-
League Of Reason Forums will shut down 10th September 2025.
There is a thread regarding this in General Discussion.
How fast is time
- Thread starter Leçi
- Start date
Welshidiot
Member
Leà§i said:
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/slowing-time-to-a-standstill-with-relativity.html
Umm, 1 second per second?
It's all relative depending on your own speed and proximity to another mass. Things far away from Earth seem to us to be moving in fast-motion, and to them, we would look as though we're moving in slow-motion.
Although with an object as small as the Earth, I don't think the differences would actually be detectable with the naked eye. But an atomic clock in an orbiting satellite counts time faster than one on the surface.
Similarly, a fast-moving clock would seem to go slowly to an outside observer. And yet, to them, you would also be moving fast in the opposite direction so (I think) they might also see your clock going slowly and it all gets very confusing. I'm not sure about this, though.
It's all relative depending on your own speed and proximity to another mass. Things far away from Earth seem to us to be moving in fast-motion, and to them, we would look as though we're moving in slow-motion.
Although with an object as small as the Earth, I don't think the differences would actually be detectable with the naked eye. But an atomic clock in an orbiting satellite counts time faster than one on the surface.
Similarly, a fast-moving clock would seem to go slowly to an outside observer. And yet, to them, you would also be moving fast in the opposite direction so (I think) they might also see your clock going slowly and it all gets very confusing. I'm not sure about this, though.
Duvelthehobbit666
Active Member
We have named an arbitrary unit and call it seconds and defined it as one second is the amount of time it takes light to travel a specified distance. Don't remember the distance. So there is no real rate of time. There are relative rates of time where a time measured at place A can be slower or faster than at place B but it is only relative.
Edit: Reading MRaverz thread I realize that I was mixing up my definitions. Time is not defined by distance over speed of light but rather that a meter is defined by speed of light *time.
Edit: Reading MRaverz thread I realize that I was mixing up my definitions. Time is not defined by distance over speed of light but rather that a meter is defined by speed of light *time.
The best way I have found to envisage why time is relative is to imagine you are watching a train pass you on a track perpendicular to the direction you are standing. It is going 80% the speed of light (for arguments sake). A man in one of the carriages shines a torch at the roof of the carriage and measures the time it takes the light to leave the torch and arrive back at the torch. To him the light goes straight up and down. Let's say that it is 1m to the roof of the carriage so the light travels 2m. To you however the light takes a diagonal route to the roof and then down. To you it appears that the light travels 2*sqrt(1^2+0.8^2) = 2.56m if I am not mistaken (1m up and 0.8m across then another 1m down and 0.8m further across). Therefore the train appears to move faster to you in order for the light to travel the extra 0.56m (as the speed of light is the same to all observers irrespective of their reference plane). This is why a second will pass more slowly for a clock on the train relative to a clock in your reference plane.
In light of this (brilliant pun, yes?
) your question, as it has been pointed out, doesn't really make sense.
This is for special relativity of course. General relativity would be a bit different because mass comes into it and I don't know much about all that other than time becomes another dimension interwoven with space hence the term "fabric of space-time" and that mass warps space-time and that light follows the contours of space-time.
In light of this (brilliant pun, yes?
) your question, as it has been pointed out, doesn't really make sense.This is for special relativity of course. General relativity would be a bit different because mass comes into it and I don't know much about all that other than time becomes another dimension interwoven with space hence the term "fabric of space-time" and that mass warps space-time and that light follows the contours of space-time.
Master_Ghost_Knight
Active Member
Here is a question at the same level. How fast is 5 meters? Of course the right answer is: "WTF?"
Gunboat Diplomat
Member
1Leà§i said:
Andiferous
Active Member
I think the Sherlock Holmes answer "is relative," but I think perhaps the more interesting question to ask is "how is time directed." They're different topics, but the latter is pretty hard to discuss as well.
CosmicJoghurt
Member
"How fast is time?" is a bit like asking how salty taste is.
kenandkids
Active Member
42
)O( Hytegia )O(
Active Member
How long is distance?
Master_Ghost_Knight
Active Member
That is actualy an answerable question.)O( Hytegia )O( said:
)O( Hytegia )O(
Active Member
:lol:Master_Ghost_Knight said:
Not really. You can subdivide distance, but you can't answer how long "Distance" is.
Master_Ghost_Knight
Active Member
Well tell me what distance you want to know and how tell you how much it is.)O( Hytegia )O( said:
Example 1 meter = the distance light travels in 1/299792458 of a second, it used to be the size of a religiously kept metal rod in specific circumstance. the act of measuring is in fact a comparison, when you say x is y in lenght what you are basicaly doing is a comparisson (it is a process that hasn't quite changed since antiquity).