[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 119 KB, 390x390, 1336653208978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4693607 No.4693607 [Reply] [Original]

Hi, newfag idiot here.

I was wondering if you guys could explain to me, in the simplest terms possible, time dilation in near-light speed or theoretical super-light speed movement.

I understand that light waves compact upon each other at such high speeds, and all that jazz. I just don't get why time dilates.

I'll warn you now, I'm a pretty big idiot, so speak slowly and loudly.

Pic related. I'm posting it now so nobody has to post it later.

>> No.4693623

>>4693607
Do you know basic algebra OP?

>> No.4693627

>>4693623

No. I'm a complete idiot.

It's starting to dawn on me how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to teach me anything about advanced physics.

>> No.4693630

>>4693627

Look at it this way, I majored in art and agriculture in college.

Continue at your own risk.

>> No.4693636

The way I first understood it, is light moves at the speed of light no matter how fast your going compared to it. If you're in a spaceship travelling at 0.99c and flick on the headlights, you will see the light coming out of the front of your ship at the speed of light. Someone watching from a stationary planet will see your ship moving at 0.99c, and the light coming from your headlights 0.01c faster than your ship. Basically, time dilation is the universe making sure the speed of light is always the same (in vacuum) no matter how fast you're going. Look up "lorentz transformations" if you're interested in the math behind it.

>> No.4693641

>>4693636

But why? I understand that time dilation is, like you said, sorta like the universe making sure c is c, and that nothing can move faster. But what I don't get is why this happens.

I'm sorry if I'm asking difficult questions. For all I know I could be asking something a 5 year old could answer, or I could be stumping Hawking.

>> No.4693646
File: 19 KB, 469x304, Not_Sure_if_serious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4693646

>>4693641
You are asking meaningless, pointless questions. You seek "why", as if there exists some way to dumb the whole thing down and relate it in terms you will understand, there does not. All the answers you seek, will be in forms you won't understand.

If I ask "why" 2+2 = 4, yet I don't understand basic arithmetic, then my question is pointless.

\thread

>> No.4693652

>>4693641
The closest you will get to an answer without using actual physics is:

"A speed limit is needed to perserve causality"

>> No.4693661

>>4693646

I figured as much.

I've always wished I was smart enough to understand this shit. I'd love to be a physicist.

>> No.4693662

>>4693652
preserve motherfucker

>> No.4693665

>>4693662
perverse motherfucker

>> No.4693668

Really, science doesn't really deal with the question of "why", only with "how". You must define what you seek when you ask why, and what wwould satisfy you as an acceptable answer; you can have infinitely many levels of detail.

It is an endless list:

Why did that book move off the table?
I pushed it.
Why did it fall?
Because of gravity.
Why does gravity make it fall?
Because objects with mass attract each other.
Why do they attract each other?
Because... etc.


Physics describes the mechanisms of the universe physics cannot, nor does it seek to state why the laws of the universe are the way they are.

"Why does anything do anything?" This is a
question of philosophy rather than science.

>> No.4693674

>>4693668

Why did you repeat really? I understand that you want to emphasize that what you're about to say should be considered to be real, even if it's just for argument's sake. But why would you repeat it?

>> No.4693679

>>4693668
You're full of shit. Physics is entirely concerned with "why." It's a different "why" than that of philosophy, but it's a "why" nonetheless.

>> No.4693682

>>4693652
Pretty much this.

The speed of light is has to be the absolute maximum information can be transmitted. If this is to be the case, to preserve causality of near c objects, time dilation and Lorentz contraction are necessary. If you accept the c-limit postulate, then those other two come out from the mathematical framework.

>> No.4693687

>>4693679
Are you saying there exist two different meanings of "why"? What are they? How do you know which is which in and out of context? Isn't it more likely that you're an idiot?