It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 33
74
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
amusing,
the only thing both of you think you know is what ever link you click on and closely plagiarize and call it a summary in your own words using your own mind.
let alone understanding any of it and what einstein states, or what other pieces are involved.
again,
i do not need a basic physics lesson.
especially a lack of comprehension one.


Mmm...Ok. Maybe I'm not getting what you are saying. So instead of insulting me (something I haven NOT done to you -- in fact I think I've been very cordial toward you, and so has dragonridr), please explain how this statement by you can be reconciled with the concept of time dilation?:

imagine if a mirror and i (mirror point at me) are traveling at the speed of light
both traveling the same speed of light, the light never reaches the mirror.
so would i be invisible ?


According to the concept of time dilation, if you move at 99.999999% of the speed of light, then from your frame of reference, light would appear to travel from you to the mirror at the universal-constant-speed-of-light. It would not seem that the mirror was moving out ahead of the light, because your frame of reference relative to the someone else who was not moving with you would be moving very slowly.

Or, are you saying it won't? Are you saying that the light (relative to your frame of reference) would seem to take a very long time to reach the mirror, because the mirror is moving so fast ahead of the light? That's the part of your post that I'm not getting.

Please clarify (and without getting all "huffy" and defensive).


edit on 8/13/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
amusing,
the only thing both of you think you know is what ever link you click on and closely plagiarize and call it a summary in your own words using your own mind.
let alone understanding any of it and what einstein states, or what other pieces are involved.
again,
i do not need a basic physics lesson.
especially a lack of comprehension one.


Dont need a link but if you like i can find you some that explain time dilation and why light travels in a straight line. See the fact that they teach this is 4th grade science tells me you needs someone to explain physics despite your assurances otherwise. Here are some simple experiments done by a 4th grade class.


www.slideshare.net...

PS just thought id tell you usually when people go to insults it just shows a lack of understanding of the subject. Just because you were wrong its ok everyone makes mistakes the trick is to realize it and move on instead of beating a dead horse.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
amusing,
the only thing both of you think you know is what ever link you click on and closely plagiarize and call it a summary in your own words using your own mind.
let alone understanding any of it and what einstein states, or what other pieces are involved.
again,
i do not need a basic physics lesson.
especially a lack of comprehension one.


I agree !
some people just never see the picture.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
dragonridr,
you have shown (to me at least) that you do not understand faraday's nor einstein's work.
and any other fields of physics that pertain to,including high and low energy states(matter)(mediums).

you can attempt a flawed interpretation all you want about me ( " Just because you were wrong " )
but to me you're obvious.
the typical want to be intellect/scientist.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

What 'dragonridr' said is correct. You (krash661) seem to be forgetting time dilation

First of all, according to Einstein, you (or anything with mass) can't move AT the speed of light, because an infinite amount of energy would be needed to get you moving that fast. So, instead, let's say you were moving at 99.999999% of the speed of light.

Back to time dilation...
According to Einstein and the theory of relativity, time for you would move more slowly as you approached the speed of light, and that difference in time would make up the difference in how long it takes for your light to reach the mirror.

So to other people outside your frame of reference, it would take a long time before your light reached the mirror. However, within your 99.999999% speed of light frame of reference, time is moving very slowly, so you think your light reaches the mirror at the normal speed-of-light amount of time.

That's relativity, and that's time dilation.


how about two observers, A and B
separated by a distance T that grows +T/2 in second
what is the velocity ? 1/2 T in second, right ?
and which one is moving ??

please explain, or are you suggesting everything moves in some stationary reference frame, like an eather ??

all relative, right ?
lets see

A is the stationary observer and B is moving.
A sees B time going slower, right ?
what is B seeing ?
to observer B, A is moving and its time is going slower.
what time is it ??
relative, right ?

BTW: how do you measure time on an moving object separated by a changing distance?
all you could do is to receive some information from that moving object,
an impulse of light for example.

so how is it surprising the impulse comes with a delay if that object moves away.

