Are there any equations or web sites that describe time dilation or time change such as with Einstein’s writings E=MC^2?\nHow does one change time and how can the change in time be measured?
210434
From memory (so you should double check it):\n\nRa = Rb Sqrt(1-(V/c)^2) \n\n^2 = squared\n\nRa=dilated time\nRb=reference time\nV= velocity\nc=speed of light\n\nSo this is one of the problems with luminal or superluminal travel. If v=c then Ra=0 no matter what Rb is.\n\nAnd if v>c then you get an imaginary number... what could that mean?
600443
The most recent research that I've seen was shown on the TV program "Horizon" here a few years ago.  The research suggested that under certain conditions (somehow linked with Einstein's cosmological constant) the speed of light could possibly change.\n\nHowever, for the time being at least we can easily assume that the speed of light is a constant.  The last I heard was that the research they were doing on the speed of light has was inconclusive, so it may take a while longer before we really know if it can change or not.
129126
Neither Observer EXPERIENCES a change. The ONLY way any comparison can be made between the two unmentioned but essential clocks is to bring them together in the same rest frame again: then whichever clock ticktocked the least would be shown to be the one which accelerated and slowed down in their relative travel.
70156
Einstein-"Time is an Illusion, although persistent still just an illusion." \n\nwhat he is talking about is that physical unverse exists in a single infinitesible moment just as much as it does over the span of a million years. Time presents our senses with the concepts of mass and form. Time only exists so that we may perceive the universe and of course if we could not perceive the universe it would not really exist would it? Do you beleive in God now?
655904
Well this one is interesting.  Mathematics tell us that to move in time, one must move faster than the speed of light.  There are particles that do move that fast so it is theoretically possible.\n\nWith that having been said, I'll go back to the particles that move faster than light.  These particles cannot be seen or measured in any way that we can figure out but we know that they exist because of the reaction of other things.  ( its like the wind blowing,  you dont see it but trees and stuff react to it )\n\nOne theory suggests that if we do manage to travel back in time,  we wont be able to interact with it at all. ( I dont understand all the mechanics on this one)  But it would be like being an invisible ghost.  You could observe things and events but couldnt make actual physical contact with anything thus you couldnt change events.
213584
another one of einstein's equations is as follows:\nrelative mass = original mass divided by the square-root of "1-(velocity squared/speed of light squared)"\n\nyou can better picture the equation by going here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy#Relativistic_mass\n\nexplained:\nas the object's velocity squared approached the same value of the speed of light squared, the phrase "v2-c2" would approach '1'. causing the entire bottom mathematical phrase to approach '0' because 1-1=0 :) \nas the bottom phrase approaches '0' the relative mass becomes almost infinite because anything divided by something so close to zero would experience a massive increase in value. example: 1/.01=100.  as .01 becomes smaller (approaches zero), the '100'(our hypothetical relative mass) goes -way- up (approaches infinity). \n\nremember that mathematics does not allow division by zero therefore anything having mass cannot attain the speed of light. because the energy required to accelerate near-infinite mass would itself be near infinite.
419320
As matter approaches the speed of light, the properties of change, and since E=MC2, we know that there's a relationship between energy and matter.\n\nEinstein's theory of special relativity dictates that since all motion is relative (for example, you in your chair may be at rest, but the Earth is rotating, the galaxy is moving, and the universe is expanding).  However, the speed of light will be measured by anyone anywhere to be the same.  \n\nIf an object undergoing constant change (like, say a human aging) is accellerated to close to the speed of light, the environment around it, (like say, his family on earth), would experience time at a different rate.  If you go on a 6-month space flight traveling at near the speed of light, you would find that people on Earth had aged several years.\n\nIn this way, it is like that person traveled into the future.  However, I can't think of any plausible way of matter reversing time, since it must be positive, or zero.
519272
This site is terrific for kids - Einstein section:\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/\nThis is a bit long-winded, but a little more than halfway down are some good, basic explanations/examples of the T.O.R suitable for kids:\nhttp://www.wesleyan.edu/synthesis/culture-cubed/haas/maintemp.htm
659408
Wow.\n\nA few people here know what they're talking about.  A few.  Very few.\n\nMost of these responses are absolutely hilarious.  Most of them are from people trying to sound smart, in which case they do NOT.  Other cases are from kids with big imaginations, with "Anything is possible!"\n\nEinstein was brilliant, no question.  But all great scientists are capable of mistakes, and Einstein was no exception.\n\nHis theory on time travel was based on the speed of light and the "paradox" in which light travels at a fixed rate of speed.  This is true; light moves at 186,000 mps no matter what conditions are in place.\n\nHis theory's flaw is accounted to the fact that light has NO mass.  Light, in it's fixed movement, cannot be compared to any living organism (which is made up of mass) or any other object.  Any object made up of mass (for example, a human being, or any kind of lightspeed-capable rocket ship) does NOT have a fixed speed; therefore the velocity equation paradox that Einstein based his theory on does not apply to them.\n\nThis is all I want to say tonight.  Anyone who understands his theories will understand what I've said here, so think about my statements.  Let me know what you think (again, only those of you who understand what Einstein's theories were all about), as I'm no expert on relativity.  Like everyone else posting on a Yahoo answers forum about Albert Einstein and his theories on time travel, I'm just a fan.  Don't act like any of us are any more.\nEveryone else:  Please don't worry about it.\n\nAlthough I am skeptical by nature, like any smart person, it is NOT my goal to bash the idea of time travel.  After I spotted the flaw in Einstein's theory I presented it to many professionals in the field (or the few that I know, anyway) and have so far received very positive feedback.  I searched online as well and have discovered that others seem to have come up with the same idea, or similar.  Let me know what you think about the whole deal.\n\nBeing proven wrong only makes you smarter.
