Infinite time?

[charris]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[myth-one.com]

When I said "ultra-precise" I was really saying "ultra-precise". These clocks mechanisms are not affected, they can be working for 1 million years and not even get one out of a million part of a second wrong. I pointed this out to mean that it was not a clock problem, it's a time effect. Time is not absolute. Relativity is well accepted and it doesn't fail its predictions. Speed, mass and time are not absolute but depend on each other. It's incredible, yet it's true.

I would argue that measurements of time and distance are fixed because they are constructs of mankind. These precise clocks are manmade. Granted, what we base time on isn’t precise, so we have leap years, and make other slight changes periodically. But, lets say it isn’t a clocking problem, and review the classic example given about time dilation:

There is a set of twins, one an astronaut, the other works for mission control of NASA. The astronaut leaves on a deep space trip traveling at 95% the speed of light. Upon returning the astronauts clock has measured ten years, so yhe astronaut has aged 10 years. However, when the astronaut reunites with his earth bound twin, the astronauthe sees that the twin has aged 32 years! This is explained due to the fact that the astronaut's twin is traveling at relativistic speeds and therefore his "clock" is slowed down.

Distance = rate X time

There are two perceptions: The astronaut’s and the earth bound mission controller.

I would claim that the distance traveled from either perception would be the same. Granted with the ever present expansion, the return flight might be longer than the flight out – but let’s assume the space ship contains sufficient “smarts� to calculate a turning point so that the ship returns to the earth exactly 32 years from its departure as seen from the mission controller’s earthly viewpoint, and 10 as seen from the astronaut's.

The total distance traveled should be a finite calculable number. The spaceship traveled for “x� miles, meters, light years, or whatever.

So the distance traveled as calculated by the mission controller would be 0.95 X 32 light years.

But the distance travel as calculated by the astronaut would be 0.95 X 10 light years.

How can that be?

It appears that distance is also not absolute anymore.

Is nothing sacred?

But then, they make the jump from hardware time measured, to human biological age being modified also:

Why would a clock change but not a body with the clock?

I don't know but it's not my claim. To show that the "time dilation" caused a biological change, they could investigate the telomeres, I suppose.

Let's say the twins have the same birth date and hug each other upon completion of the mission.

At that moment, which is biologically older?

Proof left to [strike]student[/strike] claimant.

[Ragna]

I would argue that measurements of time and distance are fixed because they are constructs of mankind. These precise clocks are manmade. Granted, what we base time on isn’t precise, so we have leap years, and make other slight changes periodically.

Leap years aren't there because years aren't precise, it's because the year is always longer than we put it. About 6h longer. We completely ignore it, consciously, but that's not the point here.

That the clocks are man-made is irrelevant. Everything that measures time directly is man-made, and the measurement can be exact even if it's man made. The watches, nevertheless, are radioactive - not man-made, radioactive decay is a totally natural process. So let's say, does uranium decay into lead (not this specific example but just to illustrate) being discrepant have any other explanation than time being dilatated?

Distance = rate X time

The total distance traveled should be a finite calculable number. The spaceship traveled for “x� miles, meters, light years, or whatever.

So the distance traveled as calculated by the mission controller would be 0.95 X 32 light years.

But the distance travel as calculated by the astronaut would be 0.95 X 10 light years.

How can that be?

Light years are distance, not time; they remain constant whether you perceive it as twenty or ten years' time. If by rate you mean speed, speed is space between time. The speed would be perceived different by the observers as well, but distance remains the same. Just in case this seems surprising, mass is also relative: the faster, the lighter.

Let's say the twins have the same birth date and hug each other upon completion of the mission.

At that moment, which is biologically older?

Proof left to [strike]student[/strike] claimant.

The earth twin is biologically older. His body lived for more time than his brother's.

[myth-one.com]

The faster you move, the more mass you have. After a certain point, you'd be crushed under your own gravity.

Just in case this seems surprising, mass is also relative: the faster, the lighter.

Relative to the poster?

[Ragna]

The faster you move, the more mass you have. After a certain point, you'd be crushed under your own gravity.

Just in case this seems surprising, mass is also relative: the faster, the lighter.

Relative to the poster?

Sorry I got that wrong, I think Charris is right. So I correct myself: the faster, the heavier. But it's still relative to speed.

The concept of rest mass comes from this dependency. Look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_mass

The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass or just mass is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations. When the system as a whole is at rest, the invariant mass is equal to the total energy of the system divided by c2, which is equal to the mass of the system as measured on a scale.

[myth-one.com]

Sorry I got that wrong, I think Charris is right.

I know.

Also, be it known that I was simply teasing you!

[Ragna]

I know.

Also, be it known that I was simply teasing you!

¬¬

I have to admit it was a funny joke regarding relativity

[charris]

Just because the astronauts hardware "clock" has measured ten years while his twin's on the earth has recorded 32 years, they jump to the conclusion that one is 22 years older than the other.

I want to make sure I understand you, so forgive me for only asking questions.
Are you saying that biological organisms change/decay/etc. independent of time?

Why would a clock change but not a body with the clock?

Because clocks are mechanical or other non-biological type of devices. Humans are living biological creatures. That is not a good scientific association.

When you are moving faster or near large amounts of gravity, you can't tell the difference in the change of time. In the example of the twins, the twin going into space and coming back wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the change of the speed of time, unless he was comparing it to some other point, mainly that of the twin back here on earth.
What this means is that, to the person moving quickly, he is aging the same. But to a person on earth, he is aging slower. If, suddenly, the gravity of the earth went from 9.8m/s to, say 12.8m/s, aside from being crushed (ignore that part ), we wouldn't tell the difference in the flow of time. You can only tell a change in the speed of time by comparing it to another part of space, i.e. a place with different speeds or gravity.

I would argue that measurements of time and distance are fixed because they are constructs of mankind. These precise clocks are manmade. Granted, what we base time on isn’t precise, so we have leap years, and make other slight changes periodically.

If, when you say measurements of time and distance are fixed, you mean that a tick on a watch or the length of a meter stick are the same, then yes. But only to the person with the watch or meter stick. Anyone viewing these things from different speeds or with different gravity would see it differently.

Is nothing sacred?

Pretty much.

Let's say the twins have the same birth date and hug each other upon completion of the mission.

At that moment, which is biologically older?

Well, let's look at the math.
t=t_0/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2
Let's say that the twin who went into space aged ten years, thus t_0=10, moving at 50% the speed of light, thus v^2=(.5c)^2.
t then equals the age of the twin who stayed on the ground.
t=10/(1-(.5c)^2/c^2)^1/2
t=11.5 years
Thus, the twin who went into space is 1.5 years younger than the twin who stayed on earth.

Hope that helps.

[myth-one.com]

I have to admit it was a funny joke regarding relativity

I like to think all my jokes are "relatively" funny.

Are you saying that biological organisms change/decay/etc. independent of time?

Different species have different maximum possible life spans. Barring some external cause of death, the maximum lifespan assigned to man is around 120 years. It was thought that near that age the cell reproduction process ceases, the cells die, as does the person. So it is time dependant in that there is a 120 year limit (or near abouts). Few reach 120 due to bad habits in eating, smoking, accidents, disease, etc.

But recently there seems to be evidence that the 120 years does not have to be one sequential period. If ones metabolism is lowered to just the point of sustaining life, one can basically "pause" the aging process. So it would seem that the time interval between cell reproductions is not time dependent, but some biological design based on usage or wear, perhaps?

My source was a TV program -- so it has to be true.

Let's say the twins have the same birth date and hug each other upon completion of the mission.

At that moment, which is biologically older?

Well, let's look at the math.
t=t_0/(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2
Let's say that the twin who went into space aged ten years, thus t_0=10, moving at 50% the speed of light, thus v^2=(.5c)^2.
t then equals the age of the twin who stayed on the ground.
t=10/(1-(.5c)^2/c^2)^1/2
t=11.5 years
Thus, the twin who went into space is 1.5 years younger than the twin who stayed on earth.

Ok, the twins are 1.5 years apart even though they were born on the same date and meet and hug after the trip. The math is overwhelming and I'm impressed with your effort. Are you sure you are 18 and not perhaps 28 or 38 years of age?

It seems there should be a Law of conservation of time. You know... "Time can neither be created nor destroyed" ... Is there?

If not, I'll get started on that project.

[myth-one.com]

It seems to me possible that there is an infinite time, specifically that of the past. All that would be required is for a previous event or cause (depending on you interpretation of QM).

I mentioned this, and was met with the objection, "If the past was infinite, then it would have taken an infinite amount of time to get here." I personally think this objection is pointless, so maybe if you think this is the case you could expound upon it. If you disagree, then if you could post your reasons as well I would appreciate it.

Also, if you disagree because of other reasons, I would like to hear them.

[Ragna]

I have to admit it was a funny joke regarding relativity

I like to think all my jokes are "relatively" funny.

Are you saying that biological organisms change/decay/etc. independent of time?

Different species have different maximum possible life spans. Barring some external cause of death, the maximum lifespan assigned to man is around 120 years. It was thought that near that age the cell reproduction process ceases, the cells die, as does the person. So it is time dependant in that there is a 120 year limit (or near abouts). Few reach 120 due to bad habits in eating, smoking, accidents, disease, etc.

But recently there seems to be evidence that the 120 years does not have to be one sequential period. If ones metabolism is lowered to just the point of sustaining life, one can basically "pause" the aging process. So it would seem that the time interval between cell reproductions is not time dependent, but some biological design based on usage or wear, perhaps?

My source was a TV program -- so it has to be true.

But how do metabolism differences have to do with time dilatation? When extremophiles halt totally their metabolism, is time not passing? You can put a clock right by them and say two minutes is two minutes even if they haven't aged. If during the time the place they are in starts filling with water, what, does the extremophile's halted metabolism caused time to stop, is water flowing without time passing? What if another extremophile is by without needing to stop its metabolism? Within the same framework, same conditions imply same times, regardless how fast their metabolism is going.

On the other hand, the twins bodies' work identically and they would still have different ages after the trip, because of different reference systems with different conditions. None's metabolism has to have gone faster or slower, it's just that time is relative in different conditions.