Hayek wrote:
CFran wrote:

If I got it right, the faster you go, the slower
time goes for you.

But there's something that seems weird to me, if
this is true (I don't doubt it is), then there
must be a referential, I mean, there must be a
certain speed and direction in the universe which
makes time go the fastest, in other words, "if
you go faster time goes slower for you", faster
compared to what?

You have an excellent intuition !

faster compared to what?

The average mass distribution of the surrounding
masses. That is a lot of mass : the whole visible
universe.

so there's a referential!! that's funny that I never heard of it before
tho.

But there is a BIG catch : suppose you move
contantly wrt this average mass distribution and a
rocket moves away from you, and is slower with
respect to (wrt) this average mass distribution
(amd). This rockets clock will run faster.
Then when the rocket has to rejoin you, it has to
catch up with you and move faster wrt the amd. Since
the time dilation factor is not linear the clock of
this rocket will slow down so much more than yours
that in the end, the total elapsed time of the
rocket will always be LESS than your time.

If an object accelerates away from you and comes
back his total elapsed time will ALWAYS be less than
your time.


Is there something like a speed zero, where time
goes the fastest?

No motion wrt tne average mass distribution, and as
far away from a cluster of masses. A lot of mass
nearby will slow down your clock also.

makes sence. I think the second thing you said is a property of the
general relativity.

And your clock will run infinitely fast in an empty
universe.

Actually, a clock is an inertiameter. It simply
reacts to changing inertia, when the clockrate
varies, it meanse inertia has varied.

Mass creates an inertial field. Moving through this
field makes inertia greater, and your inertiameter
or clock simply reacts to that. More inertia also
makes the molecules in your body move slower, so
your "time" moves slower too. Your body reacts to
the increased inertia by slowing down as much as
your clock. And you cannot compare it locally you
must always relate to an external clock. That is the
real reason why it is called relativity.



Because, as I understand it, it seems that if you
throw a whole lots of probes in various
directions and at various speeds, there will be
one that will have it's clock running faster than
the others, and it will be the one going the
slowest (compared to a referential, well I
guess).

Your absolutely right.

But there is again a big catch : you have NO way of
measuring ! In order to stay in contact with the
probes you need radio contact, and that goes, by
current technology, and maybe even all future
technology, at the speed of light.

Well, yes you can, you can still compensate by calculating the time the
radio waves took for doing the travel. For example, you send a radio
signal to a probe which makes the target probe send back to you as soon
a signal containing it's time, you calculate the time it took between
when you emited the signal and when you received the response, and with
the measurement of the doppler shift of the received response you can
calculate how long it took for the first signal and for the response
signal to travel, and thus compensate the delay due to the speed of
light (maybe it would be usefull too to include the shift due to the
doppler effect in the first signal as received by the probe in the
response signal, but that's a detail.)

It is very difficult to undertake an experiment like
you described above, with different probes, first
because it is poorly understood. Some adamantly deny
the existence of a preferential frame. Because they
say, there is no need for it : any object that
accelerates away from you and comes back, will
always have a slower clock than yours, no matter if
you move wrt the amd, the preferential frame.

Same for the speed limit in the universe, nothing
can go faster than c, ok, but, compared to what
referential?

Again the amd of the visible universe around the you.

But since moving wrt the amd affects your clock, you
will always measure c in ANY moving frame.

I mean, if you throw a whole lot of probes at the
same time from one unique moving point in any
direction at speed c (or close), where will be
the middle between all these probes. If you are
going at half of c (once again, compared to what,
yeah i'm very confused with that) and throw a
rocket that can get near c in the direction
you're going, and another one like this in the
opposite direction, the middle between those two
rockets wont be you, or one rocket would go at
1.5 c.

If you move at .5 c and you throw a rocket it will
move at c wrt to you : but because your clock has
slowed down your measurement of the speed of the
rocket will be different than that of a stationary
observer. The measurement would differ but the
outcome will be : c for both !


And please explain things simply, you all know
how hard it can be to understand/admitt all those
weird relativity things, thanks.

Because inertia affects ALL of physics we currently
know of, it is impossible to measure it locally.
Comparing it to remote sources is hampered by the
transmission speed of c, and dopller effects. This
all conspires in such way, that for the current
state of science, relativity can be explained in
different ways.

There are two camps : those that adhere to a
preferential frame : they are called Aetherists,
Lorentzians, absolutists, and those who reject any
absolute frame and believe it takes only two to
tango : motion and relativistic effects are due to
the relative motion of the two objects in question,
they are the pure relativists.

Oh, I think I know which camp you chose. As for me, I like the idea of
a preferential frame, but as of right now I really have no idea of
which makes more sence, provided that things need to be really senseful
when it comes to relativity.

On this NG, neither of the two are right.
The absolutists do not realize the theory has
relativistic results, and the relativists do not
realize that the theory has absolute roots.

Uwe Hayek.

--
To be controlled in our economic pursuits,
is to be controlled in everything -- F.A.Hayek.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit
(great is truth, and shall prevail)
-- Del Kennedy

Government is not the solution,
government is the problem.
-- Ronald Reagan.

Once a government is committed to the principle of
silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one
way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures, until it becomes a source of
terror to all its citizens and creates a country
where everyone lives in fear.
-- Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), August 8, 1950

Wie het kleine niet eert, valt op negers.
-- Karin Bloemen

Ik geloof niet meer in Evolutie !
-- Huize Hayek te Heist.