"The Joy of Sexual Physics"

[Dr Mordrid]

http://johnmm.bol.ucla.edu/sexualphysics/

"Love is a matter of chemistry, sex is a matter of physics"

Articles:

Sex at the speed of light

Quantum sexual physics

It wasn't me... it was the rest of the Universe

Observing sex at the speed of light

Ejaculation at the speed of light

Sex with genital piercings is a matter of electrodynamics

The butterfly swimmer effect

Relativistic penile length enhancement

The wormhole-assisted masturbation technique

Top 10 reasons why sex at the speed of light is not an advisable form of procreation

[TransformX]

Wow, good reading!

[TransformX]

One thing I still don't get Dr.M and would be grateful if you can explain it.
Given that the speed of light is X distance / sec (using X instead of the number intentionally).
Now, travel in the speed of light going away from the earth for 5 minutes and then head back, also in the speed of light, total of 10 minutes.
Why and how would the rest of us age faster?
The point I fail to understand is this:
If you take the earth's point of view, you've been gone for 10 minutes and travelled 600 times distance X. In your point of view, you must have travelled the exact same distance. Now, if time passed differently for either of us, by some measure, you were travelling slower than the speed of light, since I assume the distance cleared is absolute

[Dr Mordrid]

It's called "the twin paradox".

Time dilation affects the traveler, not those who stay at home.

Time slows (dilates) under two influences: gravity and velocity. More of either and the local time reference slows down.

Earths time progresses according to its local reference, which depends on its velocity, both linear and rotational, the local gravitational field (Earths) and our distance from it. Pilots flying planes at high altitude/speed therefore have a different time reference than people at the surface. This difference is miniscule, but measurable. It's larger for astronauts in orbit.

In your example because the space traveller is traveling at or near C his time reference slows relative to Earths because of his extreme velocity, meaning a flight duration of few weeks in his perception is actually thousands of years on Earth. It's actually more than just his perception; his aging, local radioactive decays and all other natural processes in his ship slow relative to Earths as well.

A trip of a few seconds (to the moon & back) would still show a dilation, but not enough to necessarily be visible. If, however, synchronized atomic locks were used; one on his ship and one staying home, you could measure the difference.

This makes a ~C speed spaceship a one-way time machine as far as the traveller is concerned.

[TransformX]

Thanks!

[Nowhere]

Just clarifying some details... (I think that's important...if you have most of the picture but details aren't clear, the effects might be devastating )

TransformX, first, speed of light is simply c. End of story. It's constant and there's no point in giving it any other number, especially X (usually that means things that change...).
Secondly, nothing with mass can travel at c. Your example is therefore impossible. So remember that Doc is discussing object that travels at "almost c".
Also, it's a bit dangerous to use minutes when discussing such travel. It should be obvious why by now - when there're some tricks with time itself involved, time isn't good for describing the trip. Better use distance.

I believe Doc covered the essence...but he shouldn't be using "at or near C"/"~C" (BTW, that would make the whole thing "two way time machine" - there's division by 0 in calculations when speed equals c, but when speed is >c, it goes...backwards)

Also, about this trip of a few seconds to moon and back - you have to keep in mind that Doc was using "few second" in reference to people on Earth. Time of travel is shorter for the traveller. How much shorter - depends mostly on speed. Extreme example: Oh-My-God particle. It was so fast, that the jurney to the nearest star would take 0.43 milliseconds (from point of reference of the particle! From "outside" it would take over 4 years). And look at time to center of our galaxy, or edge of the observable Universe...

[Dr Mordrid]

And here I was trying to keep it simple for poor T/X

[Nowhere]

There's nothing simple in relativity or quantum mechanics...

[Dr Mordrid]

No, but we can present the salient points then just drop the confusing parts

That said check my new post on the cosmic background radiation problem that recently arose.

[Nowhere]

But the salient points arose from the confusing parts!

[Greebe]

Time dilation... that's what she said! OH BABY!

[Dr Mordrid]

'tis better to dilate her with something other than time. For a long time, yes....but the act itself needs a more personal touch