Whch is the correct relative time assuming velocity of light is quasi constant?
2006-09-16 05:02:24 · 5 answers · asked by goring 6 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Clarification = if frequency is a vector thanTime also is a relative vector.
2006-09-16 05:23:10 · update #1
If space is a vector according to realtivity time is also a vector =space time .isnt the product of two vectors?
2006-09-16 06:05:12 · update #2
Where did you get the idea that time is a vector? Time runs forward, but only when defined in terms of positive entropy (a running down universe). But that does not mean it is a vector, it is simply an ever increasing scalar...like so much sand piling up in an hour glass.
Neither is frequency a vector. Its units are number of cycles per second (aka Hertz). Number of anything (e.g., number of people, number of stories, number of chocolates) is a scalar...there is no direction implied.
In fact, we can write f = n/t; where f is frequency, n is number of cycles, and t is the time expired while counting the cycles. Everything in this equation is a scalar.
S = ct; where S is the distance between the sun and Earth, c is the speed of light, and t is time. Use this to find the time to travel S. Nothing fancy, vector math is not needed unless you are involving other vectors that have to be folded into your problem.
2006-09-16 05:55:45 · answer #1 · answered by oldprof 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure what you mean by relative time or quasi constant, but 93 million miles at 186,000 miles per second is 8.3 minutes. Where did you get the 11 minutes?
2006-09-16 12:09:45 · answer #2 · answered by Frank N 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
8 minutes is the generally accepted figure. Given your choices, I'd say 8.3.
2006-09-16 12:15:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know for a fact that it's 8.3 minutes.
2006-09-16 12:17:43 · answer #4 · answered by عبد الله (ドラゴン) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
8.3 and im sure of it
2006-09-16 12:10:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