Not that I know of, but it is well known that clocks in satellites (which are orbiting the earth at a very high speed for years) have only a few seconds delay.martin said:
It is solved that simply. One of the other details which I forgot above (it's been a long time since I've solved the twin paradox, give me a break) are the end points of the journey. You have two end points, the earth and the destination star. Neither of these points move relative to each other, so we have a good basis for measuring an absolute distance (which is defined as the distance between two points stationary to each other as measured from a point stationary to both end points). Because the ship travels between the end points but those points don't move relative to each other, the relativistic effects are exactly as would be predicted by considering the Earth stationary in the exercise.Shine-osophical said:
That Time is immutable and constant for the universe is a common misconception. In physics, we often consider time and distance in the same units (I.E. we multiply time by velocity to get a distance, or divide distance by a velocity to get a unit of time, etc; most often expressed as a multiple of c, the speed of light). While I haven't done much with general relativity, special relativity is enough to show that time is indeed variable. Einstein's theory of special relativity is quite literally proven at this point, as we have conducted multiple experiments that show time does change with velocity. In fact, a number of phenomena we see in electromagnetism cannot be explained without reliance on relativity.Maraveno said:
When a circuit 'snaps' it just breaks and stops functioning at all. It NEVER produces consistent, reproduceable results, which is what we've seen in experiments regarding relativity. There is also a wealth of evidence that isn't reliant on the clocks experiment which cannot, at any point, be blamed on faulty electronics.Maraveno said:
A "paradox" is a misunderstanding of initial terms, or an intentional logical trap that must be constructed. There are no paradoxes in nature.Ultracake said:
Incorrect. Relativity allows for time dilation at sub-light speeds. And, technically, you do age slower going in a car at 60 miles an hour (though the difference is immeasurably small). I suggest you do a wiki search on Special Relativity.Unit Alpha said:
Light travels at the speed of light regardless of the velocity of the observer, this is one of the key concepts of relativity actually. To see any noticeable changes, you would have to be moving near light speed relative to the mirror; otherwise it would look exactly the same no matter how fast you are moving.obliterate said:
Einstein's theories are supported by mountains of evidence that don't rely on us sending a clock up in a spaceship. There are BILLIONS of ways to conduct these experiments, and we physicists have explored many of them. The universe does, in fact, behave in ways that are described by Einstein's mathematics.Crofty said:
Can you give an example of how the evidence was found please? Sorry if my skepticism seems stupid, it's just when the only examples of a theory that I've ever seen involve a spaceship travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light it is a bit difficult to believe.klakkat said:
Atomic clocks placed on ships in orbit end up seconds behind equivalent clocks in labs on the ground. This happens every time and is far outside the margin for error for the clocks. The only explanation is time-dilation.Crofty said:
It's not that it'd cancel out the theory. It's that objects with subluminal (slower-than-light) velocities cannot ever reach the speed of light. Equally, superluminals (if they exist) can't SLOW DOWN to the speed of light. It's a universal speed barrier that works both ways. The only things that can travel AT lightspeed are massless particles, most obviously photons (which ARE light), and they ALWAYS travel exactly at lightspeed.Timelord91 said:
My tiredness made me make a small error: it uses integral calculus, not differential. As I expected, it took me under five minutes to do. For anyone who cares, the general solution is that the pursuing object catches up at t = sqrt(2x/(v(n-1))), where x is the initial separation, v is the speed of the fleeing object, and n is the speed of the pursuing object as a multiple of v. Of course, common sense says that if their speed is the same, the pursuer never catches up. Let's see: n = 1, so t = infinity, i.e. never catches up. Perfect!Sorceror Nobody said:
That is awesome! So if I understood what you wrote properly the end result is that Te = 86,95 hours while the person traveling at 298 000km/s would only perceive it as 10 hours? Correct?Viperus said:
I don't mean to sound rude, but you really do need to look it up. The Wiki article on relativity is a good place to start, but the math is extremely complicated in parts for people unfamiliar with physics. As others stated, there has been physical tests involving the most direct analogy (atomic clocks in fast-moving planes) but relativistic effects are also crucial to elecromagnetic field theory. I don't have the time or inclination to hold physics class in a forum (no one would read it anyway), so the best advice I can offer besides the information already provided is to research the matter on your own. There are a large number of books on relativity out there, some specifically written for the layman. If you truly wish to know more about how the universe operates, there are many books on the topic, and you can always use Wiki as a starting point. From my experience, the majority of physics articles are correct in as much material as is presented.Crofty said:
Ever been in a car? If you close your eyes (or just don't look at the scenery outside the car) and plug your ears so you don't hear the engine noise and the road is smooth, you cannot tell how fast your car is moving. However, if the driver floors the gas and the car now suddenly accelerates, you will feel as if you were pushed backwards into the seat. Likewise, if the driver slams the brakes, you will also feel it, only this time the apparent pull is to the other direction.Shine-osophical said:
