Time

[tillingborn]

Any particle in a given frame, is like that of the train, they are all going the speed of the train at rest, thus when you throw them, they are moving relative to the train only.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. If you are standing on the platform and someone throws a particle from a passing train it will hit you at, as near as damn it, the speed the train is traveling at plus the speed it was thrown at. Not quite though, because, air resistance and whatnot apart, relativity kicks in the moment something starts moving, although the effects are negligible until you are moving very fast.
Were this not so, a particle thrown from a train passing at (very nearly) the speed of light could potentially hit you at more than the speed of light, but it doesn't. Particles behave like waves, a better analogy is a boat: if you throw pebbles from a boat, it doesn't matter how fast you are going, when the pebble hits the water, the wave it creates will travel at the speed of waves through water.
The question of whether light is particles or waves goes back donkeys years. I can't remember the details, but in the 17th century there was a block of powerful thinkers, notably Locke and particularly Newton who were corpusculareans, in modern parlance they believed light was particles. That was turned on it's head when James Clerk Maxwell showed that EM radiation behaved exactly like waves. Everyone assumed that light was waves until Michelson-Morley failed to detect the Earth moving through the medium, the luminiferous aether, like a boat travels through water.
A few years later, Einstein comes up with General Relativity that describes the effects of gravity using a mathematical model of 4 dimensional spacetime, that on the face of it looks like a substance, but treats light as though it were particles moving through a warped landscape. Which ties in nicely with his 1905 paper on the photo-electric effect that described photons and other particles as discrete packets of energy, but that is confusing because no one knows what energy is other than the damage it has the potential to do. Nonetheless, that's what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for and it simultaneously put the lid on serious talk about aether and opened the door to quantum mechanics, a theory that doesn't make sense if you ignore the wave like property of particles.
Peter Higgs stuck his neck out and said there has to be something like an aether, which is basically what the Higgs field is (there's an short article that sums it all up quite nicely here: http://www.independent.com/news/2012/ju ... new-ether/ ). More to the point, so is the bunniverse. ( viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9140 )

The particles of the atoms do not have farther to go, relative to all other parts of the atom, as all parts of the atom in that frame are going the exact same speed. Relative distance, in that frame, of relative constituents, are exactly the same as in any other frame. thus speed matters not, relative to what?

Any other frame you care to choose.

Every celestial body is moving, relative to every other celestial body, their is no one true frame, with which all others must be compared that is human-centric. (sounds like Pre-Copernican religious dogma to me.)

I entirely agree.

Maybe man forgets to apply the lessons learned with such understandings of the past, as they pertain to new understandings of the now, because it's too much to fit in such a primitive brain.

Could be. Depends on the brain though.

[Arising_uk]

You need to reread and UNDERSTAND my points above before you and I can continue on this subject.

The experiments confirm Einstein's predictions that there would be an effect upon time measurement due to velocity and gravitation. Thats what they were designed to do. If you want to argue that there is or is not a 'thing' called time or that it was not velocity nor gravity that caused these effects I think one way would be to ask if the voyagers have clocks on them and ask them the time?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You need to reread and UNDERSTAND my points above before you and I can continue on this subject.

The experiments confirm Einstein's predictions that there would be an effect upon time measurement due to velocity and gravitation. Thats what they were designed to do. If you want to argue that there is or is not a 'thing' called time or that it was not velocity nor gravity that caused these effects I think one way would be to ask if the voyagers have clocks on them and ask them the time?

How was the experiment conducted, do you even know? Do you know of any controls put into place to isolate the findings so as to eliminate any other possible causal? I say it was inconclusive, due to lack of control, essential for the experiment, that the experiment was too young. Do you know of anything that can disprove this. Do you know something as simple as what the heading was during the experiments, and the specific paths as it pertains to various potential interactions? No don't tell me, let me guess, as usual you read a magic book, on the topic. Am I right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Any particle in a given frame, is like that of the train, they are all going the speed of the train at rest, thus when you throw them, they are moving relative to the train only.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
Sorry!
Reiteration: If on a train, everything not moving relative to the train, is static on that train, as they travel at exactly the same velocity, relative to the tracks. Relative to the train they are going zero. If I then pick something up and throw it either towards the front or the rear of the train, with instant acceleration, matching the exact velocity of the train, the relationship to the train is exactly the same in either case, while the relationship to the tracks are all together different. If towards the front, relative to the tracks, it's double that to the train, if towards the rear, with arm extended outside the window, zero, relative to the tracks, and it simply falls straight to the ground.
(Obviously, in the above example, the train existed in a vacuum, without atmospheric entanglements.)

