I don’t see why not. If you assume that you are not currently still - any movement might be a slowing down toward the stillness - taking away from your original velocity.
If there is an absolute still where clocks rotate faster - simply systematically move from a given origin to each point on the compass and back until you discover what direction of motion caused your clock to move more quickly. You can know that your clock ran faster by having communication to someone back at the origin.
Special relativity proposes that movement in any direction will retard your clock regardless of how fast you were originally moving - and it never catches back up. That seems to imply that because everything is always moving away from wherever it originally was - everything must be delaying itself - eternally. As anything orbits - it is under constant acceleration - and everything orbits.
There has to be a type of movement that restores a clock that has been retarded - else every clock throughout the entire universe would have to just get slower and slower and slower. That would mean the entire universe would one day come to a complete stop - not due to heat-death but because everything kept getting delayed and eventually time and aging simply stopped.
Something is not adding up.
But the problem is that the explanation simply concludes the whichever clock ran faster is the origin.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. The rate is measured in the standard second, so an acceleration of 10 m/s^2 means the velocity is increasing 10 m/s every second.
So an initial velocity of 30 m/s has a velocity of:
40 m/s at T=1 Seconds
50 m/s at T=2 Seconds
60 m/s at T=3 Seconds
You knew that?? Sure you did. Did you also know that the seconds are the standard second, and not changing duration as the velocity was increasing? Sure you did!
According to Relativity, the faster you go the slower time elapses. Whoopsie, the seconds were not changing as the velocity was increasing. Every 10 m/s increase took exactly 1 second. LOL
Adrenaline adds more energy to the brain which allows time to slow down.
When this reaction is the opposite, time speeds up.
This evolved to allow us to detect and handle threats better.
A very simple way you can detect this phenomenon is to walk down a trail for the first time.
It will seem like a normal walk… takes a while. You’re constantly looking for threats.
As you walk this trail 1000 times, the subconscious has memorized the potential threats (less adrenaline) and it will seem like no time passed from start to finish.
This is also why people say that time moves faster as you age. Life itself is like that trail. We get so used to it, that the energy pumping into the brain to detect threats decreases.
Travelling faster, does take/position the faster object to its destination quicker.
When the faster object has reached its destination, both the faster and slower objects will still have moved within the same timeframe… regardless of distance traveled.
What travelling faster does seem to do, is save on exertion/effort/etc.
Think of 100 meter dash for 2 runners. The distance is fixed at 100 meters. There is only 1 clock that measures the time.
The fastest runner is at the finish line in 10 seconds.
The slower runner is at the finish line in 20 seconds.
Time elapsed at the exact same rate for both runners, even though 1 runner was twice as fast as the other runner.
The faster runner had a speed of 100 meters per 10 seconds, or 10 meters per second (10 m/s)
The slower runner had a speed of 100 meters per 20 seconds, or 5 meters per second (5 m/s)
There was only one clock, and time elapsed at the EXACT same rate for both runners, even though they ran at different speeds.
If both runners weighed exactly the same weight:
The fastest runner had more POWER
The slowest runner had less POWER
Power=work/time
They both did the same work, which is moving their weight 100 meters.
One runner had more power than the other because he performed the work in less time.
You don’t do work in your head, you do it in the real world. Power isn’t some imagined potential, or some measure of how fast you “could have” moved 150 lbs 100 yards.
Power is how fast you ACTUALLY moved 150 lbs 100 yards.
Energy is power x time.
Ever get an electric bill with how much power or energy you COULD HAVE USED for that month?? Does your power company bill you for how much you COULD HAVE used that month, or do they bill you for how much you ACTUALLY used?
Work = Force x Distance
Power = Work / Time
Energy = Power x Time
Therefor:
Energy = (Work/Time) x Time
Energy=((Force x Distance)/Time) x Time
The distance is the same and we are assuming their mass is the same.
So the work that they do depends on how they accelerated. A quick initial acceleration followed by steady cruising will produce a different amount of work than a steady acceleration over the length of the race.
