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.

 

Questions on General Relativity

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
I was doing some research on faster than light propulsion (Science Fiction-ish research) and I came across this GREAT SITE that explained a whole manner of sci-fi mistakes that authors sometimes make when writing futurish technology.

www.projectrho.com...

when I stumbled upon this little tidbit of information:


www.projectrho.com...


Relativity proves that FTL travel is identical to Time travel (to help your research, the technical term for time travel is "Closed timelike curve")


And I couldn't for the life of me understand *WHY* the speed of light is the same in all reference frames...

Or why faster than light travel = time travel.

Anyone have any insight on this one?

-Edrick


Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Isomorphism Range
What is the complete natural range in terms of temperature or particle density.

Through the theory of Electric Polarization of quintessential gravidic poles the isomorphic ionic lattice of any atomically weighted molecule. of any form of magnetic oxide(solution with the ability to hold a electron charge).

Using Spacial Dynamics one can pick apart the t1(longitudinal paramagnetic relaxation time) and t2(transerverse paramagnetic relaxation time) lattice inversion layer matrix t21(cross-relaxation time).

You can go as fast or as slow as you want to go size is porportional at a

Zeeman levels vs. applied magnetic field H0 in the case S=1/2, I=1/2. We denote by ve and vn the frequencies of the microwave and radio frequency feilds both of which are perpendincular to H0. If we seep the field H0 through value H1 we will induce the electronic transitions M = -1/2, m= 1/2
>< M= 1/2 m 1/2. If we do this under adiabatic fast-passage conditions, the electronic magnetization vector will be turned through at least 180degrees which causes reversal.

You can go as fast as you want depending on how small you are. A particle is a fixed size a particulate however can be any size. The smaller you are the faster you can go as much as up to 100 trillion parces per second enough speed to pretty much ocupy any point in the universe instantly. The reason particulates havent been seen yet is because they go faster than light and are smaller than light particles and there just is no technology to be able to see them. You cannot view particulates with light particles even in an a atom smasher because the light particles would go through particulates like a strainer it would be like they werent even there to be viewed.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
That site you referenced is really intresting, I had no idea that sci fi writers research there story's that much. Ok now for your question I cant really grasp in what context your asking it but, But light is relative to time because both of them are persived only through the human mind, and only one of them is constant. I think what the maker of that site is trying to do is find some way to get humans from point a to point b while still retaining the human shape and paterns intact, so he is trying to get to the speed of light on a ship without becoming light. And this is were he gives me headaches because he says that the universe is not an ocean, But he want's to get around in it by submarine space technology, you know 'spam in a can' sent into space like nasa does. I cant really get the point of that, So I guess it comes down to if light particles travel in waves from place to place, in a ocean of unknown matter, therefore light is the boat, and those that perceive it are destinations.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
So if light is constant it exists on some plain of reality that all can grasp and is constant in form. But time being a human invention does not exist outside of the human mind because its relative to were you are in space by what you define as existance, and since it was created to keep track of all individual conscience, it will always be relative to all that persive it in relation to other conciences that persive it. So if you go faster then light you dont step outside of time and time travel, light and time are two different things, the hardware and the software, And how can you travel back in to something that is relative and does not exist as a constant. I know how you can go forward in time we all do it but how can you go back into something that does not exist as a constant, the past. Oh man this is making me sleepy.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Light is not constant in form, it is constant in speed.

The reason why is because if light were not constant in speed, Maxwell's Equations would have to change in different reference frames,.and this means that the laws of physics would change in all reference frames, and this is not the case.

Time is a human invention yes, but by defining time as linear, it can be used as a fourth dimension in relativity in conjunction with Riemannian Geometry, and hence, the Einstein equations.

So in addition to where something happens in 3 spatial dimensions, we have a temporal dimension to define an event. If there was no time dimension then all events would happen simultaneously.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Ok I still dont get how it can be constant, in speed but not in form. I looked at those theories that you wrote but im not a math guy and the symbolism they use would take me weeks or months learn, so im not going to do that. Can you explain if you can how can it be the same in speed but not form. Just in basic layman.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
There are 4 equations that are known as Maxwell's equations - actually they are not really Maxwell's, all Maxwell did was add a term to Ampere's law...

1) Gauss' Law (for electric fields) which describes the electric flux in relation to a closed (Gaussian) surface around an electric charge, basically showing how an electric charge generates electric fields.

2) Gauss' Law for magnetism just shows that there are no magnetic monopoles like their are single electric charges, basically a magnet always has a north and south pole, never just a north pole or a south pole.

3) Faraday's law which describes how a changing magnetic field induces an electric field.

4) Ampere's law (with Maxwell's term) which describes how a magnetic field can be generated by electric current (moving charges) or by changing electric fields (which was what Maxwell added).

