If Time is relative and not obsolute frame of reference exits and the observer is blind= zero time?
91956
See the movie  "What the "bleep" do we know!"
667863
Vertical interval\ndifference in altitiude between observer and target (or point of burst)
918805
Time And Relative Dimension In Space
80793
According to reletivity, the transformed velocity is zero.\n\nPhotons will see each other at rest,\n\nAlso it is interesting to know that it takes no time for photones to travel all the world if ask them.
360918
time is relative. perhaps you can use this example: two twin brothers which born in the same time, the first one live on the earth and the other one live in the spaceship outside the earth's atmosphere, for a several years. when the second one returns to earth, the age of the twin brother is not the same. the reason? it's relativity, einstein told about this long time ago.
492519
There is nothing like antidirection. \nWell, if it becomes possible (assuming) to move at the speed of light, the time dilation formula of the special theory of relativity says that the time would not elapse. That means your aging will stop!\nIf it becomes possible (assuming) to move with speeds higher than that of light, many things could happen. According to the time dilation formula, the time would become an imaginary quantity. One of the interpretation of this imaginary time goes like this: the time will start moving backward. Possibly, that is the situation when you can expect moving back to past. But, further mathematics shows that you are not necessarily going to reach to your own past. Rather, you could land onto some other, strange, alien universe!\nAt this point we have not talked about the change in your mass or length if you are moving with such a high speed. But, for sure you are not going to be the same!
366136
Not really - As it would travel at the speed of light (or the lack of) - but there would be a delay of a few picoseconds.....
561186
First of all, it is fundementally impossible to go at the speed of light. Therefore, the question as stated is invalid.\n\nHowever, it may or may not surprise you that, indeed, it is THAT VERY QUESTION that Albert Einstein surmised in 1896.  Here is his quote:\n"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest.  However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations.  From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest.  For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?  One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained.  Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious.  Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution to the problem."\n\nTherefore, In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go.  Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first.  Space and time cannot be taken as absolute.  On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.\n\nNow, I can't explain any more than that.  So there :P
929095
Yes it is consistent with Special Relativity. K is not advocating time travel or travelling faster than the speed of light, nor any other Relativity flaunting theory. He is merely stating you can not live in the past, nor understand life by predicting the future.
943807
The product of space and time is not so much an abstraction as much as an aberrated perception. ( Why, In GR theory, is everyone always going deductively DOWNWARDS into the collapse rather than inductively tracking the event back to original precipitating events?  The answers are THERE.)
457317
Remember Einstein, It is all relative to the observer. You and the mirror would be traveling at the same speed so your observational world would be the same. Now if somebody was traveling with you slightly less than the speed of light, they would see a empty mirror. It is a paradoxical question just as if you where to travel the universe for 5 yrs at the speed of light, then return to earth, you would have only aged the 5 years, but all of your friends would have long ago died of old age waiting your return.Interesting, No? Good luck and happy perplexing.
535317
I think what you're looking for is\n\nt' = t * sqrt (1 - (v/c)^2)  where c is speed of light, v is the velocity of the observer, t is time external to the observer and t' is the observer's experienced time.\n\nThe problem with this equation is that when v>c, t' goes negative.  This is thought to believe that one can go backwards in time if the speed of light is exceeded.  However, there can also be the interpretation that the speed of light is an asymptotic limit.  In this case, backward time travel is not possible as one could not exceed the speed of light.\n\nIn terms of traveling to the future to go to the past, I'm not sure what exactly you mean.  An early theory posited a cyclic universe so that by traveling far enough in time, you would indeed end up in the past but it would be the past of the universe after the next cycle.
630244
No not at all. This concept has been tested on more than one occasion. The faster a body moves the slower time passes relative to that person. This was tested by getting two superbly accurate atomic clocks were taken. One was left on earth and another was taken up in a jet plane. When the plane landed the clock on the plane was observed to be a couple fractions of a second behind the clock on earth. \n\nThe equation for this difference is:\n\ndelta T(stationary)=(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*delta T(moving)\n\nNot to be disrespectful but why are most of your questions concerned with doubting the theories that Einstein has put forth. Almost all of his theories have been tested and confirmed to extremely high degrees of accuracy
170084
The correct formula for calculating tiem dilation is t'=t/gamma where t' is the new time, t is the time in the rest frame and gamma is the inverse square root of (1 - v^2/c^2)\n\nAs a result of this, if v (velocity) tends towards c (the speed of light), then the gamma factor tends towards infinity (because 1/sqrt(0) goes to infinity). So actually, if you do travel at the speed of light, you do not experience time at all - a photon is one such example; however anything with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, so unfortunately you cannot 'freeze' time for any object with mass. But if you are travelling at a velocity only slightly greater than 0 with respect to the rest frame, you actually experience less time than a person who is in the rest frame, albeit by a tiny tiny factor.\n\nNot sure what you mean by splitting space time in half :S
1185627
Time "IN A SENSE" does not exist and is an illusion. \nFor example: Suppose there are two syncronized clocks on two  infinately seperated walls (one behind you and one in front of you) and the clocks are illuminated at exactly 2pm by light from your flashlight that shoots to the front and the back at the same time. And lets pretend that you are in a spaceship ---with that flashlight --accelerating (speeding up trying to reach light speed) away from one clock towards the other.just as you receive the reflection of light (showing 2 pm) within your eye from the clock behind you. And lets pretend that you reach light speed the instant the light from the clock reaches your eye. At the instant you reach light speed then any light from your flash light reflected from the clock cannot reach you because both you and the light are moving in the same direction away from the clock at the same speed. At that instant, time relative to that clock would no longer exist for you in your frame of referance. Because the only image of time that you have processed in your mind is the image of the clock at 2pm. \nIf you instantly slow down below light speed by a fraction of the speed of light, then, the light from your flashlight that is in transit behind you will begin to catch you again. Depending on the speed that you are moving time will again appear to move on the clock. But each instant of time will be defined by the speed you are moving relative to the speed of the light reflected from the clock. Your flashlight is also important in that light leaving the flashlight must first travel back to the clock and then be reflected back to the spaceship where you will see it. Therefore you will see not only time changes due to the speed you are moving, you will also see funny changes in time from the fact that your flashligh is moving with you.\nAt the same instant you are moving away from one clock you will be moving towards the other clock. The time you experience relative to this other clock will be compressed in relation to the fraction of the speed of light you are moving.\nFor these reasons, time can be said to be an illusion. However, one must keep in mind that by theory, no human or any solid matter can move at the speed of light. \nAnd it must be admitted that though time is an illusion, it is an actual unchanging property of reality.
415527
First of all, the sum is incompleted.  Is it for maximum height, or for range?  Secondly, let us assume you are asking for maximum height.  Then differentiating the given equation of motion, d = -5(t+1)^2 + 258 with respect to 't', we get dt/dt = -10(t+1).  At maximum height, the velocity is zero. \nTherefore, -10(t+1)=0, or t = -1.  This is absurd time can not become negative once the motion is initiated.  Check up there is something wrong in the problem.
24731
You see in the past anytime you look through a telescope (or any distant object), as the light that is reaching your eye left the object a few seconds, minutes, or even years ago. You are seeing the object "as it was" when the light left it. If a star is 10 light years away, you are seeing it as it was 10 years ago, not as it is now. If it were to disappear, we wouldn't know about it for 10 years.