|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 23:17:36 GMT
From your point of view you are stationary and Harold is moving away at nearly the speed of light. From his point of view Harold is stationary and you are moving away at nearly the speed of light. Which of you is aging faster?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 4, 2019 23:22:41 GMT
If they are both moving at the same speed, aren't they aging at the same rate, regardless of POV?  |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 4, 2019 23:24:23 GMT
From you point of view you are stationary and Harold is moving away at nearly the speed of light. From his point of view Harold is stationary and you are moving away at nearly the speed of light. Which of you is aging faster? Whichever one spends time reading your threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jul 4, 2019 23:28:37 GMT
The answer depends on the frame of reference -- i.e. which of you is aging faster from the point of view of X.
From my point of view, I'm aging faster. From Harold's point of view, he's aging faster. If X is some other inertial frame of reference, we need more information about how it's moving relative to both Harold and myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 23:30:30 GMT
The answer depends on the frame of reference -- i.e. which of you is aging faster from the point of view of X. From my point of view, I'm aging faster. From Harold's point of view, he's aging faster. If X is some other inertial frame of reference, we need more information about how it's moving relative to both Harold and myself. Did you decide that on your own or did someone tell you that?
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jul 4, 2019 23:40:13 GMT
The answer depends on the frame of reference -- i.e. which of you is aging faster from the point of view of X. From my point of view, I'm aging faster. From Harold's point of view, he's aging faster. If X is some other inertial frame of reference, we need more information about how it's moving relative to both Harold and myself. Did you decide that on your own or did someone tell you that? It's my own answer based on my understanding of the theory, which to be fair, may well be flawed. Interpret that as you will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 4, 2019 23:50:18 GMT
Did you decide that on your own or did someone tell you that? It's my own answer based on my understanding of the theory, which to be fair, may well be flawed. Interpret that as you will. How were you acquainted with relativity? School? Library? Friends? Broadcast/internet media?
|
|
|
|
Post by shadrack on Jul 5, 2019 0:02:49 GMT
It's my own answer based on my understanding of the theory, which to be fair, may well be flawed. Interpret that as you will. How were you acquainted with relativity? School? Library? Friends? Media? A variety of sources. Most could, I suppose, be generally categorized as "popular science" -- Wikipedia and the like, Discovery Channel & friends, a few layman's Physics books of the A Brief History of Time ilk, and even the occasional science fiction novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 5, 2019 1:40:26 GMT
Is there a correct answer, or is this just a brainteaser? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 5, 2019 2:36:24 GMT
I need a DNA test to answer this and less tight jeans!
BTW How cute is Harry?
|
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Jul 5, 2019 2:42:15 GMT
 This is Mystical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 8:59:18 GMT
Is there a correct answer, or is this just a brainteaser? I think shadrack made an excellent point. With only the information given it does not appear logical that either is aging any differently. Perhaps he vaguely remembers some discussion of "relativity" in his wide travels in which it was possible for time to pass differently for things at various velocities. Perhaps one of the proponents of relativity here can show us that scenario. Perhaps it has something to do with the Michelson-Morely experiment that attempted to establish our "velocity" through some absolute frame of reference. Then the difference in aging might depend on Harold's or your velocity relative to that absolute frame of reference. However I am certain that experiment failed to find any absolute frame of reference, so it must be something else. "Scientists"?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 5, 2019 9:06:08 GMT
I don't know and I don't care.
If I ever get into a situation where I or someone else moves with speed of light, I guess I will have different things on my mind than Harold's age, whoever Harold is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 9:12:52 GMT
I don't know and I don't care. If I ever get into a situation where I or someone else moves with speed of light, I guess I will have different things on my mind than Harold's age, whoever Harold is. Have you an opinion on the Michelson Morely experiment? I don't believe it was designed well enough to establish an absolute frame of reference or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 9:15:59 GMT
From you point of view you are stationary and Harold is moving away at nearly the speed of light. From his point of view Harold is stationary and you are moving away at nearly the speed of light. Which of you is aging faster? Whichever one spends time reading your threads. Do you concede then that there is no way for time to pass differently for various velocities regardless of frame of reference?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 5, 2019 9:40:12 GMT
I don't know and I don't care. If I ever get into a situation where I or someone else moves with speed of light, I guess I will have different things on my mind than Harold's age, whoever Harold is. Have you an opinion on the Michelson Morely experiment? I don't believe it was designed well enough to establish an absolute frame of reference or not. Never heard of it. Even Google doesn't seem to know it. EDIT: Google does seem to know about it after all. But I don't know if it's another experiment, or if those who mention it are dyslexic. If you are talking about the Michelson–Morley experiment: No, I do not have an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 5, 2019 10:10:48 GMT
Is there a correct answer, or is this just a brainteaser? I think shadrack made an excellent point. With only the information given it does not appear logical that either is aging any differently. Perhaps he vaguely remembers some discussion of "relativity" in his wide travels in which it was possible for time to pass differently for things at various velocities. Perhaps one of the proponents of relativity here can show us that scenario. Perhaps it has something to do with the Michelson-Morely experiment that attempted to establish our "velocity" through some absolute frame of reference. Then the difference in aging might depend on Harold's or your velocity relative to that absolute frame of reference. However I am certain that experiment failed to find any absolute frame of reference, so it must be something else. "Scientists"? I thought someone else made that excellent point before Shadrack did, but maybe I'm just imagining things. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 5, 2019 12:24:13 GMT
I think shadrack made an excellent point. With only the information given it does not appear logical that either is aging any differently. Perhaps he vaguely remembers some discussion of "relativity" in his wide travels in which it was possible for time to pass differently for things at various velocities. Perhaps one of the proponents of relativity here can show us that scenario. Perhaps it has something to do with the Michelson-Morely experiment that attempted to establish our "velocity" through some absolute frame of reference. Then the difference in aging might depend on Harold's or your velocity relative to that absolute frame of reference. However I am certain that experiment failed to find any absolute frame of reference, so it must be something else. "Scientists"? I thought someone else made that excellent point before Shadrack did, but maybe I'm just imagining things. That's true, but people with the high command are not eligible for the prizes,even if it's just movie high command.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Jul 5, 2019 13:49:20 GMT
Is there a correct answer, or is this just a brainteaser? Shadrack appears to have nailed it. The question is meaningless while A and B are just meandering apart. However when one accelerates (as they must if they are moving apart) reciprocal movement disappears and the time difference appears. It gets resolved when one or both send messages to each other (which take time to return) or to a third observer, who may be moving relative to either or both.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 5, 2019 13:54:47 GMT
Is there a correct answer, or is this just a brainteaser? Shadrack appears to have nailed it. The question is meaningless while A and B are just meandering apart. However when one accelerates (as they must if they are moving apart) reciprocal movement disappears and the time difference appears. It gets resolved when one or both send messages to each other (which take time to return) or to a third observer, who may be moving relative to either or both. Shad-rack! Shad-rack! Woot! Woot!     
|
|