Okay, now, light is electromagnetic radiation, it is generated by an accelerating charge and is really alternating electric fields and magnetic fields at right angles to each other, which are of course described by Maxwell's equations. In the equations we find some common constants: (epsilon) sub 0 which is the vacuum permittivity of space (the electric constant) and (mu) sub 0 which is the vacuum permeability of free space (the magnetic constant). What does this have to do with the speed of light?

Well c = sqrt( 1/EoMo) where I used Eo as the electric constant and Mo as the magnetic constant.

So Maxwell's equations depend on c, the speed of light, which is equal to the inverse square root of to 2 CONSTANTS - which never change, they are always measured to be constant.

Now this constancy is demonstrated in experiments - if we were going to measure an electric or a magnetic field here on earth in a lab we would use the laws of physics - Maxwell's equations. Now what happens if we try to measure the same electric or magnetic fields in a lab that is moving relative to the earth?

Well, if the speed of light is not constant than there would be differences. This is not the case though. We know that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. So the only other option at hand is that light is constant, the permittivity and permeability constants are just that - constants...

So now to your other question...

First, I assume by form you mean shape- which is described in our world by 3 spatial dimensions. So if we are going to assume light DOES have a form, we are going to assume that here in our reality it takes a 3D form...

What is the form of light? Is light a bunch of alternating electric and magnetic fields, a bunch of waves, a bunch of particles, or both a bunch of waves and particles - wavicles?

Well the truth is all of these forms are used in different instances. However, we cannot know if the actual form of light is all these forms simultaneously, or just one because:

Light is ENERGY- and we do not even know what ENERGY IS!! They know how to describe the their casual observations of energy manifested in its numerous forms, but scientists do not know what energy is at its fundamental, inner nature. (Same with forces - I was arguing about this in the Can Science explain NDEs? thread).

So really, we can't say for sure if the form of light changes from one to the other, and back again but energy can definitely change into multiple forms - hence light energy, mechanical energy, thermal energy, etc.


And then what happens the form of light in higher dimensions?

You know, there is an interesting theory that talks about light and the 5th dimension - it's called Kaluza-Klein Theory, and this theory was later manipulated and expanded upon to come up with String Theory... It's all pretty interesting but I don't really know yet what I think about this. Let's not start talking about that now though, I wont be able to get my work done.. Just thinking you might find it interesting with the whole talk about light and forms and such....



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
By the way, I thought maybe you should also know that "fields" are really mathematical constructions that help define and describe forces. Some physicists, especially the Standard Model religious enthusiasts like to say fields do not exist and that forces really arise from "virtual particle exchanges" - however I call BS on this.

First, of all - mathematical constructions usually are found to be real physical phenomena. For example, take the vector potential of classical mechanics - they used it for a long time just as a mathematical construction, but never thought it was a real thing until they discovered the Aharanov-Bohm effect.

Second, they are only talking about virtual particle exchanges being the root of forces because they are trying real,real hard to unite quantum mechanics and relativity - so they come up with gravitons and *light bulb* they say they solved it - but in reality they are just trying to sloppily fill in the holes of their messy physics (and trust me the Standard Model is messy- it is not nearly as nice, neat, and symmetric, as they think).

See, there is a problem in physics - it may be a major problem, or it may be a very insignificant one, but the truth is that THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG SOMEWHERE!! People need to stop trying to ignore this problem by covering it up with bandaids, and instead - find the problem, and SOLVE IT! I mean come on, this is what physicists do!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Thanks for the reply im sure this stuff is going to give me a headache if I dwell on it to much. But you gave me something to think on. Im not sure if I should thank you. but thanks.



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
It's not an easy concept to grasp, and everyone gets their insights a different way.

Interestingly, I studied physics and theoretical physics for years and gave all the right answers on tests, but I didn't fully grasp why intuitively like Einstein did until years later, and the key for me was in understanding how and why the Doppler effect is present with light as well as sound. Check out this video around 2m45s for the Doppler effect when the model plane passes by:



When you REALLY understand the Doppler effect, and how and why sound waves do that, it will give you tremendous insights into understanding the speed of light, how it can be constant in different reference frames, etc. At least it did for me. It also helped me to understand the time dilation effect better when traveling at relativistic velocities.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 5 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
With things like baseballs and bullets if you add relative velocity to their source their own velocity increases. Throw a baseball from a speeding train to someone on the ground and to the catcher it will seem as if the energy of the moving train has increased the speed at which the ball was thrown.

For things like light waves and sound waves it works differently. Rather than add to the 'speed' it adds to the amplitude. There will seem to be more energy to the observer off the train but not in the velocity, but in the frequency of the wave. As the plane moves twords the microphone a higher pitch is heard and a lower one as the plane moves away.




[edit on 5-4-2010 by garritynet]

[edit on 5-4-2010 by garritynet]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join