From what I understand the faster an object moves the slower it experiences the effects of time in comparison to an object with a lower velocity.
I call bullshit.
If, in picrel, both rockets have same quantity of radioactive material that decays over an unspecified half life and the red and blue rocket leave point A same time and arrive at point B at the same time. Your telling me, that blue will have more of the original radioactive material, because...? Even though both rockets moved between two points at the same time. Nah
T. moron
> Your telling me, that blue will have more of the original radioactive material
Yes and it has been experimentally proven. The oldest such example being muon decay in cosmic rays. Their half life is so short we should never be able to detect them, but we do.
But couldn't the muon decay be explained as cosmic rays creating them closer to where they are being measured? Or did the account for that in the experiment?
>Their half life is so short we should never be able to detect them, but we do.
Maybe we just predicted their half-life incorrectly.
???
Pretty sure 2.2ųs is very slow and detectable
Think about it anon. If muons decay so fast how come we still see them coming from space? Because they are moving so fast relativity kicks in.
>If muons decay so fast
They don't, 2.2ųs is slow compared to many other things which we can measure perfectly fine
>Because they are moving so fast relativity kicks in.
Relativity is always in effect as long as there exists things which can be compared against eachother, because that's what relativity is, the comparison of things relative to other things
Even at light speed 0.22 microseconds is a distance of 0.66km. They shouldn't even be able to reach the ground from the upper atmosphere.
Yes, but since they're travelling so fast their constituent particles can't interact and decay won't occur
> muon
> constituent particles
say what now?
Everything is made of something, anon, if it wasn't made of anything it wouldn't exist
Who?
dude saying close to speed of light you die because molecules stop interacting, in your frame of reference.
I think you've got me mistaken, but that would happen at the speed of light, no? Like how could your blood keep pumping when it's all forced against your veins.
holy shit you again
>in cosmic rays
I love astronomy but 99% of the things coming from it are unprovable theories, most of which are vastly more likely to be false than correct.
So you should give experiments that are actually measurable with a human made experiment.
flip to 2:14:33
Everyone, meds, now.
You first.
Fellow moron here o/
so from what i understand so far is that acceleration is the reason for this.
but
wouldnt the blue rocket use up more radioactive material in order to suffice for the given acceleration? wouldnt the radioactive material be directly proportional to the acceleration?
acceleration is not needed. one can imagine an experiment with 3 ships instead of 2. all them with constant velocity, 2 fast and 1 slow. the first fast ship crosses path with the slow one and syncs the masses of the radioactive material via messaging. it later crosses path with the second fast ship and transmits the mass number of its remaining material. the 2nd fast ship then watches a similar amount until it finally meets up with the slow ship. the slow ship will have less material remaining.
Bull. Shit. If they start at the same place and end at the same place at the same time, the amount of material would be the same.
In your contrived example blue moves faster than red because he covers a longer distance in the same time.
Locally the material decays just as fast for both. Blue will appear to have slower decay from Red's perspective.
Now the claim is that when Blue and Red adjust to meet eachother Red will discover that Blue's material has decayed less. However, as covered earlier, from Red's perspective, the material he had decayed normally, and since his journey took the same amount of time, we have arrived at a paradox. What is the truth? Where did we go wrong?
they can both go in the same straight line and blue can go really slow for a while then go close to lightspeed then slow down until both arive at same time. doesn't have to be a longer path.
Sad. Heart. My right/bottom
This is all produced in my (good) right eye using the abstraction frame radiance. I had provided myself a curative luckily that was very profitable. Consider it an intellectual lottery win. I know far more than most at a grade that's far higher than average.
I know all of calculus and other languages far better than everyone and will show it with direct mind comms. I also know all programming languages and languages in every dept that you don't know. I can make a computer consc. Using c++ java but some can't make it. I know all species in genetics, there's about 10000 in the category of animal, insect, Gorgonites, etc. and I know how to list all species in each category. And so much more. I basically am the index of life. With much skill too.
Radioactive shit is caused by random collisions. Blue guy has had less these collsions as it escapes some of them.
Wouldn't it have more because it travels a longer distance?
But it goes faster and they meet in same point of time and space. Let say you are in aborginal area. They don't like you. So they throw arrows at you. Who gets more arrows? The guy who just stand still. Or the guy who tries to run away fast?
In your hypothetical, the person standing still. Its a bad example tho, because the amount and angle of the arrows is dependent on the device of measurement (I.e. the person being fired upon). A better example would would be a person standing still and a person running in the rain. In this case, the two would experience the same amount of rain. With only thing different being the angle of contact of the rain.
But imagine a rain that comes from every direction. Those raindrops from your behind, you are escaping them.
And the rain drops in front of you are accelerated toward you.
But speed of light is constant in every frame THO
Most of everything from this angle with its leverage above all angles. And I think that's about 0.7% or less in total. There's lots because of diversity of experience I do not know and margins of what I know is incomplete because of diversity in character and view.
There's a way to do that out of range. Find it. You may be able to help me. And we can help each other.
you start with the observational fact that light appears to propagate at the same speed for all observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other, and then work through Einstein's gedankenexperiments for special relativity. there are only 3 of them, and they are really straight forward.
Let me fix that for you.
>you start with the observational ASSUMPTION that light appears to propagate at the same speed for all observers moving at constant velocity relative to each other, and then work through Einstein's gedanken experiments for special relativity. there are only 3 of them, and they are really straight forward.
Also, this doesn't help. In the example in the op, would the the blue rocket have more material (because it traveled at a faster speed) than the red rocket when they arrive at point b?
>observational ASSUMPTION
wtf does that even mean?
The speed of light being constant is an assumption.
based on extensive observation
If I record a car starting a trip at 12pm and then record it 60 miles away at 1pm, do I know for a fact that it traveled exactly 60 miles per hour the entire time?
Yes, but you can't use it to say that the speed of all cars is 60 miles per hour
>Yes
How do I know it didn't spend 50% of the trip going 60mph, 25% of the trip going 30mph, and 25% of the trip going 90mph? How do I know it didn't stop for 30 minutes and then go 120mph for 30 minutes? Or any other combination of speeds in between that could add up to going 60 miles in 1 hour?
Idk what your getting at, but you can't know for certain those did or did not occur.
if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's the speed of light unless some other observation demonstrates otherwise.
Ok, but that is still an assumption.
the entirety of existence is an assumption by that reasoning, making the word useless you p-zombie
No, moron, my existence is not an assumption. Measuring the speed of light or making predictions of the future requires you to make many assumptions.
you existence is an OBSERVATIONAL FACT, homosexual
you die every night and the thought that the past exists is the demiurge programming you into thinking that.
Ah, I concede that I was incorrect in saying my existence is not an assumption. That statement was made on the assumption that my sense are accurate devices of measuring whether or not something exists. But I will not concede that my existence is a fact, it is an assumption.
sophistry never got anyone laid or made them a better critical thinker. it's the laziest of positions to take.
You still didn't answer the question. In accordance with modern understanding of physics, (Whether they are based on assumptions or observastional facts, it is not relavent) Would the blue rocket have less radioactive material than the red rocket when they both arrive at point B?
Correction: would the blue rocket have more
Exactly. And how do we measure the speed of a photon?
Idk, but my guess would be to measure the time it takes to travel between two points.
Correct. So even if that time is always the same we can only ASSUME the speed of light is constant. If that assumption works in calculations then maybe that's fine for the time being, but what happens when certain equations stop working? Should we start questioning our assumptions about the speed of light as a constant, or should we start inserting dark matter and other inventions into the equations to force them to keep working? Modern science has tended to choose the latter. That's the problem I have with treating assumptions as facts.
Well I'm in the same boat as you.
>treating assumptions as facts
physicists don't do that. that's your misunderstanding that you are projecting onto the world.
They do tho, and they have to. At least when it comes time to turn translate their theories into predictions about reality.
physics studies models. if you are drinking your own kool-aid and thinking physics studies truth, you haven't studied enough physics to qualify as a physicist.
>physics studies models
The problem is that when the models don't reflect reality they just pile on more bullshit instead of trying to build a more accurate model.
>they just pile on more bullshit
is precisely what
>trying to build a more accurate model
is, dumbass
No, at some point you have to actually take what you've learned and start over with a new model that actually works.
that's your misunderstanding speaking out again.
the thing about models is that (assuming (btw here's a legit use of the word assumption) they are good models) work within a certain domain of applicability; exceed that domain and the model doesn't make good predictions anymore
if a more fundamental model comes along, it should reduce to the less accurate model in the appropriate circumstances. for instance, quantum mechanics reproduces classical mechanics in the limit of macroscopic systems. that's a really good indication that it's a good model, because classical mechanics has proven to be highly successful in terms of explaining macroscopic systems on everyday scales people are familiar with.
homie, you are missing the operative word OBSERVATIONAL in the noun phrase OBSERVATIONAL FACT.
physics isn't in the business of studying facts, it's in the business of making models the explain/predict observations about the natural world.
>you and a buddy get in your cars
>you drive in opposite directions at 50 km/h
>your relative velocity is 100 km/h
>light travels at 300,000 km/s
>take two flashlights
>point them in opposite directions
>switch them on
>logically, the relative velocity of the photons travelling in opposite directions should be 600,000 km/s
>"nah, it's actually 300,000 km/s... because... umm... nature works in mysterious ways teehee"
It was around 90 years ago that science officially started turning into scientism. Only a israelite could try pass such nonsense off as scientific fact.
The only frame of reference that makes sense is one where photons don't move but propagate in the shape of a perfect sphere. In that frame of reference the one-way speed of light is constant. Special Relativity only cares about the two-way speed of light and the one-way speed is different for different observers. The preferred frame of reference makes calculations a lot easier when dealing with several points with different speeds. Relative spacetime is an illusion, spacetime is absolute.
assumption -- n. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
I get what you are asking, but I don't think anons here will reply in a meaningful manner.
They will just use the theorems as taught, which is done in such a manner because there is enough RL application for most of the statements to hold water.