112183
Your perception of time doesn't change if you travel even close to the speed of light. What changes is the perception that will have others respect of you. If they would be able to look at your watch they will see that it moves slower than theirs, and gets slower the more close to the speed of light you move. If you see their watches you will see that they are moving slower, because the movement is relative. It becomes absolute when a force is applied to it, for example an acceleration (the twins paradox). Time and space is relative to the individual that is moving at a certain speed. For you, a minute will always be a minute, you will perceive it as the same amount of time always.\n\n\n---Addition---\n\nThe equations you are thinking of are the Lorentz Transformation, heres a link\nhttp://www.classicalreality.net/Lorentz%20Transformation.htm\n\nWhen you travel nearly the same speed of light, light keeps on traveling at the speed of light from your point of view. So it is not "hardly moving" but in fact keeps on moving for everybody, independent of their velocities, at 300,000 km/sec (in vacumm). The only explanation to this is that time for the different observers is not comparable, everybody follows its own time, and space also.
249138
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.
11717
Einstein said we are living in the past time, that means we have not "now time"!\nSo, nobody can not answer, what time is it! maybe we can ask, what time was it!!
350228
At a speed of 0.95C, twin A's clock is:\nt1=1/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) \n\nT=1/sqrt176,700,000^2/186,000,000^2)\nor a ratio of 3.2:1 time dilation.\n\nTotal trip time: \n2*(37,000,000+{2*37,000,000*0.95})\n\nTwin B, (although long dead) will be 77,700,020 years old. Twin A, (also long dead) will ONLY be 24,281,256 years old (earth time)\n\nThis does not take into account the acceleration factor on the time dilation effects - which, obviously, are moot in this example.\n\nBottom line - to travel to a planet that is 37,000,000 light years away, you'd better go a hell of a lot faster or find a short cut.\n\nAdded: OK, let's look at 37 light years.\nTotal travel time = 77.7 years\nThe ratio is the same  3.2:1 time dilation\nThe earth twin will be 97.7 years old.\nThe traveler twin will be 44.3 years old
80862
The author Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that (I'm paraphrasing) units of time (moments, seconds, etc.) should be thought of not as connected points along a line, but rather like grains of soil in a mountain.  It's an interesting concept if you think about it.  One could move through time from one unit to another adjacent one without the ability to skip over one. Since each of us only exists in only one of them "at a time", so to speak, collectively we would be occupying all of them simultaneously.  It could explain where we "go to" when we are lost in thought, or how time seems to slow during some activities and speed up during others.  It might also help to understand the concept of multiple simultaneous dimensions. The notion of moving "ahead" through time is relative to your local frame of reference, just as "up" is relative to your local field of gravity and ceases to exist without a center of gravity.
570177
Love to give you specifics, but don't know how.\n\nTheoretically, what you suggest is possible by relativistic theory. There are things called "tachyons" which are these kinds of rays which reverse time - well not "reversing" it, but definitely messing it all around.  Einstein said that nothing could accelerate to faster than speed of light without becoming infinite mass - but "...Einstein said nothing about entities already traveling at that speed or greater..." (Prote in K-Pax).  \n\nSo who knows - is it around the corner for us?  Probably not.  Is it possible?  I love this universe, so I say yes.  Keep surprising me...
58208
My favorite theory is that time is a river.  This takes into account einstiens' equations that have shown time moves at different speeds for different locations (as proven by measuring time in fast moving satellites and comparing it to time on Earth) and yet always moves forward.
534536
If t is the time that has been measured in the clock's reference frame, then t/2 is the time that has been measured by the observer.\n\nNow t = (t/2)[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]^(1/2)\n\nthe t's cancel and you are left with 1 = (1/2)[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]^(1/2)\nor [1-(v^2)/(c^2)]^(1/2) = 1/2\n\nsquare both sides to get 1 - (v^2)/(c^2) = 1/4\n\nsubtract one from each side to get -(v^2)/(c^2) = -3/4\n\nor (v^2)/(c^2) = 3/4\n\nthis means that v^2 = (3/4)(c^2)\n\ntaking the square root of both sides gives the final answer:\n\nv = [3^(1/2)]c/2.\n\nNot the most intuitive answer in the world.