Problem about theory of Relative

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

Problem about theory of Relative

Postby arsenic » Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:06 pm

Eientien has created spacial relative theory
and the theory is about light because human use light to see things
and the theory tell me that traveling near light speed can make us
see wrong information such as wrong lengh ,wrong mass

I has a question?
if there are some intelligent creatures which is not use light to see things
but they use some wave that is much slower than light to see things
and if we travel faster than that wave will that creature
think we are tacehon for them

and will those creatures will think that nothing can travel faster than
that wave just like human think nothing can travel faster than light
arsenic
Dionian
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:09 pm
Location: Thailand

Re: Problem about theory of Relative

Postby Aale de Winkel » Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:57 am

arsenic wrote:I has a question?
if there are some intelligent creatures which is not use light to see things
but they use some wave that is much slower than light to see things
and if we travel faster than that wave will that creature
think we are tacehon for them


So a blind person is more intelligent then a seeing one?
He uses the speed of sound to get his information, and I haven't the faintest at what speed reak(?) travels (ie the nose).

Someone traveling at the speed of light doesn't get wrong information, might be somewhat distorted, since we also need to transform to say a elementairy particle (electron, proton etc.) "rest frame" to get it's true properties. Einstein merely gave formulae to do that, and it is not about the speed we see things in but the maximum speed information travels (which merely happens to be the same).
.
Aale de Winkel
Trionian
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:34 pm
Location: the Netherlands (Veghel)

Postby arsenic » Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:06 am

I think a blind person is not more intelligent than the seeing one

I say intelligent creatures because if those creatures is not intelligent
they will cannot invent a new physic theory so they will not understand
theory of relative

Why Einetien is interested in light and he use the light to invent his new physic theory why he is not interested in other wave such as sonic
arsenic
Dionian
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:09 pm
Location: Thailand

Postby Aale de Winkel » Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:04 am

arsenic wrote:Why Einetien is interested in light and he use the light to invent his new physic theory why he is not interested in other wave such as sonic


I do think the histroric reason was that the Micholson-Morley experiment:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... orley.html
failed to prove the existence of "ether".
It's failure showed that the speed of light had the same value no matter in what direction one looked.
As the article said the "ether" supposition sugested a shift which was absent in the experiment, hence showed that the supposition was wrong.

Obviously with sound this is not the case, planes fly at speeds greater then mach 1 and "break the sound barrier" often.
Startrek starships move at warp-speeds greater than 1, I doubt that in the real world a Cochrane will emerge, to "break our current light barrier"
(I just am limited to Einsteintonian physics, uptill Cochrane proofs otherwise ( :lol: :lol: ))
Aale de Winkel
Trionian
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:34 pm
Location: the Netherlands (Veghel)

Postby Watters » Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:11 am

Just becasue some one sees soemthign else doesn't make it a physics rule that it can't be broken. That fact we see with light doesn't change any thing, and moving faster doesn't make us se wroung things, every thign is relitve, the lenght ACTUALY contracts, just beacuse more people see the lenght not contract doesn't meen that it doesn't
Watters
Dionian
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:50 pm

Postby Aale de Winkel » Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:48 am

Yeh in fact since molecules only are at rest at 0K (absolute zero) every length vary a bit every time. So in principle you are correct.
Just as the Michelson-Morley experimental result (c constant in every direction) falsified the prediction of the then existing "Ether-theory" which predicted c to be faster in one direction then the other, when some Cochrane invents warp-drive it would falsify Einsteintonian predictions. Personally as I said elsewhere probably some warp drive might be some linairasation of space curving, thus the space-craft might actually fly at speeds smaller then c, and the space curving is due to generation of huge Gravity fields. This way Cochranes warp drive might be compatible with Einsteintonian physics.

Thus I don't say, that seeing something happening immediately falsifies theory, but once all avenue's of explanations are exhausted one might be forced to take a hard look at the Theories principles, and replace the existing theory with something new.

This is what the phylosopher Popper already said, and I agree with this.
nothing is absolute, or as you say everything is relative.
.
Aale de Winkel
Trionian
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:34 pm
Location: the Netherlands (Veghel)

Warp Drive

Postby mghtymoop » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:49 am

star trek warp drives don't 'break the light barrier', because you cannot do that no matter how hard you try because it requires infinate energy. they 'skip' it. quite simply impulse is infralight and warp is super light, they never actually travel at light speed. in reality it seems ultimately ludicrous to be able to skip the light barrier and even if you could the idea that it would use less energy simply because time effectively stops above it so force is equal to zero (which is the only plausable explanation i have encountered for why it would work) seems far to far fetched to ever really happen, besides is it even possible to get close to light speed, relativity suggests it is not because light is always 3*10^8 m/s faster than anything else no matter how fast you are travelling.
i prefer the idea of a 'hyper' drive that uses gravity to warp space or even a cancellation drive that uses gravity to compress space into a point rather than a volume and thus can be everywhere at once until the drive was shut down (this is the messy bit because how would you shut down something that created infinate gravity if it was 3d to begin with) and exit at the required destination. the use of blackholes rather than antimatter drives seems a much more likely possibility and i have heard rumors, as have we all probably, that yankee scientists have to capability to create a black hole using their particle accelerators. god help us if they ever do because the idea of controlling such a force is surely beyond our current science.
meet the dragon
stand together
feel the fire
blame the weather
mghtymoop
Dionian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:19 am