How did you say this aether affects moving things. But before you answer, what's the velocity of the earth relative to a static aether relationship, such that we can judge velocity and thus dilation? Do you really think velocity exists, independent of relative frames. If there is only one celestial frame of reference in the universe, is there movement? relative to what? If there is, can you only measure zero velocity, relative to aether as you fire thrusters opposed to trajectory, to zero time dilation? Would you believe that, the only way to find zero velocity relative to this mysterious aether, in the absence of other celestial bodies, though as is the point of this thought experiment, other celestial bodies are irrelevant in determining earths velocity, aren't they?

What is earths velocity? is time as we know it on earth, already dilated relative to a static earth/aether relationship?


If you are standing on the platform and someone throws a particle from a passing train it will hit you at, as near as damn it, the speed the train is traveling at plus the speed it was thrown at. Not quite though, because, air resistance and whatnot apart, relativity kicks in the moment something starts moving, although the effects are negligible until you are moving very fast.
Were this not so, a particle thrown from a train passing at (very nearly) the speed of light could potentially hit you at more than the speed of light, but it doesn't. Particles behave like waves, a better analogy is a boat: if you throw pebbles from a boat, it doesn't matter how fast you are going, when the pebble hits the water, the wave it creates will travel at the speed of waves through water.
The question of whether light is particles or waves goes back donkeys years. I can't remember the details, but in the 17th century there was a block of powerful thinkers, notably Locke and particularly Newton who were corpusculareans, in modern parlance they believed light was particles. That was turned on it's head when James Clerk Maxwell showed that EM radiation behaved exactly like waves. Everyone assumed that light was waves until Michelson-Morley failed to detect the Earth moving through the medium, the luminiferous aether, like a boat travels through water.
A few years later, Einstein comes up with General Relativity that describes the effects of gravity using a mathematical model of 4 dimensional spacetime, that on the face of it looks like a substance, but treats light as though it were particles moving through a warped landscape. Which ties in nicely with his 1905 paper on the photo-electric effect that described photons and other particles as discrete packets of energy, but that is confusing because no one knows what energy is other than the damage it has the potential to do. Nonetheless, that's what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for and it simultaneously put the lid on serious talk about aether and opened the door to quantum mechanics, a theory that doesn't make sense if you ignore the wave like property of particles.
Peter Higgs stuck his neck out and said there has to be something like an aether, which is basically what the Higgs field is (there's an short article that sums it all up quite nicely here: http://www.independent.com/news/2012/ju ... new-ether/ ). More to the point, so is the bunniverse. ( viewtopic.php?f=12&t=9140 )

The particles of the atoms do not have farther to go, relative to all other parts of the atom, as all parts of the atom in that frame are going the exact same speed. Relative distance, in that frame, of relative constituents, are exactly the same as in any other frame. thus speed matters not, relative to what?

Any other frame you care to choose.

Every celestial body is moving, relative to every other celestial body, their is no one true frame, with which all others must be compared that is human-centric. (sounds like Pre-Copernican religious dogma to me.)

I entirely agree.

Maybe man forgets to apply the lessons learned with such understandings of the past, as they pertain to new understandings of the now, because it's too much to fit in such a primitive brain.

Could be. Depends on the brain though.

[tillingborn]

How did you say this aether affects moving things. But before you answer, what's the velocity of the earth relative to a static aether relationship, such that we can judge velocity and thus dilation?

