What is the difference between time distortion and space distortion?

[Kriminal99]

Is there any definition of time that doesn't depend on moving objects?

[InfiniteNow]

The question in your subject and the question in your post seem to be different. Can you clarify what you are asking?

 

 

Per your subject, no. If we stick to the confirmation of Einstein's work as it currently stands, space and time are the same thing, inseperable.

 

 

Per the question in your post, see my username. :lol:

 

 

Cheers. :)

[ronthepon]

Erm, InfiniteNow, what does InfiniteNow mean?

[pgrmdave]

If nothing ever changed, we'd have no concept of time. Nothing would break down, there'd be no thought, no experiance. No light would ever reach one's eyes, and even if it did no information would be passed beyond that. So motion is necessary for the existance of what we recognize as time.

[InfiniteNow]

Erm, InfiniteNow, what does InfiniteNow mean?

Hmmm... sarcasm? Authentic question? I'll guess the second since you didn't add a smilie... :lol:

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/4843-moments-events.html

 

 

Btw, congrats on the 1K ron. Keep up the good work! :)

[ronthepon]

I'll guess the second since you didn't add a smilie...

...The mark of an experienced elite. Thanks.

 

Pgrmdave, if nothing changed then we would not exist! I suppose you hint at the deep sleep king of nothing changing.

[Mercedes Benzene]

Is there any definition of time that doesn't depend on moving objects?

 

Not that I'm aware of...

...you could of course... make one up!

 

 

...then again... this is a science forum.

[Kriminal99]

I was just curious, because in the model of the human mind I hold all definitions of concepts are realized by perceptions, and the only concept of time that can be supported by this model is one which is really just the perception of events taking place at different rates relative to one another.

 

The question in my first post and the thread title are the same because in order for time distortion and space distortion to be different there would have to be a definition of time that did not depend on the speed of moving objects, which of course would be affected by space distortion.

 

However this understanding of the subject would still be lacking unless time in relativity experiments was defined by objects moving only in the direction of the spatial distortion, or the time distortion was adjusted by the degree it was measured in directions perpendicular to the spatial distortion.

 

Here is a model where a ball is motivated in the same manner to move forward through space, but one space is more dense than the other. The O is the ball and the I's are like grid snaps that are some unit of space away from each other. The top line is the more dense space ( which would be caused by greater velocity but forget that for now)

 

O..I...I...I

 

O.....I......I......I

 

Once each ball has reached the third eye stop the model.

 

...I...I...O

 

......I......I......O

 

And now even the density of the 2 spaces again

 

......I....O

 

.....I......I......O

 

And so one ball has moved father than the other even though they were both motivated using the same method. Now image that the ball traveling this path is really a device for measuring time. So the difference in travel between the two balls is "time distortion"

 

So my question is, if space density is changed due to velocity in that direction, then why would a time measuring device like the one in this model which depended on a ball moving in the direction perpendicular to the velocity or the space density difference register a time delay?

[Mercedes Benzene]

Yes... well unfortunately... humans are stupid:D. Or at least, they have a hard time percieving things that do not make immediate sense to them.

Often times, humans do not understand the way things really are.

[Kriminal99]

huh? [/irony]

[IDMclean]

I've said it before and I'll say it again (going on like a dozen times now).

 

Length contraction and Time dialation are the same thing. When you reduce length, you reduce the "time" it takes to get there. When you go faster, the length of your path, relative to an outside observer, will shrink. you will "hop" essentially. As a result you will to the observer reach your destination and get back in ?Greater? "time" than would be recorded by you onboard your superfast ship. Hence the Twin Paradox.

[Kriminal99]

Well the only question I was still asking was whether time needs some kind of directional component to deal with situations where time is partially measured by objects moving in directions perpendicular to a near the speed of light velocity?

 

Like I guess the simplest version of the question is just to ask about a clock that has a swinging pendulum on a space ship where the pendulum swings exactly perpendicular to the ship's velocity. Then compare this to a clock with a pendulum swinging in the exact same direction that is stationary relative to the spaceship.