Re: Warp Drive

Postby Euclid » Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:44 pm

mghtymoop wrote: i have heard rumors, as have we all probably, that yankee scientists


Yankee scientists? I know there's a lot of physics in baseball, but I have never viewed George Steinbrenner as any sort of scientific program director :lol:
User avatar
Euclid
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:32 am
Location: Beaumont Texas (USA)

yankees

Postby mghtymoop » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:46 am

yankees is the term the rest of the world uses to describe the entire population of the USA
meet the dragon
stand together
feel the fire
blame the weather
mghtymoop
Dionian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:19 am

Re: yankees

Postby Euclid » Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:59 pm

mghtymoop wrote:yankees is the term the rest of the world uses to describe the entire population of the USA


Oh. Sounds a bit derogatory, is it?
User avatar
Euclid
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:32 am
Location: Beaumont Texas (USA)

yankees

Postby mghtymoop » Fri Jun 11, 2004 3:41 am

not particulary, or not any more so than the terms aussie, kiwi, pom, though i am surprised about the number of yanks who don't even know how the term is used, in my field of work i have worked with scientists from all over the world and they all tend to know what your talking about if you say yankee except the yankees themselves.
meet the dragon
stand together
feel the fire
blame the weather
mghtymoop
Dionian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:19 am

Re: yankees

Postby Euclid » Fri Jun 11, 2004 11:41 am

mghtymoop wrote:not particulary, or not any more so than the terms aussie, kiwi, pom, though i am surprised about the number of yanks who don't even know how the term is used, in my field of work i have worked with scientists from all over the world and they all tend to know what your talking about if you say yankee except the yankees themselves.


Isn't that just how it always is? Seems like every time someone comes up with a unique, xenophobic term to describe another culture they are always the last to know! I wonder why that is?

But we digress from the topic. So, in keeping with the digression, but skewing back towards the topic, what sort of clever name could we come up with for any aliens that we might encounter either through time travel or via relativistic means?
User avatar
Euclid
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:32 am
Location: Beaumont Texas (USA)

Re: yankees

Postby Geosphere » Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:21 pm

Euclid wrote:what sort of clever name could we come up with for any aliens that we might encounter either through time travel or via relativistic means?


I propose: HOLYCRAPITSFREAKINTIMEALIENS.

Of course, at least, that's what they would be called when first encountered.
Geosphere
Trionian
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: ny

Postby jinydu » Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:15 am

Let me try to make this clear: There is no universal reference frame! Therefore, you CANNOT say that length actually contracts and that it is only your measurements that are going wrong!

It may be helpful to think about it this way. Suppose you are in a car, travelling down a road. Your speedometer says that you are traveling at say, 20 m/s. "Common sense" suggests that the ground is stationary while you are moving at 20 m/s. Thus, we think that the ground provides an absolute reference frame. But is this necessarily true?

Suppose were not in a car, but instead a truck. Also, say that the road was perfectly smooth, so that it didn't have any bumps. Further suppose that this is no ordinary truck, but a VERY large truck. In fact, it is so huge that there is an entire society that lives inside the truck. People are born and raised inside this truck. From a very early age, they are taught that the truck is stationary and the Earth is moving backwards from under them.

Say, one day, this truck happens to pass by your home and you decide to talk with one of the people on the truck (call him T). You tell T that you are stationary while he is moving forward. T disagrees: He says that he is stationary while you are moving backward. Trying to prove him wrong, you tell him to drop a ball. You observe the ball moving in a parabola. Triumphantly, you tell T: "See, the ball moved in a parabola, therefore you are moving.". He replies "No, I saw the ball move in a straight line downwards. How about you try dropping a ball." This time, you claim that the ball moved in a straight line downwards while he claims that it moved in a parabola. According to the Special Theory of Relativity (SR), there is NO experiment that will prove either you or T wrong.

To see this more clearly, imagine two spaceships, X and Y. If X says that Y is moving in a particular direction with speed v, Y will say that X is moving in the opposite direction with speed v. How are we to decide who is correct? If you say X is right and Y is wrong, can you give a reason? If you say Y is right and X is wrong, can you give a reason? If you say that both are wrong and appeal to some special reference frame (Z), what should Z be? You may claim that Z should be space itself. But in order to observe space, you need an observer (call it O). Furthermore, either X or Y will claim that O is moving, and hence O will not correctly determine Z. Once again, you are caught in the same conundrum.

