Is Relativity Omni-directional?

I've always understood that your relative speed of travel is measured against the general mass of the universe. Whatever that means!

Quote: "The question is, if I am traveling at near the speed of light, does it matter which direction I am traveling in relation (relativity) to the center of the universe (the spot of the big bang) or in relation to ... What?"

First, there is no "center or spot of the big bang" that we know of. The BB happened everywhere at once and the closest thing to a center is where we are - at the center of the observable universe.

Second, the closest thing to a reference that we have is the cosmic microwave background (cmb) radiation. If you measure the cmb as having the same average temperature in all directions, you are at rest relative to the observable universe at large. This is however not a "preferred frame of reference". All inertial frames of reference are equivalent.

Third, we are not at rest relative to the cmb, but are moving at faster than 0.1% of the speed of light relative to it. And it does not matter in which way we move - there is no preferred direction in open space.

Hope this helps! Jorrie

Dear Jorrie

If everything is moving out then why the vacuum is not shucking things in? Is there no sense of vacuum in open space with so many large bodies apart? Will the vacuum effect set in at some point?

The reason time "slows down" when you travel fast is because you change your relativistic frame of reference by accelerating. From the traveler's point of view, time proceeds normally for him while he sees time speed up for anyone who stayed in his original unaccelerated frame of reference (say, back on Earth). The people who didn't accelerate would see their time proceeding normally and time slowing down for the traveler. According to Einstein, a gravitational field and acceleration are interchangeable, so gravity also alters the rate at which time passes. As to directionality of time dilation, this is a very interesting issue. A.F. Mayer (afmayer.net) has recently proposed that this is in fact very important. A phenomenon called Transverse Redshift, caused by light/radio waves passing perpendicular to the gravity of a planet or moon, may explain a whole variety of mysterious changes observed in signals from GPS satellites and deep space probes. It seems that until recently, nobody really thought about the significance of the direction of acceleration.

Quoting Jeff: "A phenomenon called Transverse Redshift, caused by light/radio waves passing perpendicular to the gravity of a planet or moon, may explain a whole variety of mysterious changes observed in signals from GPS satellites and deep space probes."

Transverse velocity causes a relativistic redshift in free space, also sometimes called "transverse redshift". I think Jeff refers to a different one called "transverse gravitational redshift", which is not present in standard relativity theory.

Light and radio waves passing massive objects in space suffer Shapiro time delay and a bending of their paths, but no redshift caused by the mass. There is a blueshift as the signal approaches the point of passage and a precisely equal redshift as the signal moves away from that point.

Should this "transverse gravitational redshift" be a relativistic effect, it will shake up Einstein's general relativity. The jury is out on the validity of the observations and explanations offered. I have a sneaky suspicion that, should the effect really be there, it will have a mundane 'Newtonian' origin.

I'm sorry, but I'm still stuck at: "...believe that time travels at the speed of light."

Or more specifically: ...time travels at the speed...

Would you please explain in some detail your concept of time "travelling" and with a "speed?"

Or if you prefer, by way of analogy, would you please explain one of the other more familiar (as such) spacial dimensions as "travelling" and with a "speed?"

Movement within a dimension I understand. Movement of the dimension itself I don't.

Thanks!

--Europium

As I understand it, this kind of question was at the heart of the "discovery" of relativity. That to any possible observer(s), no matter their state of motion will always observe the speed of light to be exactly the same, the constant, c. And no observer can move faster than the speed of light. Since time is an abstraction, I'm not sure how it could be described as travelling.

Guest wrote: "Since time is an abstraction, I'm not sure how it could be described as traveling."

Yep, as Europium also pointed out above, the idea of "time that travels" is quite absurd. I may come from a misinterpretation of space-time diagrams, where the world-line of a stationary object "extends" into the time dimension at the speed of light. This can be (correctly) interpreted that, in terms of space-time movement, everything (material bodies and light) always move at the speed of light. It does not mean that time itself "travels".

To the contrary. As I understand it, time is thought of as a concept. It is not, it is a physical component of the universe. Time has a physical effect on the universe and is therefore, physical in nature itself. Time has mass, weight and velocity. Yes this may be contrary to every belief in the world but before you dismiss this idea as "absurd", stop to ponder it for awhile. If light travels at the speed of time, then it is not afected by it. It is its equal, so to speak. Light travels hundreds of billions of years without degragation. It bends but does not end. The further it is from the source, the dimmer it seems, but that is simply due to it's dispersement. This also explains relativity. The slower an object travels through space, the more effect "time" has on it. Light and time are very near one and the same thing. I have a much larger theory that I have applied to this and everything else in the universe that I can think of and it has made the entire universe make perfect sense to me. It explains and further defines the standard model of the universe and even predicts the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It explains rust on metal, it explains the nuclear bomb. I do mean explains in detail from the quantum to the astro level, the entire universe. Even life itself.

Quote: "I have a much larger theory that I have applied to this and everything else in the universe that I can think of and it has made the entire universe make perfect sense to me. It explains and further defines the standard model of the universe and even predicts the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It explains rust on metal, it explains the nuclear bomb. I do mean explains in detail from the quantum to the astro level, the entire universe. Even life itself."

You have found the TOE! May your grandchildren appreciate you!

I have a feeling that we are travelling simultaneously in 'every' direction at once. This is a difficult concept to imagine but it could explain gravity. We are told F=ma. You need to break acceleration down to V/t or D/t^2.

Since here on Earth gravity is constant and so is the mass (assume it is for the moment) - the variable is acceleration. But it can't be if gravity (the force) is constant). Therefore components of acceleration must change.

Since a person standing on Earth will be aware of gravity (as weight) of the earth pushing against you (accelerating you) and since everybody around the earth feels this weight simultaneously, the Earth must be moving outwards everydirection at once.

Since the Earth's 'size' is constant then the only variable is t. Unless the mass is changing. The variable then is an interchange between m/t^2.

If mass is changing there must be a release of energy - which can only happen if time changes - which makes sense because the energy provides the power to expand the universe - in all directions at once. Inwards, outwards, upwards, downwards, etc.

Which is a force felt as Gravity - therefore a manifestation of a change in time.

Does that make sense?

Quoting horace40: "I have a feeling that we are traveling simultaneously in 'every' direction at once. This is a difficult concept to imagine but it could explain gravity. "

What you touch upon here is similar to something called "The Final Theory", which proposes accelerated expansion of everything as the cause of gravity - its somewhat of a joke, IMO, and impossible to reconcile with reality and observations.

I'm glad it is a joke - meaning time is constant.

I've bought a watch that is accurate to 1 second in a million years.

It is already 3 minutes adrift at the end of the first week. But that's doesn't matter because the guarantee is for 1 second in 1 million years.

I am relying on constant time and relativity in the universe to justify my claim to get my money back.

time is not what keeps everything from happening all at once, time is what keeps anything from continually happening forever.

its a optical illusion

time and speed are seperate

if you move away from a point fast enough (more than the speed of light) you can see yourself at the point you started at because the image will take more time to get to you than u took to get to the point........

"Being unconquerable lies within yourself." -Sun Tzu

exactly-I like your perspective and would be interested in reading more.

The more is that the premise, move faster than light (only a fraction of the speed of which which is faster by many magnitudes that any one can see), cannot be valid. Thus no concusion can derive from such a premise.

my apologies- my post, requesting more, was intended for Mr Rheault