Does Time=Motion? Exploring the Theory of Relativity

[twitch1]

Hey, I am new here. I know very little about advanced physics and the theory of relativity, enough though I suppose to disrupt my sleeping patterns and more than likely, severely expose my ignorance on the topic. Despite the ignorance, I find its a topic of deep thought a lot of the time when I should be thinking about other things.

I thought of something this morning, that has probably been thought of before, I don't believe I am smart enough to ever think of anything ground breaking, and for a little conservation of energy pun, there's nothing new under the sun.

Time = motion

Since motion is variable, so is time. Consider the metaphor of light speed travel and the change in aging that would occur between the person traveling at light speed and the person not traveling at light speed.

The person moving at light speed will not age as progressively as the person not traveling at light speed. In effect, the person traveling at light speed is in essence, motionless relative to the person not traveling at light speed.

Since aging and the decay of ones body is due to time, and the the person traveling at light speed has for all practical purposes, not aged, time has stopped or at least slowed to a crawl for the person traveling at light speed.

Which leads me to, time ultimately ceases to pass at light speed, any motion less than the speed of light is variable. The faster you move, the slower time passes, the slower you move, the faster time passes. Even in the most minute amount of motion will slow time.

So since motion=time, time will be constant when motion is constant , and time will variate when motion has variation.

And I guess under that rule, you could very well age differently than anyone and everything else on Earth simply because your motion always variates relative to everyone and everything else, however minor the difference may be. Seems time could also have alternate levels or dimensions since there's always something youre in motion relative to. Multiple vectors of time?

Then the question would be, do any of the planes of time get shared, or are they finite to the number of anything that currently exists in the universe and everything that has ever existed in the universe? Since matter can never be created or destroyed, then an objects plane of time never changes, just the manifestation in which something travels along it.
Is any of this out of line? Why?

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes, most of what you said towards the end makes no sense. The problem with not actually understanding and studying a topic like special relativity is that when you throw words together based on your own, non-scientific understanding of the world, what you get will inevitably be meaningless. You may think what you said makes sense, but to anyone who has properly studied relativity, you're basically saying things equivalent to "If an apple = cow, would the cow be useful in a fruit salad?". Totally nonsensical.

I'm sure someone could manipulate your words into something that actually DOES have meaning in physics, but I'm not sure that will be very helpful.

 

[Mentz114]

Relativity gives a formula to calculate the elapsed time on any clock in the universe, provided we know the details of its worldline. A worldline is a path through 4-dimensional spacetime which tells us where the clock will be at any time. Obviously everything has a worldline and unless two things have identical worldlines, they will age differently.

I mention this because it may help you to reformulate your ideas about time and motion. Forget about anything traveling at light speed because it will never be observed even if calculations indicate it is happening. Things with a relative velocity > c are not in causal contact.

 

[twitch1]

Well, that's why I posted here. I don't know the scientific terms and such, that's why I am asking questions. I didnt post to change anyones mind, or point out something someone missed. I simply wanted to know if what I am thinking is correct.

 

[twitch1]

Relativity gives a formula to calculate the elapsed time on any clock in the universe, provided we know the details of its worldline. A worldline is a path through 4-dimensional spacetime which tells us where the clock will be at any time. Obviously everything has a worldline and unless two things have identical worldlines, they will age differently.

I mention this because it may help you to reformulate your ideas about time and motion. Forget about anything traveling at light speed because it will never be observed even if calculations indicate it is happening. Things with a relative velocity > c are not in causal contact.

Cool, glad YOU understood what I was getting at. Thanks for the info. Regarding my assumption that motion=time, after reading another thread, that can't be unless time can equal motion. Since time can't act physically on motion, time can't equal motion. If I can't reverse the equation and not have it work the same without adding any other variables, then equal it cannot. A change in motion can change time, but a change in time can't change motion. Oh well.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Somebody else had some thought similar to yours. Why don't you have a look at this thread and see if it makes sense to you:

1 = v^2 + t^2? and look at spacetime as velocity as x axis, time as y axis.

 

[twitch1]

Thanks for the link. Wish I understood the math. I do understand the point of velocity as x and time as y if you were to plot two individuals world lines on a graph. I think I do anyhow.

What I am gathering from his equation though, is that motion, or your relative velocity to any other object causes a change in time. So would it then be possible for time to affect velocity?

As far as I got in mathematics is that in order for an equation to be solved correctly, it must also solve itself to opposite way without adding any extra numbers or functions. E=mc2 and mc2=E as an example. So if one were to say, motion=time, then time would have to equal motion, meaning a change in time would have to affect motion. Since motion could equal time but time can't physically act on motion, how could that be explained?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Thanks for the link. Wish I understood the math. I do understand the point of velocity as x and time as y if you were to plot two individuals world lines on a graph. I think I do anyhow.

What I am gathering from his equation though, is that motion, or your relative velocity to any other object causes a change in time. So would it then be possible for time to affect velocity?

That question was just asked was on this thread:

Does time dilation affect the relative motion that causes it?

As far as I got in mathematics is that in order for an equation to be solved correctly, it must also solve itself to opposite way without adding any extra numbers or functions. E=mc2 and mc2=E as an example. So if one were to say, motion=time, then time would have to equal motion, meaning a change in time would have to affect motion. Since motion could equal time but time can't physically act on motion, how could that be explained?

We're not saying that time is equal to motion but they are related. As one goes up the other goes down and vice versa. And it's not a straight line function, it's a curve as shown in the graph on the first link I gave you. His equation is:

1 = v² + t²

And you have to be aware that v and t are normalized so that v is really the speed divided by the speed of light and t is really the moving time divided by the stationary time. So as an example, if something is moving at 60% of the speed of light, its clock would be running 80% of normal. Or you could say it the other way, when a clock is running at 60% of normal, its speed is 80% of the speed of light. Here's the calculation:

1 = 0.6² + 0.8 ² = 0.36 + 0.64 = 1

Can you figure out how to rearrange the equation to solve for t if you know v or the other way around?

 

[twitch1]

Ok. I won't BS you the math is way over my head. I see what's going on now though.

So is this purely relative, or are you actually distorting time in this manner?

 

[ghwellsjr]

When you accelerate a clock, that is, change its speed, you change the rate at which it ticks. Of course, the effect is extremely small for all speeds that we are familiar with but experiments have been done with very accurate and stable clocks to show that this actually happens.

PS: did you understand the computation I put in my previous post?

 

[twitch1]

PS: did you understand the computation I put in my previous post?

No. I have no schooling at all in this physics, nor advanced mathematics. This is just stuff that pops into my head.

 

[twitch1]

When you accelerate a clock, that is, change its speed, you change the rate at which it ticks. Of course, the effect is extremely small for all speeds that we are familiar with but experiments have been done with very accurate and stable clocks to show that this actually happens.

Do you mean it changes the rate of the ticks as in the doppler effect, you and the clock moving in relation to one another, or if you are moving with the clock, the rate of ticks change?