Whenever someone explains something in an ordinary language, it remains vague. That's why physicists prefer to use mathematics. Here are the first two papers published by Einstein on what was later called special relativity. http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1905_18_639-641.pdf http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1905_17_891-921.pdf As you can see, they contain math to make the claims quantifiable and testable. The language and symbols used have changed over time, but the math has remained the same, because it matched nature accurately enough for most purposes for about a century. Translated papers: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
Einstein had aspergers, he married his cousin, he couldnt tie his shoes until he was 14 or speak until he was 5, he dropped out of school, he plajorized most of his thoeries from less known european scientists. The only reason he is so popular today is because his ethnicity is the same ethnicity that owned the media at that time, and they went crazy promoting him and his thoeries to make themself feel smarter.
Oops, I accept, I was incorrect. The 2 objects will definitely see each other, so they will exist for each other. If C is the observer, and A and B are the 2 objects running away from each other with half the speed of light c, then the relative velocity of A compared to B will be [(c/2)+(c/2)] / [1 + (c/2)(c/2)/c^2] = (4/5)c. These are only the observations, they describe nothing about any possible interactions.
WHAHAHA You forgot that Einstein developed the theory of relativity also because he was trying to compensate for the lost half of his circumcised dick. But, back to science, everyone knows that science is a statistical process, and so is engineering. There are no new things ever, only well forgotten old ones, and every discovery and interpretation is when statistically the miniature results of many contributors begin to converge.
To me it seems that the problem with Einstein and his General Theory of Relativity is that he wanted to consider everything within time frames of reference, whereas relativity ought to be considered in velocity frames of reference. Got to give Einstein credit though for the special theory of relativity, his mass-energy equivalence concept, and his explanation of the Brownian motion and Photoelectric effect.
they can see each other at that speed? can i borrow something: Hypotheses that go beyond what we can observe and measure right now have some place in physics, as long as there is the prospect that they will become verifiable within a reasonable timespan. Everything else is just speculation (including a lot of stuff in this thread)... thanks, as i figured it fit
There are several experiments that show that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the speed of its moving source. For example, this one (http://vuv-fel.desy.de): Let's go back to the example used before. An observer in between two objects sees them move away at speed v in opposite directions. One of them, let's call it "source", sends a flash of light towards the other one called "target" when they're a distance d away from each other. Experiments like the one above show that the source, the target, and the observer see the flash travel at the same speed of light (as always, there is the possibility of small deviations due to limited experimental accuracy). Let's see what predictions Newtonian physics makes under those circumstances. The source of the light sees the target move away at a speed of 2v. The light reaches the target after a time t = d/(c-2v). If v > c/2, the source will claim that the light never reaches the target. the observer in the middle sees the light travel at the same speed of light c and it reaches the target after t = d/(c-v). If v > c, the observer will claim that the light never reaches the target. The target sees the light after t = d/c, independant of its own speed. No matter how fast it travels, the target claims that the light will reach it after the same timespan. In other words, if you use Newtonian physics and an almost(?) constant speed of light (as observed in many experiments), the source, observer, and target won't agree whether the light reaches the target or not. They would experience completely different realities depending on the speed they move at. As far as I know, that's something that hasn't been observed in nature. If anyone can provide a viable alternative to the theory of relativity that agrees with experiment, I'd love to hear about it. As long as you rely on vague, unverifiable statements, however, I'll be rather bored and move on. Let me repost those two links for all those who are interested in maths and evidence. How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity? http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFA...iments.html#Tests_of_Einsteins_two_postulates
that is not what that experiment meant. that experiment shared the progression of energy (upon mass) to create a laser who is seeing what? that is where you hypothesis is cracking me up. Do the particles have eyes on the back of their head(s)? you are setting the stage for your description but not reality what if t<0? you aint watching nature, you are creating an experiment with a PREDETERMINED outcome life: abuses entropy (look in the mirror and watch yourself) log the evidence and you have your proof ask the cern gang all manmade experiments are special man made them..................... PReDETERMINED
Time occurs when anything changes. Change can only occur if time occurs. Time is relative...that is why the speed of light can affect it. Gravity (and, by proxy, mass) also affects time.
One way to test if gravity bends light is to stand in front of a mirror with a mirror behind you. You would think(if the results were predeterminded) that you would see your image repete over and over forever. It does not happen. The images repete as they "bend" out of view. Gravity bends light...it has been proven by observation. The results of the experiment were not predetemined because at the time no one knew for sure what the results would bring. Gravity also affects time...this also has been proven. If you lived on a planet with more gravity you would age slower than on earth. But from a personal POV time would seem to continue at the same rate.
Relativity also depends upon where the measurement is taken. If two people are riding motorcycles and pass a ball between them at a distance of three feet ...the ball would travel three feet...if measured from the motorcycle...if you measure the distance the ball travels from the ground it travels much further. It is "relative" to where the measurement is taken.
But WHY? What IS time? Why can time be affected? Sure its reletive but WHY is it reletive, HOW is it reletive???
wow... perhaps read up on optics before trying gravity This post you made is scary stupid i suppose a mirage is gravity too? where's the proof? to use that point of view that you just posted, definitely means the evolution of that knowledge has slowed to a stop! i hope people are not walking into that hand
Time may just be an emergent property of the universe and doesn't exist as of itself. Think of a chair. The chair doesn't exist as of itself, it exists as an emergent property when you put a bunch of wood together.
that's a creation the emergent property is like the fire, intending to burn or you intending to live, autonomously cell divisions etc share the emergent property life; abuses entropy
The EPR paradox doesn't prove Eisenstein wrong because it doesn't allow information to be gained. You can't use entanglement to gain information even if you are doing a Quantum Non-Demolition measurement. It has been mathematically proven that any form of measurement on the system will converge to a classical Von Neumann collapse.
who? ya see the difference of you and i, is you dont know what the EPR is You follow others math and what people tell you it means and do not comprehend what science or the math is about (describing nature) dont tell me, what you think. I already know you have no clue. but for people who want to see a third party observation; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/ or how about a 4th http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Quantum/bells_inequality.html In 1935 Albert Einstein and two colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) developed a thought experiment to demonstrate what they felt was a lack of completeness in quantum mechanics. This so-called "EPR Paradox" has led to much subsequent, and still ongoing, research. This article is an introduction to EPR, Bell's Inequality, and the real experiments that have attempted to address the interesting issues raised by this discussion.
There is no such thing as Time. Time is a measurement created by society, in order to function accordingly. Always was, always is. George Carlin, one of the greatest minds of recent times, explains his take on this Time culture. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYeLtrJ7o4s"]George Carlin Time - YouTube[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaR3sVpTB98"]George Carlin on Time - YouTube[/ame]
It's a physical characteristic of the fabric of space. It is variable and can be manipulated (though we don't know how to do it yet) because it is not absolutely bound by the laws of physics.
That is a typical science channel answer, I want a more in depth explanation. How can time possibly be a characteristic of space? What does time consist of? Is time a particle, a wave, if it is neither then how can it possibly exist?
time is a property of measurement. ie.... you cannot measure between any 2 points without time. them 'utter dimensions' that you read about are just layers in time. kind of like taking a picture of a moment is a layer in time, 'before and after', are utter dimensions from that time proof; if an action changes that layer, it is from a 'spooky action' from before or the intent of 'after' (ie.... a ball rolling down hill, is from it being up hill before, if you pick it up, a life intended to do it)
Time can be defined in more than one way, I suppose. But that is my opinion based on my knowledge of physics which I've taken on many levels. You need not have insulted me. I won't be patronizing your threads anymore. You're rude.