SR provides a way out of the problem: Abandon the notion of an absolute reference frame. That is, it is meaningless to ask whether a particular object is moving or stationary, because there is no universal "judge" to decide. Now, SR does show that our measurements of an object's mass and length (in the direction of relative motion) do depend on the object's relative velocity. But because there is no absolute reference frame, it is incorrect to say that travelling near the speed of light will make you see wrong length and wrong mass because:

1) There is no universal judge to say that you are travelling near the speed of light.

2) There is no universal judge to say that you are measuring the wrong length.

3) There is no universal judge to say that you are measuring the wrong mass.

In short, there is NO ONE correct value of an object's velocity, length or mass.

What SR does allow you to do is predict what particular reference frames will observe.

Furthermore, arsenic said that:

"Eientien has created spacial relative theory
and the theory is about light because human use light to see things "

This is also incorrect. SR does give light (or more precisely, electromagnetic radiation) a "special" status, in that all non-accelerating observers will observe light as moving at the same speed. However, electromagnetic radiation has this special status NOT because humans use it to see things, but rather because of Maxwell's Theory. Maxwell's Theory predicts that electromagnetic waves are measured to have the same speed by all non-accelerating observers. The reason for this is (I think) buried deep inside Maxwell's Theory. But it is this prediction that gives electromagnetic radiation its special status. Therefore, if a blind but non-deaf person will NOT come up with a theory (at least not an accurate theory) where sound is given the same status because sound does not have this same property of speed constancy. That is, if you run away from a sound source, will WILL measure the speed of sound to be lower than normal, while if you run away from a light source, you WILL NOT measure the speed of light to be lower than normal.

Please remember that "It is impossible to reach the speed of light." is NOT a postulate of SR (i.e. it is not assumed). Instead, it is proven from more basic assumptions.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

time aliens

Postby mghtymoop » Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:12 am

could use tempora, thus a pun on the word temporal and japanese deep fried fish :D, or dims
meet the dragon
stand together
feel the fire
blame the weather
mghtymoop
Dionian
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:19 am

Postby big_pappa_smurf » Mon Sep 27, 2004 12:21 pm

I think that a large number of posts are missing the point.
The question is,
What makes light any different than, for example, sound?
The sound barrier has been broken, why should the light barrier be any different? Surely light is simply our perception of the fastest speed because its the fastest thing WE see. check my post "Light speed (and faster)".
User avatar
big_pappa_smurf
Mononian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Cornwall, G.B.

Postby Keiji » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:18 pm

Photons have no mass which is why they travel at the speed of light. The more mass you have the more force you need to accelerate. Since photons have zero mass, they can accelerate with zero force.
User avatar
Keiji
Administrator
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

Postby jinydu » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:50 pm

big_pappa_smurf wrote:I think that a large number of posts are missing the point.
The question is,
What makes light any different than, for example, sound?
The sound barrier has been broken, why should the light barrier be any different? Surely light is simply our perception of the fastest speed because its the fastest thing WE see. check my post "Light speed (and faster)".


The difference between light, and say sound, is that the speed of light is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the relative motion of the source and observer. This is not the case with sound. If you are approaching the sound source, you will measure a higher speed; and if you are receding from the sound source, you will measure a lower speed. However, you will always measure the same speed for light, no matter the relative motion. Using this principle, plus the principle of relativity (all inertial reference frames are equally valid) and the law of conservation of momentum, it is possible to show that the observed mass of a particle approaches infinity as its observed speed approaches the speed of light.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:53 pm

What makes light any different than, for example, sound?


I think someone said it in their post already, but to get it right out in the open on its own line...

Light is different than sound (and most other things) because it is information transferred by a massless particle (the photon) and special relativity requires that all massless particles travel at the speed of light regardless of reference frame (so long as there's no acceleration in that frame).
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Wed Feb 16, 2005 10:41 pm

there is a man i dont know if any of you heird of him though but he found lare flaws with einstines thiory his name is "steven rado" and he sent his thiorys to some place and they are now accsepting his thory over einstines
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Postby jinydu » Thu Feb 17, 2005 3:41 am

3l3ctr0 wrote:there is a man i dont know if any of you heird of him though but he found lare flaws with einstines thiory his name is "steven rado" and he sent his thiorys to some place and they are now accsepting his thory over einstines


I've never heard of him. Certainly, everything I've read says that General Relativity is well established. Although some expect it must eventually break down, currently there are no confirmed experiments that have contradicted General Relativity.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby houserichichi » Thu Feb 17, 2005 6:12 am

Rado's work theorizes the existence of the aether, again. Here's his main page: http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: time aliens

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 5:19 am

mghtymoop wrote:could use tempora, thus a pun on the word temporal and japanese deep fried fish :D, or dims


Hey, don't knock tempura... although, that was funny... I'll give that to you... I'll let this slide. lol
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 5:22 am

bobxp wrote:Photons have no mass which is why they travel at the speed of light. The more mass you have the more force you need to accelerate. Since photons have zero mass, they can accelerate with zero force.



I have my own theories about that... now, since I don't know if anyone has claimed these theories as their own, I will assume that they are mine for now. See my post under "Light Speed (and faster)" for more.
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am


Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron