Physics

moridin/jam544/(quote)[email protected] ...

"...traveling @ 75% c results in observable solar (planetary) system being 25% smaller..." - hyperbolic functions are involved in this expression, not linear expressions - near c effects only have significant impact AT NEAR C Velocity - "75%" is not considered "close" & there are SERIOUS consequences closely approaching any planetary system at near c velocity, on both planetary bodies & the star(s) ...

[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 16, 2002).]

im talking about the light from the headlights, not from anything else.

------------------
Dual 850MHz Pentium 3's
512MB ECC SDRAM
Abit VP6 (YT Flash)
28GB Seagate 7200RPM UDMA/66
4.3GB IDE Removable IBM Drive
Adaptec 2940U2W SCSI HBA
DDS3 External Backup Device with OBDR
10,000RPM 9.1GB SCSI Ultra2
Asus V8200 Deluxe GF3
Sony 40x24x10 IDE Burner
Pioneer 6x IDE DVD-ROM
SBLive! Value
MGE 800VA UPS

Dedicated to crunching SETI

yes ... the headlamp output is inherently divergent, unless your ford taurus has the optional infinitely coherent headlamps ... then doppler shift backscattering becomes problematic ... of course the "driver's" field-of-vision correspondingly narrows w/ near c & @ c converges to a single point ... what is perpendicular to the body vector? ...

in other words, what is the observer, inside the ford taurus, actually observing? ... or is the relevent/relative frame-of-reference also an option in this ford taurus ...

the "driver" (observer) will continue to observe visible spectral light, albiet of an increasingly greatly distorted composition (exaggerated curved beams, spectral diffraction, etc.) ... the observer outside the ford taurus, nearby, will observe an entirely different light emission, very likely outside the range of normal human vision, but nevertheless observable ...

yes, there will be different observable near c doppler shifts apparent to both the "driver" within the taurus & to the outside, nearby, observer - both will be different near c distorted doppler spectral shifts - & of course there will be near c time perception distortions ...

perhaps it's time to bury this dead horse ...

[This message has been edited by ilkpc's (edited January 16, 2002).]

I'm going to throw this book reference in, just in case anybody is interested in a good read on these subjects:

"Mathematical Invalidity of Relativity (both Special and General)", by Cameron Y. Rebigsol, Vantage Press Inc., NY, 1996.

It proves (in only 91 pages) how these old theories are not only full of problems conceptually, but also suffer catastrophic and irreparable failures within their own mathematical structures, fundamentally. These theories just can't work as they are currently conceived and understood.

Don't believe it? Just check out the book for yourself. Kinda heavy reading, so reserve some "quality" reading time. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

I do not believe science is right https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
I took a history of science class and it makes you think about everything that we "known"

I just like the fact that "science" defines light in two ways to conform to popular theories.
What is it? waves? or packets?
What kind of light are talking about

------------------
Overclocking plan, to equal the power of IBM's ASIC White supercomputer, 13TeraFlops/s

Pspice just doesn't work!

Al Bundy - anyone can write a book about anything. Just because you read it in a book doesn't mean that relativity is false. I have read similarly ludicrous "proof" that evolution is false. So far it has met the test of peer review and experimental observation. The speed of light has been measured thousands of times to an extremely high degree of accuracy and has *NEVER* been found to disagree with relativity. That said, relativity doesn't apply in all cases, ie to the very small - quantum mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by homerj31:
I do not believe science is right https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
I took a history of science class and it makes you think about everything that we "known"

I just like the fact that "science" defines light in two ways to conform to popular theories.
What is it? waves? or packets?
What kind of light are talking about

---

You should have also learned in your science class that the "WAY" we go about doing science is fundamentally different now from the "WAY" science was conducted 500 years ago. In fact, it is not at all incorrect to say that science really didn't exist more than 500 years ago.

I'm speaking of course of the scientific method. People like Aristotle, while smart, did not use the scientific method and because of that their answers were quite often waaaay wrong.

Aristotle belived that all problems could be figured out through pure thought (as opposed to observation and experimentation). I read that once he postulated that a fly should have 4 legs like a table since that is all it needs to stand. It never even occurrred to him to look at a fly to see for sure.

Science was also hindered by religion (and still is in many ways).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
I would say yes because when you traveled the speed of light to a planet and came back, you would be the same age as when you left. I believe that this is known as the twins paradox.

Edit
Except when you came back everyone you knew would be dead.

---

The "Paradox" of this is not the fact that one has aged. The paradox arises because Einstein (he came up with the Paradox :P) thought of it in two ways. From the point of view of the twin on Earth watching the spaceship go away, the spaceship would be travelling away at the speed of light (or close to)... so time would progress normally for the twin on Earth. So, when the spaceship comes back, the twin on the spaceship should be significantly younger than the twin on Earth.

However, Einstein also thought: what if the spacecraft was maintaining a constant velocity? Wouldn't that mean, from the point of view of the twin on the ship, that it was indeed the Earth that was travelling away from the ship at the speed of light (or close to)? Then, time should theoretically pass normally for the twin on the ship and the twin on Earth should be significantly younger when the Earth "came back".

Hence, the Twin Paradox. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif
------------------
AMD 1.333 gHz 266 FSB
Lian Li Case
300W PSU
Asus A7A266
512 MB Crucial DDR RAM
Asus V8200 Deluxe Geforce 3 64 MB
2 60 GB Quantum Fireballs
16X Pioneer DVD-ROM
Plextor 12X10X32 CDRW
Soundblaster Live! X-Gamer 5.1
Cambridge Soundworks DTT3500 Digital Speakers
Viewsonic PF790 19' Flat Screen CRT
Microsoft Optical Mouse
Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite Pro
Logitech Rumblepad USB

[This message has been edited by Sparky_D (edited January 17, 2002).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by russ_watters:
Al Bundy - anyone can write a book about anything. Just because you read it in a book doesn't mean that relativity is false... The speed of light has been measured thousands of times to an extremely high degree of accuracy and has *NEVER* been found to disagree with relativity...

---

russ_watters, note that the subject of the book isn't regarding the value of the speed of light in a vacuum at all - rather, it supplies several mathematical proofs of the mathematical invalidity of relativity theory itself. Remember that mathematics (which is known as "the language of science") is the one pure science that all client science disciplines stand upon. The proofs of mathematics are rigorously demonstrated and can be checked entirely and conclusively. The fact is that the mathematical basis of relativity theory, upon further investigation and research, has been found to contain several irrefutable and irreparable mathematical contradictions. When that happens, it is a devastating situation indeed for any scientific model - particularly those in mathematical physics.

I suggest that you might actually read the book, before criticizing or dismissing it in advance. It is in fact making quite an impact within scientific and academic circles, and has so far passed the harsh test of peer review. We should trust that mankind still has an awful lot to learn about nature - thankfully! https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

Edit: Here's an interesting link regarding just how much we all still have to learn about nature: http://www.altenergy.org/3/new_energ...utchinson.html

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited January 22, 2002).]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparky_D:
The "Paradox" of this is not the fact that one has aged. The paradox arises because Einstein (he came up with the Paradox :P) thought of it in two ways. From the point of view of the twin on Earth watching the spaceship go away, the spaceship would be travelling away at the speed of light (or close to)... so time would progress normally for the twin on Earth. So, when the spaceship comes back, the twin on the spaceship should be significantly younger than the twin on Earth.

However, Einstein also thought: what if the spacecraft was maintaining a constant velocity? Wouldn't that mean, from the point of view of the twin on the ship, that it was indeed the Earth that was travelling away from the ship at the speed of light (or close to)? Then, time should theoretically pass normally for the twin on the ship and the twin on Earth should be significantly younger when the Earth "came back".

Hence, the Twin Paradox. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

---

Ah, I see the dilemma.

Using the relativity approach, wouldn't they both be the same age as BOTH of them are travelling near the speed of light with respect to each other?

If that does not cancel the "effect", tell me why not - I need more enlightment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rado:
Ah, I see the dilemma.

Using the relativity approach, wouldn't they both be the same age as BOTH of them are travelling near the speed of light with respect to each other?

If that does not cancel the "effect", tell me why not - I need more enlightment.

---

From the point of the view of the twin on Earth, he/she is stationary. Only the spacecraft is moving away.

From the point of view of the twin on the spaceship, he/she is stationary. Only the Earth is moving away. Hence, there is no "cancelling" effect.


------------------
AMD 1.333 gHz 266 FSB
Lian Li Case
300W PSU
Asus A7A266
512 MB Crucial DDR RAM
Asus V8200 Deluxe Geforce 3 64 MB
2 60 GB Quantum Fireballs
16X Pioneer DVD-ROM
Plextor 12X10X32 CDRW
Soundblaster Live! X-Gamer 5.1
Cambridge Soundworks DTT3500 Digital Speakers
Viewsonic PF790 19' Flat Screen CRT
Microsoft Optical Mouse
Microsoft Natural Keyboard Elite Pro
Logitech Rumblepad USB

The interesting thing about physics is that eventually all old theories are superceeded by more complex / accurate theories eventually. Newtons fundamental laws were once thought to be perfect but in the past 50 or so years they have been shown not to break down when traveling near the speed of light or when dealing with fundamental particles. The same thing will happen with relativity - it will be improved upon.
This is one of the reasons why I do mathematics - once something is prooved, it will never be replaced with something thats "more accurate" (Althrough a "better" proof can sometimes be submitted).

------------------
Life is what happens while we're doing other things!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rado:
Maybe you could ask yourself (the other you who arrived) how the trip was BEFORE starting. https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif

These are the sort of absurdities we run into when time travel is "emulated" in our brains.

---

One of the many problems with having a human brain!!

------------------
Life is what happens while we're doing other things!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:

Pretty weird, but a couple of experiments have confirmed it.

---

That cannot be confirmed at all unless it has actually been done.

The concept has been proven. An astronaut will be younger than if had stayed on earth.

------------------
*Creative Statement*

The speed of light is constant to any observer in any frame of reference. The fact that you are moving 0.99999999 times the speed of light relative to the earth or any other object has no impact on how you see the light from the headlights. It won't be bent, slowed, or otherwise altered.