Is Time Relative
<div class="IPBDescription">No flamming etc. please</div> No this is not a flaming topic nor a stupid topic the other day i was having a fasinating conversation about the theory of realativity
Is time realative?
How would you measure this and Would time still be realative in say other parts of our solar system or other galaxys And how can you explain the many infreqencys in this thory?
I do not claim to be smart nor to no much on this but i do like to disscuse this but i love the conversation please be senssible in this top[ic thanks - begin
Is time realative?
How would you measure this and Would time still be realative in say other parts of our solar system or other galaxys And how can you explain the many infreqencys in this thory?
I do not claim to be smart nor to no much on this but i do like to disscuse this but i love the conversation please be senssible in this top[ic thanks - begin
Comments
and slower when youre in class
this is true.
How realative is time?
How realative is time? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you need to read <a href='http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Newton.html' target='_blank'>this</a>
Not exactly sure where I got that from though. There's a bunch of threads like this buried in Discussions (even if this one was resurrected). And I'll assure you that that stupid "Deep Blue Sea" "Have your hands on a hot woman and an hour can feel like a second and having your hand on a hot stove for a second can feel like an hour" thing is retarded, and doesn't represent relativity (even if it does represent a discrepancy with the scale of time).
"you spend an hour with a pretty girl and it feels like a minute; spend a minute with your hand on a hot stove and it feels like an hour."
And as he "invented" relativity...
"you spend an hour with a pretty girl and it feels like a minute; spend a minute with your hand on a hot stove and it feels like an hour."
And as he "invented" relativity... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He discovered it, he didn't invent it. (It existed before the idea was in his head.) Which means that just because he said it, that doesn't mean it's 100% true.
or just simply your point of view.
Cant remember where I read this....
Example
To a 5 year old a birthday is very exciting b/c its something that doesnt come very often. A special day that has only come 5 times in that persons entire life.
Now compare that too an 85 year old man. Another birthday is most likely far less exciting as it was when he was only 5. Hes already had 85 of them in his own known life time.
Also on a slightly differnt model of perception (Perception which has a lot to do with time.)
This is Cpl.Davis thinking now.
Obviously we know the differnce between running and sprinting. The change in our visual perception, the feeling of increased speed.
When a turtle moves at its fastest its brain processes its "fast speed" and comapares it to the turtles sence of normal speed.
Hense a turtle feels that its going just as fast as a human does when a human sprints.
Also.
Body time and clocks. Animals that movie very fast and ahve accelerated organ useage (normal heart rate, pulse, breaths per min etc) such as hummingbirds, insects and pretty much all fast moving animals usualy mature and die faster too.
Does time move faster for them? Considering they are more often than not, percieving things much faster thatn a human brain could.
However, perceived time is a completely different concept.
Technically, most of what you perceive is heavily influenced by memories that are only seconds old. The here and now is an infinitessimally small point and can have no concept of speed or measurement. Therefore, I am forced to believe that any perceived flow of time is directly dependant on very short term memory and how much data you can process at one point in time.
So, if somehow you stored 2-3 times more data in your very short term memory, it would most definetly have to take on *some* kind of perceptual effect. Following this point, slowed time is entirely a possible effect. The only other effect I can think of would be an ultra-vibrance to everything around you. (Like going from a 50's black&white tv to a modern day hdtv).
You're not pointing, you're claiming. I'm interested to hear what you've heard\read that contradicts relativity, because as far as I know they've actually conducted experiments that support the theory of relativity (ie time distortion due to speed). They made two ludicrously accurate, identical clocks, put one on a very fast train for a bit, and discovered that the one that had been on the train was showing a time significantly earlier than the other.
You're not pointing, you're claiming. I'm interested to hear what you've heard\read that contradicts relativity, because as far as I know they've actually conducted experiments that support the theory of relativity (ie time distortion due to speed). They made two ludicrously accurate, identical clocks, put one on a very fast train for a bit, and discovered that the one that had been on the train was showing a time significantly earlier than the other. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have heard similar stuff before about testing relativity. Except it was on a plane (planes go much faster than trains). And it still was only maybe .01 times the speed of light, meaning the difference in time that passed over a few days was a very small fraction of a second (somewhere around 10^-10 s). So many different versions of that story, I guess.
Anyway, there's also the fact that the use of particle accelerators requires taking relativistic effects into account.
sure there are things which pulsate at a known speed, but if you were to fall asleep it would 'stop pulsing' until you looked back at it. with an adrenaline rush time seems to slow down, but we kno that chemicals in your body dont affect the outside world, so theres reason to say time is subjective.
our current definition of a second is based on a certain number of fluctuations of a certain wavelength of red light, this will always give the same time. however, since it is measured in nanometers and meters are also based on a certain number of fluctuations of light, the whole scheme is variable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So, there is no distance involved in this measurement, it simply requires counting the number of times that the action occurs. By applying this definition to different scenarios (which have already been mentioned in this thread), it is shown that time is relative.