What OP isn't asking is the theory of relativity.
What is OP fundamentally asking is HOW the discovery happened, and what it leans on. OP is asking that because how modelling works isn't taught at lower levels, meaning OP has nothing to use as a basis for imaging how to form observation into framework.. Which leads to stupid sophistry where he lacks the understanding that he is posting the answer.
going faster than the devs intended is like having sex with natural law
if you go too fast natural law has an orgasm and her legs (time) tremble a little so the numbers don't add up
can't prove otherwise! (TM)
with the constraint the the new model is explainatory and predictive of observation.
a.k.a. physics!
if a new theory comes along and shows that the speed of light isn't constant, it doesn't invalidate all the physics that we already know work really well in their respective domains of applicability, and it sure as hell should reduce to those models when in those domains.
How does the speed of light being constant in any reference frame make muons live longer???
Also how the frick can it be constant??
Energy can't be created or destroyed. Everything moves at a constant speed through spacetime. As you accelerate something in the dimensions of space, it necessarily slows down in the dimension of time.
We'll never ultimately know why, the final answer will always either be "it is what is is".
>an abstract placeholder for the concept of movement can't be created or destroyed
>as you transfer movement to an object in the dimension of space, taking away movement from other objects in the dimension of space, you *additionally* have to take away the same amount of movement in another made up dimension, the existence of which has never been proven.
Seems like a double spending fallacy.
yes it's bullshit, even compIQfy tards can admit that for example in benchmarks, you must know what you measure, and always point fingers at midwits who fail to do it correctly time and time again, only IQfy tards think their measurements are always correct, time dilation is not real, your measuring is wrong, eat a dick
You guys figured it out, the modern world isn't real, it's all a trick of the dark wizards.
>the modern world and the theory of relativity are synonymous
tl;dr version
1. Space and time are just different facets of the same thing, spacetime, and everyone and everything moves through spacetime at the same rate from their own perspective - one second per second.
2. Motion through the 'space' part of spacetime comes at the expense of motion through the 'time' part of spacetime. The projection of your passage through space and time into another reference frame is interpreted by someone in the other frame as a dilation of time and a contraction of space.
3. Transformations are only symmetric for inertial frames - those travelling at constant velocity with respect to each other. Acceleration breaks the symmetry and your projection of their motion and their projection of yours no longer match - one of you objectively experiences a greater passage of time than the other.
yes bro, just launch yourself into orbit, and you will live for 500+ years, that's how it works, richgays already do this, just look at elon, you think he builds rockets for fun?
technically we're aging slower than people in orbit. time passes slower in gravity wells. as compared to outside them. similarly spend some time in the gravity well of a blackhole and everybody outside it will fastforward like crazy (saw it in a movie)
yeah that's how I know that none of this shit is real
>in plane flying across the globe, time moves slower than on ground and this is "provable"
>in orbit, time actually moves faster than on ground bro
aczually earths gravity well dilation will be small compared to fast rocket dilation.
dilate more to become pro dilator
>yes bro, just launch yourself into orbit, and you will live for 500+ years
If you went at like 60% the speed of light maybe
The key part is "effects of time". Interactions that lead to radioactive decay don't happen instantaneously, they happen at the speed of causality that is also the maximum speed of light. The closer anything moves to the speed of light the slower those interactions will happen.
I.E.: a simple bouncing from point to point will slow down as the object approaches the speed of light. That is called an Einstein clock.
>a simple bouncing from point to point will slow down as the object approaches the speed of light. That is called an Einstein clock.
Ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. It makes complete sense now
radioactive decay is so weird. heavy unstable elements formed in some neutron star merger frick knows how far back (5 billion years at least?). get a radioactive rock, and understand that all atoms decaying in front of you FRICKING DIDN'T FOR 5 BILLION YEARS! but they just did in front of you. that fricks with me big time
Let's say, for simplicity, radiactive muon is two spheres. And let's say these spheres are separated (decay event) when a photon hits from other to another sphere. Wouldn't it make sense, if these spheres are moving,that it takes longer time that photon to travel? It would need travel the hypotenuse of a triangle, which other side is their sideways distance and other is their travel distance during the fly time.
This experiment has been done and confirmed with atomic clocks and airplanes.
wrong measurements
Incomplete sentence
Study Einstein's personal life.
It's a scam theory made up by a patent clerk israelite who inbreeds to keep the bloodline pure, like Darwin also a israelite.
Who doesn't even do experiments, who likes to talk with his lying mouth and plagiarize aryan men's discoveries and turn them into atheist indoctrination mayerials. Whose aim is to undermine people's belief in God and take away the divine seed of belief in children's heart.
So yeah, relativity can never be proved and is never applicable because you can't reach light speed, which is the whole point of this scam, to not be proven false.
>muh flying clock muh satellites
It's so costly to prove to be true by the folk.
it's also convenient that none of triangulation algorithms break by "time dilation", because gps time is synchronized to satellite at all times... It's almost like it's not real
Then think of it as length dilation. The results are identical, just worse for science fiction.