Well as Michelson-Morley demonstrated, we can't measure our speed relative to a static aether. Two options spring to mind, one: the aether doesn't exist, two: it isn't static. Most 20th century physicists went for option one, at least publicly, but I think we might be witnessing a right old Kuhnian paradigm shift.
If and when it is established that there really is a Higgs field, the next question will be where did it come from? Who knows what will come to light? Cerveny seems to have a model based on an infinite, eternal field that has time passing through it, creating reality as it sweeps past (I may be doing him an injustice, perhaps it's more that the illusion of time is cracks and imperfections spreading). If on the other hand you can swallow a version of the Big Bang in which everything that exists was compacted into a very small space, you get a field that grows and is very definitely not static.
This is where my personal crankiness kicks in, because I think there are some interesting reasons for thinking this might be the case. From the point of view of William of Ockham, I can't see any reason to add anything to this field in order to create a universe, although my ignorance of any phenomenon that demands more, is an entirely plausible explanation.
Be thst as it may, it might be that everything is made of this expanding field, that all particles are 'perturbations' in it, twists and knots if you like. The logical support is that if the universe started with no size, it can't have had components, but then people who have insisted that reality is logical, have invariably been made to look foolish.
Anyway, with a dynamic, growing Higgs field the Michelson-Morley result could be explained by the fact that the field is still spreading. Particles, and the people, planets and stars made of them are basically pinched up expanding field in this model, I sometimes visualise a box of Catherine Wheels that someone threw a match into. In other words field is streaming off matter in a way that has some similarity to Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory. What this would mean is that the field is condensed around 'matter', so the observed bending of light around massive objects, a phenomenon that looks uncannily like refraction, is in fact refraction. More to the point, if matter is in motion, then the field streaming off it is condensed in the direction it is travelling and rareified behind. It doesn't matter which direction you approach from, you have the same amount of field to traverse. You are still doing the same mph, it's just that the miles are made of stuff that can be squeezed or stretched.
I do wonder where this would leave gravity as a force. Obviously things aren't going to stop falling to the ground, but if particles are refracted, as electrons orbit protons say, the horizontal component is refracted twice, as it moves left then right. I think the net result of this double refraction would be a small displacement towards the source that would look very like gravity.

In answer to the first part, I'm not sure I did say how this aether affects moving things, but I've seen it compared to wading through molasses. Basically, it slows you down.

Do you really think velocity exists, independent of relative frames.

Whether it exists or not is neither here nor there, without a reference frame, there's no way of telling.

What is earths velocity?

As you say, relative to what?

is time as we know it on earth, already dilated relative to a static earth/aether relationship?

I think time is just what happens. I would be amazed if there really was a substance that adheres to our notion of 'time' and that interacts with spatial dimensions and with matter, but you never know.

[Arising_uk]

... No don't tell me, let me guess, as usual you read a magic book, on the topic. Am I right?

Yup, the magic books of goggle and wiki. Now are they authoritative, maybe maybe not, as with goggle I see arguments on physics sites against but many more for and with wiki I see this;

"A more complex and precise experiment of this kind was performed by research group of the University of Maryland between September 1975 and January 1976. Three atomic clocks were brought to an altitude of 10 km above Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, and three other atomic clocks were at the ground. A turboprop plane was used, flying at only 500 km/h, in order to minimize the velocity effect. The plane was steadily observed using radar, and its position and velocity were measured every second. Five flights were carried out, each of 15 hours duration. Special containers protected the clocks from external influences such as vibrations, magnetic fields, or temperature variations. The time difference was measured by direct clock comparison at the ground before and after the flight, as well as during the flight by laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration. Those signals were sent to the plane, reflected, and again received at the ground station. The time difference was observable during the flight, before later analysis. An overall difference of 47.1 ns was measured, which consisted of the velocity effect of -5.7 ns and a gravitational effect of 52.8 ns. This agrees with the relativistic predictions to a precision of about 1.6%.[3][4]
A reenactment of the original experiment by the NPL took place in 1996 on the 25th anniversary of the original experiment, using more precise atomic clocks during a flight from London to Washington, D.C. and back again. The results were verified to a higher degree of accuracy. A time gain of 39 ± 2 ns was observed, compared to a relativistic prediction of 39.8 ns.[5] In June 2010, NPL again repeated the experiment, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hongkong - London). The predicted value was 246 ± 3 ns, the measured value 230 ± 20 ns.[6]
Because the Hafele–Keating experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified.[7] Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.[8]
Similar experiments with atomic clocks[edit]

Measurements in which the only effect was gravitational have been conducted by Iijima et al. between 1975 and 1977. They carried a commercial cesium clock back and forth from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan in Mitaka, at 58 m above sea level, to Norikura corona station, at 2876 m above sea level, corresponding to an altitude difference of 2818 m. During the times when the clock stayed at Mitaka, it was compared with another cesium clock. The measured change in rate was (29±1.5)×10−14, consistent with the result of 30.7×10−14 predicted by general relativity.[9]
In 1976, Briatore and Leschiutta compared the rates of two cesium clocks, one in Turin 250 m above sea level, the other at Plateau Rosa 3500 m above sea level. The comparison was conducted by evaluating the arrival times of VHF television synchronization pulses and of a LORAN-C chain. The predicted difference was 30.6 ns/d. Using two different operating criteria, they found differences of 33.8±6.8 ns/d and 36.5±5.8 ns/d, respectively, in agreement with general relativity.[10] Environmental factors were controlled far more precisely than in the Iijima experiment, in which many complicated corrections had to be applied.
In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970's. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm.[11][12]
Nowadays both gravitational and velocity effects are, for example, routinely incorporated into the calculations used for the Global Positioning System.[13]"