What if that objects distance decreases -t/2 in second ?

time dilation is this formula

Δt' = Δt/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))

v^2 takes away the directionality
the same way a photon (point squired wave length) constructs uncertainty relation where is non.
edit on 13-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Wow your bad at math oh and thats not the equation for time dilation it is t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 . or simplified time = to/(1- (v)2/c2)1/2 then you take t = t0/(1- v^2)1/2 then time = to/ (answer) and you get an answer of time dilation .

t0 = time in observers own frame of reference (rest time)

v = the speed of the moving object

c = the speed of light in a vacuum 299,792,458 meters per second

So lets say you were leaving at .95c and you traveled for 10 years keeping the math simple and using .95c because as the chart shows until .9c time dilation is minor.
t = 10/(1- (.95c)2/c2)1/2

t = 10/(1- .952)1/2

t = 10/ .312

t = 32 years

So upon your return 32 years would pass for someone on earth while only 10 for you. Now doesnt matter in the least if the your frame of reference is moving or standing still as i explained earlier. To you it will seem you are standing still and the other person is moving. So it doesnt change the speed of light in your reference frame period. See you have to look at it from one observer as they say you cant be into places at once.Heres a graph some people are more visual.



edit on 8/13/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
how about two observers, A and B
separated by a distance T that grows +T/2 in second
what is the velocity ? 1/2 T in second, right ?
and which one is moving ??

please explain, or are you suggesting everything moves in some stationary reference frame, like an eather ??

all relative, right ?
lets see

A is the stationary observer and B is moving.
A sees B time going slower, right ?
what is B seeing ?
to observer B, A is moving and its time is going slower.
what time is it ??
relative, right ?


No. There is no set "stationary frame of reference/aether". That's the point.

Say, for example, two spacecraft (A and B) were in a deep void in space with nothing else visible around them -- i.e., no points of reference except each other.

Now, consider that the distance between spacecraft A and spacecraft B is increasing at the rate of 50% light speed. That motion could be looked at several ways. One way to look at it would be to say that spacecraft A is sitting still, while spacecraft B is moving away from it at 50% light speed. Or, maybe you could say that spacecraft B is sitting still, and spacecraft A is moving away from it at 50% light speed. Or maybe you could say that they are both moving away from each other at some combination of speeds that , when summed together, makes it seem that they are moving away from each other at 50% light speed...

...Heck -- you could even say both were traveling the same direction, but spacecraft A is moving 75% light speed while spacecraft B is moving only 25% light speed. Even in that case, the people on spacecraft B could say they were sitting still while spacecraft A moved away from them at 50% light speed.

Which of those measurement are correct? They all are correct. There is no universal point of reference; there is nothing in the universe that could be said to be sitting still for us to gauge all motion against. It is just as valid for spacecraft A to say "B" is moving as it would be for "B" to say "A"was moving.

The Milky Way Galaxy and some far off galaxy on the other side of the known universe are is moving in some direction away from each other at fantastic speeds, so (relative to each other), each galaxy is experiencing the rate of time passing differently. Whose time frame is correct -- ours or theirs? Both of our time frames are correct, because there is no set "center stationary reference point" of the universe.

Everything in the entire universe moves relative to everything else. We could claim we are sitting still and they are moving away from us, and they could claim THEY are sitting still and we are moving away from them. We would both be right.

Because of time dilation, light will always moving at the same constant speed to two people measuring it, even if those people are moving at different speeds themselves relative to each other.



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: krash661
but the waves/particles themselves haven't spread out, if that makes any sense.
of course the wave packet / particles have spread out and that is what I am trying to convey.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: KrzYma

Wow your bad at math oh and thats not the equation for time dilation it is t = t0/(1-v^2/c^2)1/2 . or simplified time = to/(1- (v)2/c2)1/2 then you take t = t0/(1- v^2)1/2 then time = to/ (answer) and you get an answer of time dilation .

t0 = time in observers own frame of reference (rest time)

v = the speed of the moving object

c = the speed of light in a vacuum 299,792,458 meters per second

So lets say you were leaving at .95c and you traveled for 10 years keeping the math simple and using .95c because as the chart shows until .9c time dilation is minor.
t = 10/(1- (.95c)2/c2)1/2

t = 10/(1- .952)1/2

t = 10/ .312

t = 32 years

So upon your return 32 years would pass for someone on earth while only 10 for you. Now doesnt matter in the least if the your frame of reference is moving or standing still as i explained earlier. To you it will seem you are standing still and the other person is moving. So it doesnt change the speed of light in your reference frame period. See you have to look at it from one observer as they say you cant be into places at once.Heres a graph some people are more visual.




