you could, you know, just google it

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

I don't know if relativistic time dilation has been measured - it probably has, and if it hasn't, it's considered heavily in high energy particle physics (the accelerators are moving particles at relativistic speeds). I know for certain gravitational time dilation has been measured, so that nulls your hypothesis that time is constant and unchanging.

Also, I'm going to address the obvious problem in traveling twice the speed of light: the energy required is infinite. Then again, you think Einstein is wrong (and experimental particle physics, quantum mechanics, and most of modern physics too?)

Yes fun fact: quantum mechanics incorporates special relativity.

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Feb 3 2012 02:34pm

Time dilation is a physical notion that must be accounted for when synchronizing clocks in the sattelites in geosynchronous orbit. We know that it exists and we can measure it.

Of course, I didn't even think of satellites and space shuttles.

That in nothing proves that speed slows down clocks or even worse human lives.

Show me where they tested it and verified being truth, instead of copy paste what some random decided to type out of random theory which another random decided to think of his own imagination.

Ben said its been tested and verified, well then that's all I want to know, where is that test so I be informed of?

Thank you.

PS: I accept any kind if evidence from any source as a viable answer. Just not copy/paste wikipeadea where it doesn't even explain how it happens nor makes any sense.

Again, its called THEORY OF RELATIVITY. Its nothing, but a theory.. Any if us can create a theory out of thoughts and conclusions about something we find it to make sense to us, however these theories are broken down invalid upon discussion and new point of views that the author couldnt see alone or in his small group of scientists.
But certain theories I would even assume them as correct if you tell me you experienced it yourself as a proof of validation. Ofc that wouldn't be my last stop, but certainly where I would start until the exhaustion of my imagination creating questions on your theory.

When you have exhausted all possibilities to answer a problem and still you don't know everything about it, the best you can do is assume that everything said about it until today is wrong and try to prove it instead of solving the problem they are trying to explain.
In MOST situations you will get the right solution by contradicting the existent possibilities
Try it and you will get addicted to how dynamic your mind can be.

Jeebus you are terrifically dense.

Have you even read anything that has been said? Are you capable of reading comprehension? When we send sattelites into orbit, we have to account for time dilation. That means that we have to make the clocks that run inside the sattelites run faster than the ones that we use. Because when these sattelites are in orbit, they move at such a speed that time slows down enough to make very noticeable differences. We wouldn't have GPS if we did not account for time dilation.

This is a very good source explaining how time dilation in relativity works:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/srelwhat.html

@bold: No you can't. We have a very specific way of creating theories, and only by using the scientific method will your theory have any merit whatsoever. It doesn't just have to make sense to you, you need to be able to show that it works (experimentation) and the experiments need to be repeatable. This is once again a very good showing of how people have absolutely no clue of what the word theory means in a scientific context.

Do you EVEN understand why we need to do that on satellites? Or even better why you can't travel back in time? Or even better why time doesn't slow down no matter the speed you travel if you come to a stop in the end and meet your friend in the same momentum that he is??

I'll tell you, the sattelites to begin with are far from us, so information and even light takes time to get to you which us the observer.
The sattelites are not in the same momentum as you, they are moving faster AND not in the same place as you.
Now here's what happens with their speed and clocks:
Assuming you are stopped and the satellites moving faster, it takes awhile for the information they send to get to you, so when you receive the signal that at 12:00pm (on your clock) the satellite is in a certain position, in reality he's not there anymore, he already moved a little bit further.

That's why the "clocks" speed on the satellites are ADJUSTED in every second depending on their position towards the receiver on earth.
It is not a constant acceleration or lets say a constant clocking speed, their clocks speed is regulated depending if they are moving away from you or catching you from behind, etc..

Did you understand now?

There is no such a thing as time dilation between two objects that are in the same momentum, traveling at light speed or not.
There is a time dilation in between an observer and a moveable object, when this object travels away from you at light speed, he will remain forever the same age while you get old, and you will remain the same young for him while he gets old. Yes he gets old too.

Just because he's traveling at light speed, the image you get from him will always be the same WHILE he moves away from you.
When he comes back to you and stops on your side you will realize that he's the same age as you actually.

Speed DOESNT affect clocks, only for different observers in different momentums.

Edit: Funny thing is you link me a website that actually explains it very well, however you preach otherwise lol


bold: this part I will just ignore and say anyone can create any theory on his own about anything.
Regardless of being a scientist it not, a theory is just like an opinion based on our understanding.

So yea Carl sagan was wrong in that video, very wrong, also Einstein in most of his theories. But he was a nice guy.

This post was edited by omghacks2 on Feb 3 2012 03:50pm

ahahahahahha

Let's say I have a particle that decays in 10 seconds. I put that particle in a particle accelerator and whip it up close to the speed of light. How long will it take for the particle to decay?

Hint: It has nothing to do with how long the light coming from the particle accelerator needs to travel to the observer.