Hey, We all heard about the theory that the further you move from earth, the faster time becomes. But could it be that the equipment used to measure time has electons that can move more freely in space than on earth because the earth''s gravitational force is not strong enough to pull on it? That could explain why time becomes faster (but probably doesn''t), than the explanation that time is also pulled from the gravitational force from earth that slows down time on earth. I do believe that there are some time warps or parts in the universe that experiences time-clashes but gravity pulling on time, come-on man! Well any comments? ----------=Last Attacker=---------- E-mail: laextr@icqmail.com

Dunno know about that but the faster you move the slower time "runs"

Exactly, gravity is a acceleration. The faster you move is to accelerate, that creates a force from the direction you are travelling. That force can have the same impact of the equipment used to measure time than the gravity of earth.


----------=Last Attacker=----------

E-mail: laextr@icqmail.com

Time is relative. Perhaps what you''re talking about is that if you moved away from the earth at a rapid pace, it would appear time was slowing down. And this makes perfect sense. Light is emitted from the earth, obviously at the speed of light. That light is what you see when you look at earth. Now, imagine you were moving away from the earth at 1/2 c ( the speed of light ). It would appear that time was moving 1/2 as fast since the relative velocity of yourself to the light would be 1/2 c.

Now if you managed to actually exceed the speed of light then time would actually look like it was going backwards since you would be ''catching up'' to light that was emitted previously. So you wouldn''t actually be going back in time, but it would look like it. And it actually is possible to travel faster than the speed of light. You just can''t accelerate to the speed of light...

A really cool thing to think about. If the light is travelling throughout space at the speed of light. What would happen if you could exceed the speed of light and ''pass up'' the earliest piece of light ever emitted. Where would you be? The Universe as we reference it would not exist where you are...

quote:

---

Original post by haro
A really cool thing to think about. If the light is travelling throughout space at the speed of light. What would happen if you could exceed the speed of light and ''pass up'' the earliest piece of light ever emitted. Where would you be? The Universe as we reference it would not exist where you are...

---

The earliest light ever emitted is not around anymore, so it can''t be seen. The earliest light around is the cosmic background radiation. It can be seen in practically any direction in the sky. No need to exceed the speed of light, but you need special instruments to see it.

The "time passes more slowly"-thing has nothin to do with velocity (what you guys are talking about is a result of the lorentz-transformations used in special relativity).

What you are talking about is a result of the theory of general relativity. First of all: there is no gravitavional force is general relativity. Instead you say that mass (the source of gravitation in newtonian mechanics) alters the shape of your space-time (space-time is a 4-dimensional surface the includes time as a coordinate). Objects move in it on so called geodaetics (dunno if that translation is correct, german word would be "Geodäten").

The closer you get to a mass the more your space-time is deformed. The different passig of time might be a result of that defomration of space-time. Actually I don´t really understand the statement "time becomes faster" for several reasons.

Don´t have the time to do the calculations right now but I can give you that:

The line element of a space time without mass (spherical coordinates, angles not included):

ds² = dt² - dr² (c=1)

The line element with a spherical symmetric mass at r=0 for a spectator ar r -> infinity (where ds² is calculated the way given above) :

ds²(r) = (1- R/r) * dt² - (1- R/r)^(-1) * dr², c=1, R is Schwarzschild-Radius.

You see that there is a r-dependent factor before the dt² so this should be the source of the phenomenon.

[edited by - Atheist on July 19, 2003 10:14:41 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
The earliest light ever emitted is not around anymore, so it can''t be seen. The earliest light around is the cosmic background radiation. It can be seen in practically any direction in the sky. No need to exceed the speed of light, but you need special instruments to see it.

---

Not true. The "earliest light ever emitted" is still around. It is the cosmic background radiation.

We are moving away from the sources so quickly that it has taken billions of years for their light to catch up to us.

Geodaten: geodesics.

quote:

---

Original post by JohnBolton
Not true. The "earliest light ever emitted" is still around. It is the cosmic background radiation.

---

Not true. The cosmic background radiation is from about 300000 years after big bang. Obviously light (electromagnetic radiation) existed before that, but due to the conditions of the early universe it is no longer around.