So in the case of the conclusivity of the experiments showing that clocks tell different times when going different speeds and gravity I think, from what I've read by those who appear to understand such stuff, the experiments conclusive. I also think that since the experiments were to test predictions from relativity theory that this lends at least credence to the theory.

Me, I just think it mind-blowing that this can happen and did when I read about it as a youth.

Now if we could do this a person would actually have a time-machine is open to discussion as you could argue that its only a mechanical effect and does not work with living cells so what would actually happen is the person would find themselves dead of old age before they got back. But since I very much doubt we'll ever be testing this I think it a moot or maybe just a metaphysical discussion.

[SpheresOfBalance]

... No don't tell me, let me guess, as usual you read a magic book, on the topic. Am I right?

Yup, the magic books of goggle and wiki. Now are they authoritative, maybe maybe not, as with goggle I see arguments on physics sites against but many more for and with wiki I see this;

"A more complex and precise experiment of this kind was performed by research group of the University of Maryland between September 1975 and January 1976. Three atomic clocks were brought to an altitude of 10 km above Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, and three other atomic clocks were at the ground. A turboprop plane was used, flying at only 500 km/h, in order to minimize the velocity effect. The plane was steadily observed using radar, and its position and velocity were measured every second. Five flights were carried out, each of 15 hours duration. Special containers protected the clocks from external influences such as vibrations, magnetic fields, or temperature variations. The time difference was measured by direct clock comparison at the ground before and after the flight, as well as during the flight by laser pulses of 0.1 ns duration. Those signals were sent to the plane, reflected, and again received at the ground station. The time difference was observable during the flight, before later analysis. An overall difference of 47.1 ns was measured, which consisted of the velocity effect of -5.7 ns and a gravitational effect of 52.8 ns. This agrees with the relativistic predictions to a precision of about 1.6%.[3][4]
A reenactment of the original experiment by the NPL took place in 1996 on the 25th anniversary of the original experiment, using more precise atomic clocks during a flight from London to Washington, D.C. and back again. The results were verified to a higher degree of accuracy. A time gain of 39 ± 2 ns was observed, compared to a relativistic prediction of 39.8 ns.[5] In June 2010, NPL again repeated the experiment, this time around the globe (London - Los Angeles - Auckland - Hongkong - London). The predicted value was 246 ± 3 ns, the measured value 230 ± 20 ns.[6]
Because the Hafele–Keating experiment was reproduced by increasingly accurate methods, there has been a consensus among physicists since at least the 1970s that the relativistic predictions of gravitational and kinematic effects on time have been conclusively verified.[7] Criticisms of the experiment did not address the subsequent verification of the result by more accurate methods, and have been shown to be in error.[8]
Similar experiments with atomic clocks[edit]

Measurements in which the only effect was gravitational have been conducted by Iijima et al. between 1975 and 1977. They carried a commercial cesium clock back and forth from the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan in Mitaka, at 58 m above sea level, to Norikura corona station, at 2876 m above sea level, corresponding to an altitude difference of 2818 m. During the times when the clock stayed at Mitaka, it was compared with another cesium clock. The measured change in rate was (29±1.5)×10−14, consistent with the result of 30.7×10−14 predicted by general relativity.[9]
In 1976, Briatore and Leschiutta compared the rates of two cesium clocks, one in Turin 250 m above sea level, the other at Plateau Rosa 3500 m above sea level. The comparison was conducted by evaluating the arrival times of VHF television synchronization pulses and of a LORAN-C chain. The predicted difference was 30.6 ns/d. Using two different operating criteria, they found differences of 33.8±6.8 ns/d and 36.5±5.8 ns/d, respectively, in agreement with general relativity.[10] Environmental factors were controlled far more precisely than in the Iijima experiment, in which many complicated corrections had to be applied.
In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970's. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm.[11][12]
Nowadays both gravitational and velocity effects are, for example, routinely incorporated into the calculations used for the Global Positioning System.[13]"

So in the case of the conclusivity of the experiments showing that clocks tell different times when going different speeds and gravity I think, from what I've read by those who appear to understand such stuff, the experiments conclusive. I also think that since the experiments were to test predictions from relativity theory that this lends at least credence to the theory.