And the fact that they did not run at the same speed means that their acceleration was much different.
Lifting 100 lbs 3 feet is 300 ft-lbs of WORK, whether it takes you 1 second, or 10 seconds.
Power factors the time to give you the rate of work that you did, the more time means the lower the power. The work is always the same regardless of time. In this case the WORK is 300 ft-lbs of WORK!
Light years, time and distance are components of the either/or world. Presumably anyway. So, which fulminating fanatic above comes closest to guiding us down the One True Path here?
On the other hand, even “standard science” exists within the ultimately mysterious – and some insist mystical – parameters of “the gap” and “Rummy’s Rule”. Not to mention all that weird speculation about reality/“reality” given the components of the quantum world.
Then this part. Pood admits there are no clear-cut scientific answers regarding such things as determinism. So, what of those who argue that, given their own understanding of it, this entire thread is unfolding into the future in the only possible manner in which it could. I’m typing these words because I was never able not to type them. You’re reading these words because you were never able not to read them. You think as you do about light years, time and distance only because your brain compels you to.
This in and of itself precipitates mind-boggling conjectures.
Suppose next month the really, really, [b]really[/b] Big One strikes Earth. An asteroid immense enough to wipe out every single last one of us. No human beings left at all.
And suppose further that human beings are the only intelligent life form in the entire universe.
What then of light years, time and distance? What then of things like the Twin Paradox?
_
I should have also added, that whether one travels 1LY/9Tkm in 1yr, or travels round the planet for a year, it’s still 1 year… it is specific variables at play, creating the conditions for the differences in distance travelled, and not time.
Do you agree that 1) there are many different types of definitions (e.g. ostensive definitions), and that 2) what amounts to a good definition is a realtive thing (relative to one’s goals, to one’s present knowledge and so on)?
I can accept that the definition that I provided is not satsifying to you. In that case, you would have to explain what kind of definition you are looking for and why.
Take me as an example. I can accept that “time is the measure of relative change” is a definition but I don’t find it to be a satisfying one for several reasons. One of the reasons is that what’s meant by the word “measure” is not particularly clear to me. For example, is that definition saying that the word “time” can be used to represent “5 minutes” text written down on a piece paper meant to to represent how long it took someone to do some task?
What does that mean? What does it mean that it declares that there is no “relativity”? Are you speaking of what James calls “relative change”? If so, feel free to define “relative change” and then we’ll see whether or not my definition forbids the existence of such a thing.
In any case, I am inclined to believe that it doesn’t deny the existence of anything (not even unicorns) for the simple reason that it is a definition – it is not a claim about reality. It’s merely a declaration that some word means something.
I beg to differ. I am not sure you understood what I said. James’s definition implies that if there is no change that there is no time. In other words, it prohibits the possibility of there being time when there is no change.
It is a description of how some people define the word “time” – James being one of them. And you can also say that such a definition is useful to certain ends – and perhaps more advantageous in certain ways than my own definition. But to say that it’s what every rational person is obliged to adopt? I don’t agree with that. Different ends require different concepts.
That is the distance that an object travels during a time of acceleration, not the total distance of 100 Meters.
In the example, it is assumed that the velocity is constant the entire race. There is no acceleration, the acceleration is zero.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. In this simple example we assume the runners start the race at velocities of 5 m/s and 10 m/s, and those velocities remain constant the entire race. There is no change of velocity (acceleration.)
The distance is simply 100 Meters, or D=100 Meters
The time in your equation is for acceleration time, not the entire duration of time of travel.
See my Equations of Motion thread for a complete set of equations.
I think what you’re trying to say is that a V8 producing 50 lb-ft of torque at 5,000 RPM produces more power than a V4 producing 50 lb-ft of torque at 2,500 RPM.
But we both know that there are 4 cylinder engines that produce 500 HP and there are 8 cylinder engines that produce 250 HP, RIGHT?