WOW , you boring be !!
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: KrzYma
how about two observers, A and B
separated by a distance T that grows +T/2 in second
what is the velocity ? 1/2 T in second, right ?
and which one is moving ??

please explain, or are you suggesting everything moves in some stationary reference frame, like an eather ??

all relative, right ?
lets see

A is the stationary observer and B is moving.
A sees B time going slower, right ?
what is B seeing ?
to observer B, A is moving and its time is going slower.
what time is it ??
relative, right ?


No. There is no set "stationary frame of reference/aether". That's the point.

Say, for example, two spacecraft (A and B) were in a deep void in space with nothing else visible around them -- i.e., no points of reference except each other.

Now, consider that the distance between spacecraft A and spacecraft B is increasing at the rate of 50% light speed. That motion could be looked at several ways. One way to look at it would be to say that spacecraft A is sitting still, while spacecraft B is moving away from it at 50% light speed. Or, maybe you could say that spacecraft B is sitting still, and spacecraft A is moving away from it at 50% light speed. Or maybe you could say that they are both moving away from each other at some combination of speeds that , when summed together, makes it seem that they are moving away from each other at 50% light speed...

...Heck -- you could even say both were traveling the same direction, but spacecraft A is moving 75% light speed while spacecraft B is moving only 25% light speed. Even in that case, the people on spacecraft B could say they were sitting still while spacecraft A moved away from them at 50% light speed.

Which of those measurement are correct? They all are correct. There is no universal point of reference; there is nothing in the universe that could be said to be sitting still for us to gauge all motion against. It is just as valid for spacecraft A to say "B" is moving as it would be for "B" to say "A"was moving.

The Milky Way Galaxy and some far off galaxy on the other side of the known universe are is moving in some direction away from each other at fantastic speeds, so (relative to each other), each galaxy is experiencing the rate of time passing differently. Whose time frame is correct -- ours or theirs? Both of our time frames are correct, because there is no set "center stationary reference point" of the universe.

Everything in the entire universe moves relative to everything else. We could claim we are sitting still and they are moving away from us, and they could claim THEY are sitting still and we are moving away from them. We would both be right.

Because of time dilation, light will always moving at the same constant speed to two people measuring it, even if those people are moving at different speeds themselves relative to each other.



nice that you are repeating just what I have said...

but look, you said...


...Heck -- you could even say both were traveling the same direction, but spacecraft A is moving 75% light speed while spacecraft B is moving only 25% light speed. Even in that case, the people on spacecraft B could say they were sitting still while spacecraft A moved away from them at 50% light speed.


how does A move with 75% of light speed ??
relative to what??
to speed of light ? BS !!

it still moves 50% of light speed relative to B like you said
and A(as a system) has internal speed of light always C - according to relativity !

what you are saying is YOU are C, new observer looking at A and B.
But the problem contains A and B only in the beginning, there is no observer outside...



edit on 14-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: krash661
but the waves/particles themselves haven't spread out, if that makes any sense.
of course the wave packet / particles have spread out and that is what I am trying to convey.
funny already happened twice the quote part mysteriously disappears after appearing correct soon after posting. Pfffft, whatever



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
one can charge for such entertainment.



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: krash661
one can charge for such entertainment.
Lol I can spare 50 cents



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: krash661
one can charge for such entertainment.
Lol I can spare 50 cents

i was referring to others lack of comprehension and knowledge of this subject, or basic physics in general
it's completely comical of the misinformation, lack of understanding, that one can charge for it in comparison of a comedy show.
like a silent black and white comedy short.
edit on 14-8-2014 by krash661 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: krash661

care to add anything to the discussions? or just intent to troll playing the role of a physics prophet?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

but look, you said...


...Heck -- you could even say both were traveling the same direction, but spacecraft A is moving 75% light speed while spacecraft B is moving only 25% light speed. Even in that case, the people on spacecraft B could say they were sitting still while spacecraft A moved away from them at 50% light speed.


how does A move with 75% of light speed ??
relative to what??
to speed of light ? BS !!

it still moves 50% of light speed relative to B like you said
and A(as a system) has internal speed of light always C - according to relativity !

what you are saying is YOU are C, new observer looking at A and B.
But the problem contains A and B only in the beginning, there is no observer outside...