Me, I just think it mind-blowing that this can happen and did when I read about it as a youth.

Now if we could do this a person would actually have a time-machine is open to discussion as you could argue that its only a mechanical effect and does not work with living cells so what would actually happen is the person would find themselves dead of old age before they got back. But since I very much doubt we'll ever be testing this I think it a moot or maybe just a metaphysical discussion.

Thanks, but actually I'd read it some time ago, but I do appreciate the refresher. The question still remains, did it prove the slowing of a clock or that of time and how could man possibly know the difference between the two? If there is, or if there isn't? Sounds to me like someone touched the pendulum.

[SpheresOfBalance]

How did you say this aether affects moving things. But before you answer, what's the velocity of the earth relative to a static aether relationship, such that we can judge velocity and thus dilation?

Well as Michelson-Morley demonstrated, we can't measure our speed relative to a static aether. Two options spring to mind, one: the aether doesn't exist, two: it isn't static. Most 20th century physicists went for option one, at least publicly, but I think we might be witnessing a right old Kuhnian paradigm shift.
If and when it is established that there really is a Higgs field, the next question will be where did it come from? Who knows what will come to light? Cerveny seems to have a model based on an infinite, eternal field that has time passing through it, creating reality as it sweeps past (I may be doing him an injustice, perhaps it's more that the illusion of time is cracks and imperfections spreading). If on the other hand you can swallow a version of the Big Bang in which everything that exists was compacted into a very small space, you get a field that grows and is very definitely not static.
This is where my personal crankiness kicks in, because I think there are some interesting reasons for thinking this might be the case. From the point of view of William of Ockham, I can't see any reason to add anything to this field in order to create a universe, although my ignorance of any phenomenon that demands more, is an entirely plausible explanation.
Be thst as it may, it might be that everything is made of this expanding field, that all particles are 'perturbations' in it, twists and knots if you like. The logical support is that if the universe started with no size, it can't have had components, but then people who have insisted that reality is logical, have invariably been made to look foolish.
Anyway, with a dynamic, growing Higgs field the Michelson-Morley result could be explained by the fact that the field is still spreading. Particles, and the people, planets and stars made of them are basically pinched up expanding field in this model, I sometimes visualise a box of Catherine Wheels that someone threw a match into. In other words field is streaming off matter in a way that has some similarity to Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory. What this would mean is that the field is condensed around 'matter', so the observed bending of light around massive objects, a phenomenon that looks uncannily like refraction, is in fact refraction. More to the point, if matter is in motion, then the field streaming off it is condensed in the direction it is travelling and rareified behind. It doesn't matter which direction you approach from, you have the same amount of field to traverse. You are still doing the same mph, it's just that the miles are made of stuff that can be squeezed or stretched.
I do wonder where this would leave gravity as a force. Obviously things aren't going to stop falling to the ground, but if particles are refracted, as electrons orbit protons say, the horizontal component is refracted twice, as it moves left then right. I think the net result of this double refraction would be a small displacement towards the source that would look very like gravity.

In answer to the first part, I'm not sure I did say how this aether affects moving things, but I've seen it compared to wading through molasses. Basically, it slows you down.

Do you really think velocity exists, independent of relative frames.

Whether it exists or not is neither here nor there, without a reference frame, there's no way of telling.

What is earths velocity?

As you say, relative to what?

is time as we know it on earth, already dilated relative to a static earth/aether relationship?

I think time is just what happens. I would be amazed if there really was a substance that adheres to our notion of 'time' and that interacts with spatial dimensions and with matter, but you never know.

So let me try and tie you down. These are inertial frames of reference that we refer to, where inertia and the conservation of energy states that no energy/movement is lost without outside forces. In a vacuum where speed is constant in two different inertial frames, of two different velocities, what is this force that dilates time, as measured by two clocks, one located in each frame, when these two inertial frames are compared, not during their relative travel, but after they are brought to rest side by side so as to compare the two times, with gravity and electromagnetic energy removed as potential causals? Do you understand, and can you answer this?

