I was watching something on TV the other day on einstein and his theories. from what i understood from einsteins theory. Time is related to Mass. They said that objects carry time with it. If this is true I have quite a few questions. A) If this is all tru would this explain the effect on astronaughts when they are in space and why they age slower? B) Does the earth have its own time dimension around it? C) Is space a timeless dimension? Do other objects of mass (planets) have their own time dimentions that differ from earths? Last - If this is the case, If we were to spend a week on a planet that spins 3X faster than the earth would that mean that we would have gone through 3 weeks earth time?? Im not a science buff or anything but this subject interested me very much. any insight on the subject would be appreciated L8rs.......
Time or the perception of it is an abstract concept. Time doesn't really exist in the physical universe. As living beings, we've created and rely upon the ability to experience moments as they unfold... for the duration of our life. It is the mistake of many scientists to try to factor-in aspects of 'time' in order to theorize an understanding of the bigger picture. Rex
sly1: <i>from what i understood from einsteins theory. Time is related to Mass. They said that objects carry time with it.</i> It's not really related to mass as such. Time doesn't run slower or faster for a bowling ball as compared to a baseball. When somebody says an object carries time with it, they are probably referring to the Einsteinian idea that each observer has his or her own perception of time. <i>A) If this is all tru would this explain the effect on astronaughts when they are in space and why they age slower?</i> I'm not actually sure if they age faster or slower than people on earth, since there are two competing relativistic effects involved. What I do know is that the amount by which they age less or more than people on earth due to relativistic effects is tiny - a matter of nanoseconds for the average space voyage. <i>B) Does the earth have its own time dimension around it?</i> Not in the sense you are probably imagining of some kind of "bubble" around the Earth. People on earth do perceive time a little differently to people in orbit, or in relative motion to the Earth. In fact, if you walk across your loungeroom, you have a slightly different perception of time from somebody sitting on the sofa. The effects are not noticeable until relative speeds are a reasonable fraction of the speed of light. <i>C) Is space a timeless dimension?</i> Yes, space <i>as a dimension</i> is, by definition, timeless. That doesn't mean there is no time in space, though. <i>Do other objects of mass (planets) have their own time dimentions that differ from earths?</i> They have their own perceptions of time. <i>Last - If this is the case, If we were to spend a week on a planet that spins 3X faster than the earth would that mean that we would have gone through 3 weeks earth time??</i> No. Time is not directly proportional to rotational speed. Relative time depends on relative speed, but the relationship is not linear. Moving twice as fast doesn't mean time speeds up to twice as fast. rexagan: <i>Time or the perception of it is an abstract concept. Time doesn't really exist in the physical universe.</i> Then what does your watch measure?
>James R >Then what does your watch measure? May as well ask the question... then what does the earth's rotation measure? To us, it's a day which, as well as the function of a watch, is an increment of time. Time (as popularly expressed) is relative to the observer. So, without the observer (effectively extracting ourselves from the bigger universal picture) time doesn't exist. Extrapolating, time is an abstract concept.
Rex wrote: [Time or the perception of it is an abstract concept. Time doesn't really exist in the physical universe. As living beings, we've created and rely upon the ability to experience moments as they unfold... for the duration of our life. It is the mistake of many scientists to try to factor-in aspects of 'time' in order to theorize an understanding of the bigger picture.] This is a common misconcenption. It was shown theoretically, and has since been verified experimentally, that time and space are intertwined. That time is actually another dimension like length, width, and height. Now, you don't have to call it time, but it conforms exactly to what we use to order events. In fact, without the notion of time there is nothing separating a cause from its effect. When was the last time the explosion happened before a gun was fired? George
Re: Rexagan >Time or the perception of it is an abstract concept. Time doesn't really exist in the physical universe. As living beings, we've created and rely upon the ability to experience moments as they unfold... for the duration of our life. It is the mistake of many scientists to try to factor-in aspects of 'time' in order to theorize an understanding of the bigger picture.< Actually time is a rather concrete concept. While it may not be as tangible as a solid object, it is something that we can directly observe. As was stated before "time is actually another dimension like length, width, and height". Here is a good example: if you were to pick an object in space, be it a small planet or something as large as a galaxy, and wanted to pinpoint it's location you could do that by mapping that point according to the x, y, and z axis. However if you don't allow for time (as a fourth dimension) then you can't accurately determine it's location because everything is in motion. It's location changes from moment to moment. It seems to me that there is a direct correlation between bodies in motion and time, however this point is just conjecture on my part.
I do agree that incorporating our familiar aspects of time within math (geometrical formulas especially) allows us to better understand the larger structures of our universe, however, those formulas simply 'breakdown' when taken to the ultimate tests, so far -- the formulas using dimensialities. Our familiar aspects of time such as cesium atoms are not measuring anything, they are just a peridoic "happening". Much like the idea of infinity. It might not exist either. I suppose a clearer and yet more vague statement would be 'everything is happening now'. So, I suppose, in direct response to the notions that 'mass carries time with it' and 'time and space are intertwined', I have a problem taking that theoretical leap of faith. Rex
Hi, there are good questions, and bad questions. I wish to bring on the carpet "time". The first person, who pretends "time was born" is saint Augustine (4. century). It is not important, if contemporary science is copying his question, or no. That question is bad, I think. One was bad, and remains bad. That question is not only bad, it is so very busily. What to do, contra bad question? What to do, contra busily question? I mean: to experiment. Only experimenting can to make clear our question. Or to write about experiment, at least. Words are nothing; experiment is more than words. Do you know some experiments? Is it enough, to write about experiment? Emil
