time travel and vibratory rate?
Onoit
read.) Also,come to think of it, as the metabolic rate speeds up, as, say,
in dogs, or birds, time passes more slowly.
What I am wondering is if an increase in the speed of vibration or
frequency, of a stationary object, would cause it to slow down in time? Or
would it have a much shorter life? But if it slowed down in time, what
would an observer see? How fast could a rod be made to vibrate? Would it
just disintegrate?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> What I am wondering is if an increase in the speed of vibration or
> frequency, of a stationary object,
Why dtino you think stationary objects have either a vibration or a
frequency?
would cause it to slow down in time? Or
> would it have a much shorter life? But if it slowed down in time, what
> would an observer see? How fast could a rod be made to vibrate? Would it
> just disintegrate?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Onoit
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:g83php$i7b$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> In alt.sci.time-travel, Onoit <on...@sno.tso> wrote:
>
>> What I am wondering is if an increase in the speed of vibration or
>> frequency, of a stationary object,
>
> Why dtino you think stationary objects have either a vibration or a
> frequency?
I didn't; maybe they do. But I got to wondering after posting if one
could make something vibrate up close to the speed of light by applying
alternating forces from opposite directions. But whether something could
VIBRATE close to the SPEED of light I don't know, but isn't a vibration a
speed or vector that changes in direction by 180 degrees?
This might be an interesting alternative to a super-collider. No telling
what kind of smoothies it could make.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I didn't; maybe they do. But I got to wondering after posting if one
> could make something vibrate up close to the speed of light by applying
> alternating forces from opposite directions.
Sure could. But of course, as the speed increases, the amount of enegy
required to increase the speed also inceases. Also, the inertia would
increase, so getting it to accellerate, stop, and then reverse direction
would be difficult for that reason as well.
But whether something could
> VIBRATE close to the SPEED of light I don't know, but isn't a vibration a
> speed or vector that changes in direction by 180 degrees?
I suppose so.
The TimeLord
zMqdncoB3I2JLDnV...@posted.internetamerica:
> As speed increases toward the speed of light, time goes slower (so I
The relation is for colocal events and reads
t = t0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where t = time in moving object
and t0 = time in stationary observer
[...]
> What I am wondering is if an increase in the speed of vibration or
> frequency, of a stationary object, would cause it to slow down in time?
No, the change in time occurs as a result of movement not the change in
frequency.
> Or would it have a much shorter life? But if it slowed down in time,
> what would an observer see? How fast could a rod be made to vibrate?
> Would it just disintegrate?
It's much simpler than that. Suppose you had an oscillator on a
spacecraft at some frequency f. This would correspond to a period of
oscillation T. From the above equation
T = T0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or
f = f0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or
f0 = f * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
So as the spacecraft goes faster and approaches the speed of light, the
frequency of the oscillator would seem lower and lower (toward DC) to
someone at rest outside the spacecraft.
This effect is independent of the Doppler shift in the frequency, which
also happens.
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
The TimeLord
<math-n-ph...@att.com> in
fLidnVYHb8AE-jfV...@comcast.com:
> Am Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:26:26 -0500 schrieb "Onoit" <on...@sno.tso> in
> zMqdncoB3I2JLDnV...@posted.internetamerica:
[...]
> The relation is for colocal events and reads
>
> t = t0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
I made a mistake on this one. It's actually
t = t0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> where t = time in moving object
> and t0 = time in stationary observer
[...]
> It's much simpler than that. Suppose you had an oscillator on a
> spacecraft at some frequency f. This would correspond to a period of
> oscillation T. From the above equation
>
> T = T0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
T = T0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> or
> f = f0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
f = f0 * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> or
>
> f0 = f * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
f0 = f / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
[...]
Sorry about that.