[tillingborn]

This is what you want to know really, isn’t it?

what is this force that dilates time... with gravity and electromagnetic energy removed as potential causals?

In other words: all else being equal, why do different inertial frames experience the passage of time differently, and what causes it?
In the case of Hafele-Keating, the different clocks can be considered different inertial frames, basically a box, with some atoms in, the oscillations of which are being counted. Eliminating all possible variables is practically impossible, which is why other scientists run similar tests and variations of them to be as certain as they can that the effect they are measuring is the one they think they are. In the case of Hafele-Keating this involved factoring in the effects of gravity. Since the clock on the ground would be at a different altitude to the one on the plane, the strength of Earths gravitational field would be different. Gravity though is a consequence of all the mass of the matter around you. If you are flying around the world at 60 000ft, that isn’t constant; the world isn’t perfectly spherical, the oceans (and in fact land) are subject to tidal variations, the density of rock isn’t homogenous, the gravity of the moon, sun, planets and in fact every atom in the universe is going to muddy the waters. Accounting for every variable isn’t feasible, you have to allow that there is a margin of error. If the results are within that, you can consider that they support the hypothesis, although of course, in proper induction style, no amount of evidence is proof.
A lot of experiments have been performed, by people who are very thorough, and they all show that once you account for all the other possibilities that is humanly possible, there remains an effect on the clocks which is best explained by their relative speed. As I keep saying, I personally don’t think there is a force acting on a substance which is time; I take the rather simple view that the reason speed affects how quickly an event occurs is that the faster you are going, the longer it takes for particles to get where they are going. If you accept that the speed of light is as fast as anything can go, then, were it possible, in an inertial frame traveling at the speed of light, all particles are going in a straight line, they are all on parallel courses, there is no interaction, nothing happens, time stops, but there is no 'force' acting on any 'time'.

[Hjarloprillar]

I base everything i believe on evidence supplied and sheer gut instinct.
This is not totally scientific.
Uk i believe, believes as i, that the amount of evidence unclouded by any theoretical prose is VERY indicative.
Time. Is a local event.
Dependent on for sake of simplicity to deltaV. [leaving out gravity].

My hypothetical ship DOES in its approach to C. Operate at a rate of time independent of earth.
And when harry meets sally. back on earth. Sally is still young [being on ship] while Harry is old.

NOT a hypothetical POV relative to eachother but physical reality.
I believe without a doubt [ thats NO DOUBT] that one day a situation like this will occur. as surely as if i step off a cliif
and the law of gravity has it's way.

Im not going to argue this.. i think i've said all that i need to say.
The sheer volume of data. from UK's orbitals to time dilation at atomic level in experiments at CERN.
are far more conclusive that theoretical positions of relative POV's.. which i think are are a sop

A few people here are very knowledgeable and smug. Yet where do they explain the inconsistency of harry and sally? LSD?

i suggest

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
-- Doctor Who

[SpheresOfBalance]

Are you correcting me, or helping Prill? Do you even know your reasoning, or those things in your psyche that initiated such methodology? Is it an Arising UK, over a Yank, that has you running?

What are you babbling about now? Surely its obvious that I'm adding to your advice.

Wrong, you obviously forgot your netiquette, I thought you were once a USENET user, you did not quote him, but rather me. No need to tell me, I know of at least one button, it was he, that could not find them. Subconsciously you feel the need to tell me SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to appease your sense of self, or so it would seem, or you would have quoted him, to attach your message. As that is what the netiquette of old, the original, demands, despite it's bastardization by newbies .

[SpheresOfBalance]

I take the rather simple view that the reason speed affects how quickly an event occurs is that the faster you are going, the longer it takes for particles to get where they are going.
OK, I hear you, but only as all the particles of atoms are being brought up to velocity, is where I see this as possibility, but once a constant, nonfluctuating velocity is attained, can you then see this as possibility, as I only see that all the atomic constituents are relatively going the same velocity such that there is no catching up to do, there would have to be a force relative to velocity if no other forces are present, wouldn't you think so? Inertia maintains constant velocity, in the absence of forces that may affect, so where could the need for catching up be created, at constant velocity?

If you accept that the speed of light is as fast as anything can go, then, were it possible, in an inertial frame traveling at the speed of light, all particles are going in a straight line, they are all on parallel courses, there is no interaction, nothing happens, time stops, but there is no 'force' acting on any 'time'.

So what has man tried to propel, at velocities faster than light, such that he knows that lights velocity, is the maximum? Was there such an experiment, or is it strictly theoretical; SToR?

