Expanding space?

No, you've misunderstood a basic principle here. The slowing of aging (time) is simply an effect of the speed. Once the speed is reduced, there's no "carry-over" physical effect. When it's over it's over. This had been demonstrated hundreds of times in particle accelerators.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Im not sure how I have misunderstood when you just stated what I did...:shrug:

I was responding to someone else saying that unless someone could show how freezing something would speed up time then time or time dilation couldnt exist...hence the physical changes that would have to occur near the speed of light for the basis of their argument to be correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My apologies - I must have read across you post too quickly because, in fact, we are in complete agreement. Again - sorry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ranthi. If you are travelling at 180,000 mps and you shine a torch in the direction of travel, it can only move EFFECTIVELY at a speed of 6,000 mps (rounding the figure off, thus light speed). The light could be said to have slowed down to 1/30th of it's normal speed.

Suppose it reduces the energy of (say) electrons by the same amount so that an electron orbiting an atom now has only 1/30th of it's previous energy when moving in the direction of travel? It has slowed down because of it's speed.

I used freezing to show time does not exist as a dimension where one effect cannot be reversed to show an opposite effect. Something in lighter or no gravity does not age faster though heavier gravity is said to make it age slower.

 

Read-Only. There is hard science which can readily be demonstrated and speculative science that is based on theory which is effectively taken on belief since we cannot (yet) prove it to be correct.

Read my signature. While I will rarely question anything to do with the former, I see nothing wrong with questioning the latter. If it cannot stand up to simple questioning, then it is not much good. I have found the best way to learn about something is to question it. I have however come across people on forums (AlphaNumeric on physorg and SpeakerToAnimals on the defunct BBC site, etc) who accept everything in a text book with creationist zeal as though it MUST be right and feel a need to correct anyone who says anything else.

As I have said to them and others, it is a waste of time just quoting text books on a debating forum. Anyone can find out the official explanation if they bother looking for themselves.

 

That's all well and good - EXCEPT for the fact that you reject some well-established facts that have been proven experimentally many time over. Time dilation is a prime example of that.

I agree that all speculation should be taken with a grain of salt and ripping into such things is quite honorable. However, to choose to ignore established principles is the height of stupidity and vain ignorance/arrogance. It's as simple as that.

 

I think you mean to say that it can only move at 6000 miles per second relative to your speed. The light is still traveling at 186k though so there is no energy loss and no speed loss.

 

Just a little hint here: I don't believe he understands or accepts the fact of frames of reference.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just as he refuses to accept time dilation.

 

Perhaps, but I think everyone on here should know more than I do..being that my highest education level is high school which was 14 years ago...so I give most the benefit of the doubt.

 

Just give him time. You've already caught him on one of his problems and you'll soon see more. (Incidentaly, high school was 43 years ago for me and college was 38. But that doesn't stop us from learning, does it?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No truer words have been spoken. I try to learn..not just scan and forget..but learn atleast 1 new thing per day. Most days exceed that..but it is never less than.

 

I agree completely!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And that's one reason why I seem a bit harsh on those who refuse to learn, like the fellow we were discussing. To hold to some misbegotten idea in the face of overwhelming evidence is , well, silly (to put it in a nice form). Whenever one come across something new or something that contradicts one's current understanding, it's time to do some sifting of the wheat and the chaff.

 

Read-Only. Time dilation seems to only work in the way wanted, slowing down and does not speed up time when the effect is reversed. Lighter gravity, slower speeds, etc. Why is that?

It was an established principle at one time that if you went over 15 mph, you would collapse from lack of breath. Luckily someone thought to question it. So uncalled for insults at the end of your post.

 

Photons yes. But I'm talking about the energy of electrons.

 

You are too gullible and like a creationist will accept all certain people tell you as though it were infallibly true. Hawking said that someone could enter a super-massive black hole alive. Do you believe this or should I explain why he is wrong?

 

See what I mean? What a very silly question! Slower than what?

No insult there! Separating the wheat from the chaff is THE primary job of anyone doing proper reserach.

 

More sheer nonsense! What do the electrons have to do with your speed statements?

 

I've never read where he said that - and of course it cannot be done.

And no, I'm not the gullible one here - I'm talking to someone who has clearly established his own gullibility by accepting the products of his imagination as fact.

 

Crackpot.

 

Actually gentlemen, you could. The basic problem with entering a typical black hole (going beyond the event horizon) is tides caused by an immense gravitational gradient. You get ripped apart. But as the radius of the black hole increases (it's overall gravitation increases) the distance over which it acts also increases. At some point, while you will still be irretrievably lost, you could survive the passage without being tidally ripped to pieces.

As for your second statement, he's a crackpot, by definition.