 

Or roll 2 balls exactly perpendicular to the velocity like the model in my above post. Wouldn't the two balls make the same progress the whole time since the perpendicular velocity/accelerations would not cause length contraction in the direction the ball was traveling?

 

And wouldn't the perpendiculur pendulum clocks register the same time?

 

And if the clocks were angled so they were not parallel to the velocity of the ship and were not perpendicular to it either wouldn't the time dialation be less than if it was parallel to the velocity of the ship?

[HydrogenBond]

Time is measured by changes of state. However, time stills exist even if a change of state is not ocurring. For example, if I have an old fashion watch that needs winding and it stops, time will continue, although our ability to measure time, using a change of state, will be disrupted.

 

I look at time as a potential. If we add time potential back to our watch by winding it, we will be able to create a mechanical change of state that will allow us to measure time. Time never stopped only our ability to measure time. These are two different things.

 

Picture if our watch gets full of dust, causing the mechanism to lose time. Since the change of state of the second hand has been alterred, does this mean that our watch is now expressing time in a different reference? I am kidding with this last one. :eek2:

 

Relativistic velocity sort of adds dust to the mechanism of time, causing the second hand to slow. If we look at time as a potential, the relativistic velocity adds time potential faster than it can be processed, causing time potential to accumulate.

[Kriminal99]

My suggestion is that what you are really saying is that even though your watch has stopped working, somewhere there is still a functioning watch. Not that time exists apart from functioning watches. The effect is for the most part the same, since every existing thing (or every thing that changes state) is a watch of sorts. If I were to ask you what makes you think things were changing state, then you might say that you had percieved so. And if I were to ask you how you might percieve a difference between the previous state in the next, what answer could you give that would not involve movement, which of course would be effected by space distortion?

 

If one watch runs slowly, or gains dust from the beach and functions poorly, and yet that was the only watch you had, then your perception of time WOULD be different then someone else who had a different watch. However, to counter this you could simply compare your watch to someone else's or many other watches and use the time you thought was correct.

 

I understand that time distortion means that all watches in a frame of reference run at a different rate and not because of anything about the watches such as they are filled with dust. But I think it is because all watches function on movement through space, and contracting space effects the rate the watches measure time. Where here a watch is anything and everything that is effected by the passage of time.

 

So in the case of the pendulum clock on a spaceship, you can substitute all objects which change state by movement perpendicular to the reletavistic velocity if it makes my question clearer.

[IDMclean]

Don't forget the Twin paradox.

 

It's not only that your watch measures less time relative to a stationary observer. (goes slower to some one watching you move at near luminal speeds). But to you, going at near luminal speed you are still experiencing normal time and the person watching you is the one who is going slower, his watch would measure, to you, more time.

 

You would age slower, and your twin on earth, said to be at rest, would age quicker.

 

like I said, this is because during your journey, the distance between you and your destination decreases. The faster you go, the closer your objective becomes the less "time" it takes to get to your objective.

[HydrogenBond]

One thing that indicates that time is a potential and exists apart from reference is that it only moves to the future. If one ran a clock backwards things are still moving to the future. One can take any change of state of A going to B, and then reverse it with B going to A. Time does not go backwards but still goes forward.

 

One thing about all these scenarios of two references moving near C, etc., like the twin paradox is that they are treated like matter of fact. One would have a hard time seeing a bullet flying by, yet we seem to be able to see things near C with surprising detail. Is this just math talking or does anyone actually have such data?

 

For example, the variable left out is relativistic mass. If one measured the relativistic mass of a adjacent space-ship would the mass increase in 3-D or just along the line of motion? My gut tells me 3-D, since for the laws of physics to be the same in all references, one can't have a linear or cylindrical gravity field inside the space-ship. Doesn't 3-D mass mean that the alternations in space and time should also be 3-D or else part of the 3-D mass would exist in another space-time reference? I think the math or interpretation of the math is messed up.

[IDMclean]

time is the reference frame, time contains the space components. One can not have space without time and likewise. As for relative velocity massed objects? I am not certain.

 

I would expect though that, relative to a object at rest with respect to us, it would observe our rest mass and not our kinetic mass, Or something like that. I'll have to check my physics book.