down, of course. There is a fairly simple formula that tells you how much time must slow down to make sure that the speed of light will always be the same no matter how fast you are moving. What is this formula or, how can I find this formula?

Post a Comment