Timeline for Is it possible to stop time?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2015 at 4:42 | comment | added | peterh | @KyleKanos Yes, it is unfortunately true. In similar cases I vote up the more exact, but not so simple (and not so fast) answers. | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 4:12 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | I'm also not suggesting that I don't understand your post. I know what you mean to say, but you are doing a terrible job at actually saying it. What I am saying is that John Q Public who doesn't have any physics knowledge would look at your post would have no clue what you were talking about. | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 4:10 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | I state precisely what is unclear with your post in my first comment. Please parse that and, if you feel up to it, fix your post to actually answer the question. | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 4:04 | comment | added | peterh | @KyleKanos It was a simple question, which deserved a simple answer. I couldn't include a 200 page long book with the axiomatical description of the special relativity. I don't really understand, what is not clear to you. You know also SR, probably better as me. But this was exactly (the Lorentz-transformation of the spacetime coordinates) which couldn't been written there, because the question required clearly the possible simplest answer. | |
| Mar 6, 2015 at 3:38 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | Lovely response. I try helping and all I get is a non sequitor. Do you ever actually respond in a coherent manner, or is it always this way? | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 23:46 | comment | added | peterh | @KyleKanos $v$, $c$, $\infty$ and such have their common meanings. "Things" means here mass points moving slower than light. Thank you. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 15:21 | comment | added | Kyle Kanos | This is a very incomplete answer. For example: What is $1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$? Where did it come from? What "things" do you mean? How does mass/energy go to $\infty$? How does time go to 0? | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 13:58 | comment | added | peterh | @mikuszefski Well, I had to write: "in every nonaccelerating reference frame"? | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 13:48 | comment | added | mikuszefski | @peterh OK, then I just misinterpreted your "the mass goes to infinity in every reference frame". No problem, cheers. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 13:23 | comment | added | peterh | @mikuszefski Afaik I never stated anything against your (1) or (2). I answered simply to a simple question, but not against your (1), and also not against your (2). | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 13:15 | comment | added | mikuszefski | @peterh I basically agreed with your answer, despite some details; but on the comment I must say no. 1: the speed v must be relative to something. 2: if I am inside a rocket starting from earth accelerating to 0.999 c I still have 90 kg in my reference frame. In any case I believe that attaching gamma to the mass is rather unfortunate. This is a property of the momentum 4-vector transformation. Decomposing it afterwards and saying it's the mass that changes, is an arbitrary and non necessary choice. I can go further and decompose mass into volume and density and say density changes... | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:37 | comment | added | DK2AX | Ah yes I missed that part of the question. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:18 | comment | added | peterh | @andynitrox Yes, but they are going always with $c$, thus the formula above can't be applied on them. And the question is definitely about slower-than-c things. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 12:17 | comment | added | peterh | @mikuszefski To me is it unclear what do you understand on "not moving". The speed of light is an absolute thing in SR, but "moving" (in the sense of $v=0$) is not. And with $v \rightarrow c$, the mass goes to infinity in every reference frame. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 11:29 | comment | added | mikuszefski | Ok, but this is only relative to something not moving, which is already a challenge to understand. meaning a gets accelerated relative to b and then moves close to speed of light. However, there is not change in the sensation of time for a; it does not slow down and-as mentioned in the answer-definitively does not stop. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 11:22 | vote | accept | Alejandro | ||
| Mar 14, 2015 at 0:16 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2015 at 11:03 | comment | added | DK2AX | This is reachable for photons however, since those are already massless. | |
| Mar 5, 2015 at 10:59 | history | answered | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |