Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
|My Response To Joe Hanink, "On The Nature Of Time"...
Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by nåte/">nåte on October 4, 1998 08:54:54 UTC
After reading Joe Hanink's article on "The Nature of Time", I felt very compelled to respond. So, I am posting my response here in light that I may be critiqued.
I think his article is interresting and think you should read it. He disputes time dilation, length contraction etc. (and therefore special relativity for that matter)
I will post the URL to his site... here is my response
hi. my name is nathan cross. just got done reading your explanation on time.
first off, i would have to disagree with your reasoning regarding time dilation.
the model you used of a space ship racing off from earth at X velocity with a string attached and a spool on earth, had as many un-answered questions as the theory of time dilation itself... or for that matter quantum theories.
i do respect your thought and insight, just have some problems with your reasoning.
If I remember correctly, you stated the apparant paradox of having two different times of when the spool runs out on earth depending on the reference position. I think the point described in the relation of length contraction and time dilation stems from their strict relations with eachother. The apparent length contraction in the vector of motion is merely observed because that of the observer traveling the great speed has his time slown down in relation to that of the outside universe as it appears to himself. If you stand back and look at the big picture of a space craft traveling at say... 9998 c; you would notice the time relative to the space traveler is running much slower than the outside universe relative to him. Therefore, from his prospective, the distance he is traveling becomes contracted due to the fact that for every 1sec he is traveling 300,000m, he is really traveling 600,000m because 1sec to him is 2sec outside his reference posistion. Therefore, what would normally seem as 1 lightyear to him at rest position, he forsees as .5 lightyears distance.
if i may go further...
To make the model work in such a way as to disprove his actual distance traveled versus his apparent distance traveled, you would "have" to take into account from what frame of reference you are measuring. Just because he experienced less time on his trip to accomplish the same distance as observed by someone at rest does not contradict or create a paradox. One has to remember that in special relativity we are talking about a "distortion" of time/space continuum.
maybe i'm not fully understanding your model, and if that's the case, please inform me... ; )
the way i understand time dilation, length contraction and the apparent increase in mass, is just that.. apparent. These 3 occurances, given that they defy general relativity, do not defy special relativity. The bench mark for special relativity is the velocity of light. The way i view time is this...
if you were a photon and were in a light beam, your frame of reference out looking the universe would be uni dimensional. Your traverse "time" would be instantaneous! therefore when we observe light as velocity, it is a constant... why? because time moves at the speed of light. time is relative to velocity.(only from external frame of reference). Light is pure energy and has no mass... here we have a magnetic field inducing an electrostatic field and vise versa. Its velocity moving on the fabric of space/time. It is a constant in any and every frame of reference. If you presuppose that space/time is synonymous with a ruler and that the spatial distance cannot compress, that is quite an assumption. Your assuming velocity and gravity do not affect space and time.
Here is how I see it... Space is nothing and has nothing like you stated. However it supports the dimension to allow something to occupy its space. Likewise the opposite of nothing is something. ie. space & mass.. what force does mass have? ... gravity...
The same is true with time... Time is nothing and does not exist outside of motion. i.e.. time & motion... what is the ultimate force of motion?... velocity of light. (because it dictates the existence of time... something like a benchmark; constant).
So if we have something that occupies space and motion that dictates time, we have space/time dimension. Now suppose we were to reach the velocity of light, or become extremely close to its speed. Do you see the effect of how this benchmark of time now becomes distorted? The very fabric we are traveling on that supports mass and motion, we are defying! Therefore the dimension becomes contracted and approaching uni dimensionality. The same is true for gravity.
Mass, the substance that occupies space.. It too has an affect on space/time... how? with gravity! gravitation, which is directly related to mass (which occupies space) has an effect on the fabric as well! How could it not? We see it nowadays in gravitational lensing.
Having made those distinctions, (philosophically) I find it quite apparent that if gravity noticeably has an effect on space/time, why wouldn't it's counterpart? ...velocity/motion.
anyway, i think you see where i am coming from. I just happen to believe that our dimension of space and time is directly affected by its counterparts; mass and motion.
Thanks for listening to my craziness. :) feel free to comment... God bless
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins