About -- Forum -- Articles -- Tutorials -- Books -- Apparel -- Contact

You are not logged in.

Announcement

#1 2007-02-14 00:25:55

superstonerman
New Member
Registered: 2007-02-14
Posts: 2

Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

Iv been reading up about einsteins relativity business. I currentley understand that the faster an object moves the slower time will pass for that object relative to a staionairy observor. I understand the twin parodox where if one object is traveling closer to the speed of light it will age slower than an object that is staionairy relative to earth. If this is the case then the following has me a bit mistifed, appreciate someone clearing this up:

The sun moves at 600,000 metres per second relative to the milky way this is double the speed of light (i thought matter could not travel faster than the speed of light??). This must mean that earth is in a time dilation field relative to the rest of the universe or at least other galaxies. Also when we use telescopes to look into the sky and observe distant stars and galaxies they too are also moving near the speed of light relative to us. So might we be looking at these stars in the past relative to our present?????

Maybe im talking jibburish can someone set me straight. Thanks for your help

Offline

 

#2 2007-02-14 04:45:57

BenTheMan
Member
From: Columbus, OH
Registered: 2006-08-03
Posts: 147
Website

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

So might we be looking at these stars in the past relative to our present?????

Yes, but not for this reason.  We can actually see back in time because light travels at a finite speed.  That is, it takes light three years to get from alpha centauri (our closest star).  It takes light eight minutes to get here from the sun:)


Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon

Offline

 

#3 2007-02-14 15:52:37

superstonerman
New Member
Registered: 2007-02-14
Posts: 2

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

Ok say you had two galaxies moving away from each other at exactely half the speed of light. If each galaxie had a clock assigned to it after 1 year would both the clocks stay synched? As both the galaxies are moving at the same speed but away from each other. But im confused because if this is the case how do you know one galaxy isnt moving at the speed of light and the other galaxie is staionairy in this case time would come to a stop for the moving galaxy. Soemone help me out hre cuz im confused????????????????????

Offline

 

#4 2007-02-15 20:06:08

BenTheMan
Member
From: Columbus, OH
Registered: 2006-08-03
Posts: 147
Website

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

From which coordinate frame?

Galaxy one sees galaxy 2 moving away from it, and the light from galaxy 2 is redshifted.  The opposite is true in Galaxy 2.

I am not sure about the clocks---I am confused too.  I will ask my office mate when he gets back from lunch and have an answer later:)


Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon

Offline

 

#5 2007-02-15 20:07:20

BenTheMan
Member
From: Columbus, OH
Registered: 2006-08-03
Posts: 147
Website

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

Also, stoner, you shouldn't think of the galaxies moving away from each other---the space in between them is expanding.  There is no reason to expect that space can't expand faster than the speed of light.


Sometimes you eat the bahr, and, well, sometimes he eats you. ---Anon

Offline

 

#6 2007-02-20 12:41:09

Gungnir
Junior Member
Registered: 2007-02-20
Posts: 21

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

I need more information. For example, the galaxies in question are moving at exactly half the speed of light. But moving relative to what? Each other? So if they're moving at half the speed of light relative to one another, than no, their clocks would not be in synch. From the point of view of galaxy A, the clock in galaxy B would be moving slower. The same would be true for galaxy B's observation of the clock in A.
By the way, where did you come by the information that the sun is moving 600,000 m/s relative to the Milky Way? I don't know what our star's relative speed is, but that seems odd to me. After all the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, therefore the stars are pretty much moving together; it's not like the rest of the galaxy sits still while the sun goes flying through it. So basically, what exactly is the speed of 600,000 m/s relative to? Clearly not the other stars. Do you mean the speed of the sun's orbit around the galaxy's center?

Last edited by Gungnir (2007-03-14 21:48:22)

Offline

 

#7 2007-02-20 13:07:42

Gungnir
Junior Member
Registered: 2007-02-20
Posts: 21

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

Also, I'd like to clarify something you said: "But im confused because if this is the case how do you know one galaxy isnt moving at the speed of light and the other galaxie is staionairy"

They are each stationary. That's the idea behind relativity; that's the reason it's CALLED "relativity." You're thinking of the way things work in everyday life, like two cars moving away from each other at 60 mph but relative to each other they're moving 120 mph. The difference is that here when we say 60 mph we're talking about speed relative to the road, using the road as a point of reference and 120 mph relative to the cars, where they use each other as a reference. But galaxies aren't on any kind of surface like a road, we can only say how fast they're moving relative to other objects, so when you say they're each moving at half light speed, what you're saying is that each sees the other moving away at half light speed. That's the idea behind relativity. Each galaxy can say that it is perfectly stationary and the other is moving away from it, and there is absolutely no way to tell any kind of difference. They would both be right, because the only motion they're experiencing is relative to one another.
To make this easy to understand, imagine not one galaxy A but a thousand of them, all moving in the same direction relative to lonely old galaxy B. Were all the galaxy A's to talk to each other, they'd say "Where's galaxy B going? He's running away!" Relative to one another all the galaxy A's are stationary, with B moving away. But now imagine the opposite; a thousand B's wondering where that oddball galaxy A is going. They don't think about the fact that they're opinion has no basis; the only reason they think B is moving away is because they are using one another as points of reference. B is equally valid in saying that he isn't going anywhere and all the galaxy A's are ditching him. All motion in space is RELATIVE.
I hope this helps.

Last edited by Gungnir (2007-03-14 21:50:44)

Offline

 

#8 2007-09-15 01:25:57

GrimFang4
New Member
Registered: 2007-09-15
Posts: 1

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

superstonerman wrote:

Maybe im talking jibburish can someone set me straight. Thanks for your help

Please see jibberish below:

superstonerman wrote:

The sun moves at 600,000 metres per second relative to the milky way this is double the speed of light (i thought matter could not travel faster than the speed of light??).

Did everyone here forget that light travels at 300 million meters per second, not 300 thousand?

Hope that helps,
Jonny D

Offline

 

#9 2007-10-01 08:20:16

steve
Member
Registered: 2007-09-20
Posts: 75

Re: Maybe im onto something or im badley confused

Galaxy A and B would know if they are moving or not because they would be moving away from one another and toward some other reference point.  They could tell if they are stationary or not by looking at all available reference points.

Steve

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson



Copyright © J. Christopher Moore Publishing, All Rights Reserved