# I can not wrap my head around the Einstein's time dilation

#### Alchemy One

Joined Oct 5, 2019
217
Person A stands next to person B and then takes off to alpha centauri. In each situation below What A sees in B and what B sees in A, time wise only. I want to see this kind of answer only:

[[A up. B down]].
A up means A sees the time on B to speed up.
B Down means B sees the time on A to slow down.

[[away means away from earth to alpha centauri. Towards means from alpha centauri to earth direction]]
This should clarify all the garbage…. you wanna try it? You don’t have to type much, no lorentz, no doppler, no nothing. Toss them in the pile of trash so other people can dig in that trash and amuse themselves with it.

1. A accelerates away
2. A constant velocity away
3. A decelerates away
4. A stops
5. A accelerates towards
6. A constant velocity towards
7. A decelerates towards
8. A stops at home base.

Last edited:

#### Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
8,973
Because when you compare the clocks in one or another of the inertial reference frames they don't agree, and the one that was not accelerating has counted more elapsed time than the one that was.

Your experiment can't be done but the clock experiment has been done and behaves as the theory predicts.

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
34,028
It took Einstein awhile to wrap his hear around it also.
It has to do with both gravitational potential, and the fact that the speed of light measures the same in any frame, even if one frame is moving with respect to another at near the speed of light.
It can't be explained in a simple sentence.

Suggest you read this, and get back to us if you have any further questions.

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,769
It's hard to explain directly with words because our brains usually operate in a Newtonian reality of absolute space and absolute time. A geometric analogy is the easiest way to get your head pointed in the right direction.

For a number of relativistic phenomena, there are helpful geometric analogies. They transplant space-time-phenomena to the more familiar arena of space geometry. Most people might not be familiar with space-time-lines and -projections, but they do know, for instance, how it looks when two lines in space intersect. This spotlight topic is about one such analogy, designed to make more accessible some of the properties of relativistic time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity.

#### Alchemy One

Joined Oct 5, 2019
217
It took Einstein awhile to wrap his hear around it also.
It has to do with both gravitational potential, and the fact that the speed of light measures the same in any frame, even if one frame is moving with respect to another at near the speed of light.
It can't be explained in a simple sentence.

Suggest you read this, and get back to us if you have any further questions.
===========================
So I guess you don't understand what is going on either.
If you did you would have without any trouble clarifying it very simply and easily.
And yes without formulas and lorentz this and that.
My question is not, show me how you came up with the answer (the answer you don't have). But just the answer itself, unless I missed it. Let me look again...Nope, nothing there worth reading.
And the link will totally waste my time. No insult intended.
A person who actually gets something will never direct the other to somebody else under any circumstance. And who is the "us"?
I am getting back to you right now.
My quesion is up there, read it again. The question did not change. So I am getting back to the "us".
By the way, I read what you sent me long before you even had interest in such subjects... back to the "us".

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
34,028
And the link will totally waste my time. No insult intended.
Sounds like an insult, so I'll assume it it one.

So quite obviously I can be of no further help to you as I believe you are searching for a simple answer that doesn't exist.
And the snarky attitude doesn't help.

#### Alchemy One

Joined Oct 5, 2019
217
Sounds like an insult, so I'll assume it it one.

So quite obviously I can be of no further help to you as I believe you are searching for a simple answer that doesn't exist.
And the snarky attitude doesn't help.
=======================
I want just the answer to this and not how it is arrived at.
What is (2x3x4)/2?
If I needed to find out how you arrived at the answer I will ask. Thank you.
If you can't or don't know the answer, no need to tell me that unless you like to.
-------------
Oh you want simple answer? It doesn't exist.

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,769
=======================
I want just the answer to this and not how it is arrived at.
What is (2x3x4)/2?
If I needed to find out how you arrived at the answer I will ask. Thank you.
If you can't or don't know the answer, no need to tell me that unless you like to.
-------------
Oh you want simple answer? It doesn't exist.

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
34,028
I want just the answer to this and not how it is arrived at.
t = t0/√(1-v²/c²)

where: t = time observed in the other reference frame

t0 = time in observers own frame of reference (rest time)

v = the speed of the moving object

c = the speed of light in a vacuum

#### boostbuck

Joined Oct 5, 2017
492
Oh you want simple answer? It doesn't exist.
That is correct. It's a bit like the entry to calculus - the formulaic methodology is simple enough, but an 'understanding' requires a thorough consideration of unfamiliar concepts.

If you want a 'simple' explanation of relativistic phenomenon, you are not going to find it. It requires quite a bit of effort to understand. Easy enough to apply the formulas and get the correct answer, but 'understanding' takes effort.

#### Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
8,973
Person A stands next to person B and then takes off to alpha centauri. In each situation below What A sees in B and what B sees in A, time wise only. I want to see this kind of answer only:

[[A up. B down]].
A up means A sees the time on B to speed up.
B Down means B sees the time on A to slow down.

[[away means away from earth to alpha centauri. Towards means from alpha centauri to earth direction]]
This should clarify all the garbage…. you wanna try it? You don’t have to type much, no lorentz, no doppler, no nothing. Toss them in the pile of trash so other people can dig in that trash and amuse themselves with it.

1. A accelerates away
2. A constant velocity away
3. A decelerates away
4. A stops
5. A accelerates towards
6. A constant velocity towards
7. A decelerates towards
8. A stops at home base.
You don't even understand the question, how can you expect to understand the answer?

#### Alchemy One

Joined Oct 5, 2019
217
That is correct. It's a bit like the entry to calculus - the formulaic methodology is simple enough, but an 'understanding' requires a thorough consideration of unfamiliar concepts.

If you want a 'simple' explanation of relativistic phenomenon, you are not going to find it. It requires quite a bit of effort to understand. Easy enough to apply the formulas and get the correct answer, but 'understanding' takes effort.
=============================
Actually it is quite simple. Very simple.
Science, since human beings are in charge of it, it is another version of control. Another means of controlling another human being.
And what other form of control is there greater than language, than by means of language.
AND THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Keep them coming to get it, it makes more money. It cost money to get an education. The longer it takes the more revenue. And in the meantime not only you owe but you are also aslave too. Two for the price of one.
---------------------------------------------------
Which one of these is easy to get, to understand?

Bob sets his watch Earth time, take off after 4 years he get to planet X. Jo sets his watch to Bob's watch and heads towards Earth. When Jo arrives on Earth he realized he is 2 years off earth clock.
Mr. teacher then explains,.. can you see the paradox?
A normal person will keep scrtaching his head and wonders... wow, a paradox? A real honest one will look in dictionary to see what paradox means. I wonder if it means bullshit. In other words, I wonder if the teacher means; can you see through my bullshit, what I am actually doing to you. And in the meantime he lets you figure it out and walks off so you will be occupied for days to figure it out. Are you smart enough?---
--------------------------------------------
Second version: No bullshit version, no degree needed.
Bob takes his pen and paper and know his speed towards planet X and its distance. Just like we do everyday. He takes his distance and divides it by his speed and says. I guess it will take me 4 years to reach planet X. As he arrives on planet X he looks at his watch and sees only 2 years has passed.
What happend here? His watch was ticking normal. It was not low on battery running slow. Was his watch ticking slow running on low battery? No. He looks at his odometer and says oh my I have travelled only half the distance, no wonder only 2 years has passed to planet X.

And so Jo at planet X taking off towards Earth will also reach here half of the time because his distance will also gets squeezed.
He doesn't set his clock to Bob's...that is just to throw in un-necessary distraction for your mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the cause of this... Time is time and it looks normal to everybody.
Momentum-energy-flux-tensor, mass, inertia. While mass inertia ( it is energy) is stationary non moving energy squeeze space around it, called gravity. momentum flux squeeze space in the direction of motion, shortens it.
Time neither expands nor contracts, no nothing. Unless someone puts a gun to your head and tells you give me all your money or I will kill you and your family. And a hot brod..... makes a day look like an hour and you can't get enough of her....
---------------------------------------------------------------
When you are not moving, you also squeeze space because you are taking up, you are pushing space to have room for you. that is why it is called taking up space. Because you are compacting space around you. Just like when you push anything to have more room for you.
Therefore the more massive the more you squeeze space. It is not density. it is mass. Why? Because it is energy flux that effect space. The only reason it is called space-time only because for every point in space there is of course an associated time. It is not brain surgery. So if you are squeezing space you are also squeezing its corresponding point of time with it.
So Bob squeezed the distance in half and the point in time was also squeezed with it. Bob never experienced his odometer going fast as that would have meant he is flying faster, traveling more distance for the same amount of time.

It takes energy to move through space in everyday life of course. but you are really not effecting space itself that much. You are mostly moving air around, squeezing them molecules.
To squeeze space itself.... you can imagine how much energy is needed..... oh my.
To achieve gravity... oh my, same thing. In fact you need greater energy for that because gravity effect 3 dimension, not just direction of motion of a speeding object.

------------------------------------
When you really understand it, you can explain it to a 4 year old and he gets it...
Good bye.
It is no different than everyday thing. In everyday experience the faster you go the more gas you use, And after certain speed your car will such up more energy than the speed in relation to it. Why?
Because you are attempting to reduce, shorten space itself. That is why. It is not just squeezing air molecules tighter and tighter... which you do obviously, you cross more molecules as they get squeezed togther in the direction of motion.

#### nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
12,769
=============================
Actually it is quite simple. Very simple.

#### Ya’akov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
8,973
Second version: No bullshit version, no degree needed.
Bob takes his pen and paper and know his speed towards planet X and its distance. Just like we do everyday. He takes his distance and divides it by his speed and says. I guess it will take me 4 years to reach planet X. As he arrives on planet X he looks at his watch and sees only 2 years has passed.
What happend here? His watch was ticking normal. It was not low on battery running slow. Was his watch ticking slow running on low battery? No. He looks at his odometer and says oh my I have travelled only half the distance, no wonder only 2 years has passed to planet X.

And so Jo at planet X taking off towards Earth will also reach here half of the time because his distance will also gets squeezed.
He doesn't set his clock to Bob's...that is just to throw in un-necessary distraction for your mind.
But this is plain wrong. It will appear to take the four years. It will only seem to be two if observed from the inertial frame of the place he started from. That's why they compare clocks.

This isn't theoretical. Practical experiments have been performed here on earth which agree with the theory. The first was in 1971 which you can read about in this paper here, if you can be bothered with science bullshit.

You also don't seem to understand what a paradox is. There is nothing paradoxical about this feature of spacetime. I have no idea why you'd call it that.

I think you misnamed this thread It should say, "I can't wrap Einstein's time dilation around my head".

#### boostbuck

Joined Oct 5, 2017
492
As humans we interact with reality on a single scale, and our explanations and expectations are based on our experiences of that scale.

Both quantum mechanics and relativity attempt to explain phenomena that lie outside that scale, and demand that we make the effort to understand behaviours that we have no experience of, and more importantly, no mental models of.

It's a common failing to try and squeeze these realms back into our scale of experience, which is not correct.

#### BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
8,659
I was going to answer the same way Yaakov did, both of your assertions are wrong, no wonder you don’t understand it.

Give us a correct assertion about relativity, and perhaps we could explain it to you.

Bob

#### Alchemy One

Joined Oct 5, 2019
217
I was going to answer the same way Yaakov did, both of your assertions are wrong, no wonder you don’t understand it.

Give us a correct assertion about relativity, and perhaps we could explain it to you.

Bob
=================================
M=E/C², E=MC², is not a conversion formula. It is equivalence equation. It shows one to be the other and the amount. Therefore M represent enormous energy at a particular location and how this energy shapes spacetime around it. Tremendous energy with its components of density and flux.

Moving mass, is the kenetic aspect moving in particular direction affecting spacetime in the direction of motion. Both instances compress, squeeze spacetime, causing space component to shorten and time component as well with respect to another frame. Else affecting would have no meaning.

======================
A little speeding spaceship at half the speed of light, its momentum energy density and flux cause spacetime to shorten in the direction of motion only. It doesn't shape spacetime that will influence other objects but just for its self only. And it won't cause a ripple waves that move at speed greater than itself.
If two of them collide head on.. well that is another story.
=======================================
Imagine what would happen if an object the size of the earth moved at half the speed of light?
Thank heavens in the universe it doesn't happen... but who knows.

===============================================

#### ElectricSpidey

Joined Dec 2, 2017
2,756
Imagin if entire galaxies were moving faster than the speed of light.

#### BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
8,659
=================================
M=E/C², E=MC², is not a conversion formula. It is equivalence equation. It shows one to be the other and the amount. Therefore M represent enormous energy at a particular location and how this energy shapes spacetime around it. Tremendous energy with its components of density and flux.

Moving mass, is the kenetic aspect moving in particular direction affecting spacetime in the direction of motion. Both instances compress, squeeze spacetime, causing space component to shorten and time component as well with respect to another frame. Else affecting would have no meaning.

======================
A little speeding spaceship at half the speed of light, its momentum energy density and flux cause spacetime to shorten in the direction of motion only. It doesn't shape spacetime that will influence other objects but just for its self only. And it won't cause a ripple waves that move at speed greater than itself.
If two of them collide head on.. well that is another story.
=======================================
Imagine what would happen if an object the size of the earth moved at half the speed of light?
Thank heavens in the universe it doesn't happen... but who knows.

===============================================
The earth is moving at 1/2 the speed of light wirh respect to galaxies far away. So what?

Bob

#### crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
34,028
The earth is moving at 1/2 the speed of light wirh respect to galaxies far away. So what?
The main effect, from our point of view, is a significant red-shift of the light from those galaxies that we see (a factor of 10 for the farthest galaxies).

Last edited: