RE: Time traveling is just full of crap, innit?
February 21, 2017 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2017 at 9:58 pm by ErGingerbreadMandude.)
(February 21, 2017 at 2:29 pm)LostLocke Wrote:(February 21, 2017 at 2:21 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: It may seem to be 5 years from one point of reference and 50 years for another due to the way our measuring of time works.... but it's objectively the same amount of time that's passed...That's the thing, it's not an objective amount. 5 years have passed for space guy, 50 years have passed for earth guy.
If it's objective then only 5 years or 50 years have passed. Which one is it?
Isn't it a bit like asking: "It's 4'o clock in UK", "It's 12'o clock in Dubai" : So which is the actual time? We both know that there is an objective "time" - the clock started ticking at the beginning of the universe, we just say it's 4'o clock in the UK to adjust with the different experience of sunset/sunrise.
If 1 second can mean only 1 second to person A and 1 second can mean only 1 second to person B then time traveling would be pretty much impossible. Maybe the illusion of time traveling is possible but that's still just an illusion..?
(February 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(February 19, 2017 at 11:27 pm)Alex K Wrote: There is another layer of subtlety to this that is barely ever discussed in popular treatments: travel speed itself is not an absolute observer-independent quantity in relativity, so there's no unique objective way to say who is faster and who is slower. This is why in two space ships passing each other, each could claim to be at rest while the other is fast, hence both could equally claim that their time runs faster. This seems paradoxical. The way the paradox is avoided in nature is very interesting: there is no way to compare the "time speed" of two observers unless 1. the two observers meet twice, or 2. if one observer prepares several synchronized clocks set up a distance apart, which are passed in succession by the other observer.
In the first case, the paradox is avoided bc one observer has to turn around and go back, breaking the symmetry of the situation. In the second case likewise, there is no paradox because the synchronicity of spatially separated clocks is not observer-independent either and the observer in the passing space ship will simply see the two clocks as not synchronous in the first place, explaining why they seemingly show more time passing even though they are the ones who are moving from his vantage point .
With regards to the first case, what happens if the two spaceships are traveling in huge circular routes, next to each other, but in opposite directions? Then they would technically pass each other multiple times without actually turning back?
Did I, or did I not just break the universe?
...If you put the ships in a circular path but in opposite directions the ships would meet multiple times..yeah. You start your stop watch from the moment you see the ship and stop it when you see it again.. then you can do all your weird calculations and find the speed of the spaceship, the area of the circular path etc?