If A and B were both first "sitting still" (or what they consider sitting still), and then "A" went 75% of the speed of light, and "B" went 25% the speed of light (or those fractions of the speed of light that they measured from the time frame generated from their "still" positions)...

...AND THEN if someone on spacecraft B who wasn't privy to the information that both ships began this motion looked at the situation, that person could validly say that spacecraft B could be considered to be sitting still while spacecraft A was moving away at 50% light speed.

That's because, as you say, there is not other frame of reference to gauge their motion. It's all just relative (and it's all just relativity).


edit on 8/14/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/14/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This subject of general interrelated topics in physics became the topic of another thread where it wasn't the original topic, so I thought it might be a good idea to continue the discussion in this thread where it will be on-topic. Here is the previous thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The current topic is about quantum mechanics (QM), and whether this quantum mechanical model is an accurate representation of reality or not, but you don't have to limit questions to this specific part of physics, you can ask any questions in this thread as long as the topic has something to do with physics.

The scientific consensus is that the QM model makes accurate predictions so it's an effective model.
However there is no scientific consensus about the underlying reality of the model. The most popular interpretation is called the "Copenhagen interpretation", but there are others, some of which are discussed in this video:

Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols


I'm not personally a fan of the "Many worlds" interpretation mentioned in that video but even the proponent of that interpretation says the troubling part isn't that scientists don't agree with his favorite, it's that there's no consensus, on ANY of the interpretations.

So as an introduction to this topic of asking questions about physics, I think it's worth noting that as admitted in this video, scientists don't have all the answers and don't claim to. So if your question was, "Which interpretation is correct?", as explained in the video, nobody knows, so not all questions can be answered. We could however discuss things like pros and cons of various options in cases like this.

Some people have the idea that scientists like the implications of QM, but actually it was not accepted with open arms because it doesn't seem compatible with a human sense of logic. One of the founders of quantum mechanics, Erwin Schrodinger said:

www.brainyquote.com...

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.


Most people don't like it when they first learn about it, because the experimental results don't agree with what we think is logical, so we try different versions of the experiments over and over and over again, and they always give us the same results, consistent with QM but not with our human logic. I think most scientists finally accept the experimental results, and that they cannot be explained classically, but some non-scientists like this man with a background in computer software thinks experiments can be explained classically:

Russ Blake Spring Theory HD


What's funny about that lecture is that Feynman said in his lecture that he won't say the universe is like a ball bearing on a spring, because that's not how it is, but essentially Russ Blake says it's like a ball bearing on a spring. If he can prove it I guess he will get a Nobel prize but physics is a complex subject and he's right about at least one thing, which is that if you don't have a degree in physics, the physics community doesn't take your ideas seriously.

But Blake is wrong if he thinks it's about snobbishness, it's not. The reason is that for people like him to think "outside the box", they first have to know what is "inside the box", and that's what a physics degree gives you. There is a whole lot of experimental evidence for what's inside the box, and people unfamiliar with that come up with ideas to solve problems without knowing about experiments that already falsify these ideas.

In spite of his lack of physics degree, the first 10 minutes of the video explaining all the problems with modern physics is actually a fairly accurate description of the major unsolved problems. He would be a hero if he solved even one of them, and apparently he thinks his classical solution solves all of them!?

There's food for thought to get you thinking. Feel free now to ask any physics questions, and hopefully some of the people on ATS who know physics can help answer them.


What is the source of universal gravity? What is the source of the non-decaying spin of the electron?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: krash661

care to add anything to the discussions? or just intent to troll playing the role of a physics prophet?

well if you scroll back a page, you will see.
simple.
but i seriously doubt you would understand any of it.
but i am sure that you will run your mouth with ignorance about it,
just like the other want to be intellects/scientist.
edit on 14-8-2014 by krash661 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: krash661

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: krash661

care to add anything to the discussions? or just intent to troll playing the role of a physics prophet?

well if you scroll back a page, you will see.
simple.
but i seriously doubt you would understand any of it.
but i am sure that you will run your mouth with ignorance about it,
just like the other want to be intellects/scientist.


Who the hell is this guy, and why is it that the only thing he seems to know how to do is insult people?



posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
you call it insults, i call it pointing out the reality.
and also, what i know and understand is probably beyond what you can actually conceive.

all in all, i had enough of this ridiculous thread.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join