[Hjarloprillar]

I take the rather simple view that the reason speed affects how quickly an event occurs is that the faster you are going, the longer it takes for particles to get where they are going.
OK, I hear you, but only as all the particles of atoms are being brought up to velocity, is where I see this as possibility, but once a constant, nonfluctuating velocity is attained, can you then see this as possibility, as I only see that all the atomic constituents are relatively going the same velocity such that there is no catching up to do, there would have to be a force relative to velocity if no other forces are present, wouldn't you think so? Inertia maintains constant velocity, in the absence of forces that may affect, so where could the need for catching up be created, at constant velocity?

If you accept that the speed of light is as fast as anything can go, then, were it possible, in an inertial frame traveling at the speed of light, all particles are going in a straight line, they are all on parallel courses, there is no interaction, nothing happens, time stops, but there is no 'force' acting on any 'time'.

So what has man tried to propel, at velocities faster than light, such that he knows that lights velocity, is the maximum? Was there such an experiment, or is it strictly theoretical; SToR?

We tried to propel protons to + lightspeed at cern. no go they got to 99.999 then nothing happened. like a govenor on an engine. set to 299 792 458 m/s
nearly got there every time.
explain that

[SpheresOfBalance]

I base everything i believe on evidence supplied and sheer gut instinct.
This is not totally scientific.
Uk i believe, believes as i, that the amount of evidence unclouded by any theoretical prose is VERY indicative.
Time. Is a local event.
Dependent on for sake of simplicity to deltaV. [leaving out gravity].
We're not talking of changing trajectories, where inertia due to lateral movement is actually a factor, or at least I'm not! I'm talking of a straight line, no steering, where no lateral force is generated, or experienced. Where inertia only maintains constant velocity, in the absence of other external forces.

My hypothetical ship DOES in its approach to C. Operate at a rate of time independent of earth.
There is no time dependent on earth. Einstein called it 'Space/Time,' not Space/Earth/Time. Which seems to be pretty damn independent to me. We have not tested this hypothesis yet, that I'm aware of, but I see that it would be forces that interfere with/degrade/slow/speed up/change chemical reactions within the human body. I see everything as environmental, as certainly there are differing forces, in different relative positions, to any particular combination of specific forces.

And when harry meets sally. back on earth. Sally is still young [being on ship] while Harry is old.

NOT a hypothetical POV relative to eachother but physical reality.
I believe without a doubt [ thats NO DOUBT] that one day a situation like this will occur. as surely as if i step off a cliif
and the law of gravity has it's way.

Im not going to argue this.. i think i've said all that i need to say.
The sheer volume of data. from UK's orbitals to time dilation at atomic level in experiments at CERN.
are far more conclusive that theoretical positions of relative POV's.. which i think are are a sop

A few people here are very knowledgeable and smug. Yet where do they explain the inconsistency of harry and sally? LSD?

i suggest

"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering."
-- Doctor Who

[SpheresOfBalance]

I take the rather simple view that the reason speed affects how quickly an event occurs is that the faster you are going, the longer it takes for particles to get where they are going.
OK, I hear you, but only as all the particles of atoms are being brought up to velocity, is where I see this as possibility, but once a constant, nonfluctuating velocity is attained, can you then see this as possibility, as I only see that all the atomic constituents are relatively going the same velocity such that there is no catching up to do, there would have to be a force relative to velocity if no other forces are present, wouldn't you think so? Inertia maintains constant velocity, in the absence of forces that may affect, so where could the need for catching up be created, at constant velocity?

If you accept that the speed of light is as fast as anything can go, then, were it possible, in an inertial frame traveling at the speed of light, all particles are going in a straight line, they are all on parallel courses, there is no interaction, nothing happens, time stops, but there is no 'force' acting on any 'time'.

So what has man tried to propel, at velocities faster than light, such that he knows that lights velocity, is the maximum? Was there such an experiment, or is it strictly theoretical; SToR?

We tried to propel protons to + lightspeed at cern. no go they got to 99.999 then nothing happened. like a govenor on an engine. set to 299 792 458 m/s
nearly got there every time.
explain that

It's a loop! A circle! Electromagnetic forces are used to keep them centered. Talk about a tainted experiment, sheeesh! Photons travel in a straight line, until acted upon by outside forces, which yields either reflection, absorption, refraction, or scattering.