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.

 

A Question About Relativity

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
People here seem a bit anti-"thought experiment." As I understand it, the subject matter of this thread, the General Theory of Relativity, was mostly founded on thought experiments. Scientists of the early 20th century didn't have the resources to test out Einstein's theories.




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
My only error here is not being able to explain myself effectively enough...

my premise is based on the original thought experiment and not based on the physics that exist in our everyday experience of the world today.

The reason I attempted to use the solar system as a thought experiment is to point out that we are talking about mass here and therefore Gravity.

If the sphere in the original posters thought experiment were ever able to reach the speed of light (Which we all know is imposable) then the centre of the Sphere would be far more dense increasing in magnitude the faster it went... this would literally wrench and twist Space-Time and so you would end up with a kind of whirl pool effect where the centre of the Sphere was spinning faster.

This cannot BE disputed!! It is a scientific fact. If normal physics were to prevail in the extreme conditions we are talking about then there would be balance and Singularities could not exist, there would be NO rotating black holes in our universe.

Why is it when someone says it cannot be disputed you always get people who want to dispute???

My only error here is not being able to explain myself effectively enough...

my premise is based on the original thought experiment and not based on the physics that exist in our everyday experience of the world today.

The reason I attempted to use the solar system as a thought experiment is to point out that we are talking about mass here and therefore Gravity I.E the Geodetic Effect.

If the sphere in the original posters thought experiment were ever able to reach the speed of light (Which we all know is imposable) then the centre of the Sphere would be far more dense increasing in magnitude the faster it went... this would literally wrench and twist Space-Time and so you would end up with a kind of whirl pool effect where the centre of the Sphere was spinning faster.

This cannot BE disputed!! It is a scientific fact. If normal physics were to prevail in the extreme conditions we are talking about then there would be balance and Singularities could not exist, there would be NO rotating black holes in our universe.

Why is it when someone says it cannot be disputed you always get people who want to dispute???

Follow the link below:

Black Hole Basics

Gravity Probe B

NeoN HaZe..

And this time let's have a little less negativity o.k.??



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   


I'm not seriously thinking about constructing such a pole. I just find it easier to understand a problem if I can visualize it.


When I read the beginning of your first post, I thought you were going to suggest spinning the pole at some rate, such that the end would be moving faster than the speed of light, and we could talk about how you can't make an unbendable pole, but I guess compressibility works too



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Jaxle wins because he mentioned MXC


Neon, nobody argued that the ball would twist space-time. It was all the other stuff we had a (legitamite) problem with.


Light is an oscillation in an electromagnetic field, and needs no medium to travel through. Hence, speed of light in a vacuum. Light travels slower in mediums (air, water, 6 tons of iron, etc.)

The problem with the pole is that even though most things happen in an instant, that instant is actually a quantifiable time which amounts to a lot over a long distance. (and yes, I recognized the intended significance of the distance)



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I forgot about this thread ... it's a good subject, lets bring it back to life.


So far we have some good theories regaurding the consistancy and atomic mechanics of the ball, but what would the observers percieve? Especially if the ball continually accelerated past the speed of light ... would the observers see the ball fly back through time before they set the experiment up in the first place?

In my humble opinion I believe Einsteins theory, while genius, is partly flawed.



posted on Sep, 27 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grey
In my humble opinion I believe Einsteins theory, while genius, is partly flawed.


I agree with you on this.

I know absolutely nothing about physics, but can anyone explain to me why "the speed of light" is such an important thing?

It is just a number.

670,616,629.384 miles per hour.... big deal... that just happens to be how fast a partical of light or whatever you call it can travel... so tell me why an object can't go 680,000,000,000 miles per hour.

Einstien's theory is just that... a theory.

Just because we are not aware today of anything that can go 680,000,000,000 miles per hour means it is impossible? Maybe we just don't have the technology yet to make something go this fast or to see things that can already travel that fast.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Einstein proposes that when an object approaches that speed, time slows down. As you would have it, theoretically he postulates that when an object breaches that speed, time would go in reverse. That's why, Craig, that theoretically nothing can go past that speed, while flowing forward through time.. Which brings me back to one of the questions of my post, if a spherical ball with an infinite amount of energy, infinately fixated on a specific point, were to meet and breach the speed of light ... what would happen to the ball?

I think to the observer it would just fade out of existance, and if Einstein was correct, it would flow backward through time ...

Which brings us to the paradox, would us as the observers, see the ball before we set up the experiment?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey
theoretically he postulates that when an object breaches that speed, time would go in reverse. That's why, Craig, that theoretically nothing can go past that speed


So then I guess my question is, why did Einstien pick that particular speed (670,616,629.384 miles per hour) as his theoretical speed at which time slows down?

Why not 50 miles per hour less or 1,000,000 miles per hour more?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by Grey
In my humble opinion I believe Einsteins theory, while genius, is partly flawed.
...

Einstien him self said the theory was flawed.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732

Originally posted by Grey
theoretically he postulates that when an object breaches that speed, time would go in reverse. That's why, Craig, that theoretically nothing can go past that speed


So then I guess my question is, why did Einstien pick that particular speed (670,616,629.384 miles per hour) as his theoretical speed at which time slows down?

Why not 50 miles per hour less or 1,000,000 miles per hour more?

He chose that number because he measured it. Light is labled a constant becasue no matter what speed you travel at in the same direction as light, light still travles its speed away from you. (There are alot of other points in this thread I would like to discuse but, I don't havr time now.)




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join