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.
Originally posted by Anyndur
The part where he says that the lightspeed is a constant, doesn't matter where it is, it will always be the same.
Look this hypothetical situation: if we could, somehow, put a light source to travel at 99% of the lightspeed, and them we could, somehow, watch this light while traveling at the same speed as the light source. Ok so far, according to Einstein, we would see the light at 300,000 km/s. But, at the same time, we have a person observing and measuring the speed of the light generated by the source traveling at 99% of the lightspeed, but he is standing still. There, he would see the source travelling at 99%, and, according to Einstein, the light generated by it would be at 100% the lightspeed. Well, that would be 1% for us who are watching at the same speed that the source. There, the lightspeed wouldn't be a constant.
Originally posted by Chieftian Chaos
And Einstein was a genius...he performed many experiments about Relativity and was pretty accurate in all of them, so I would not doubt him. Hope that clears it up.
.
There are two observers, A and B. A sees B moving away from him with a speed of 0.99c. B emits a beam of light in the direction he is travelling in. According to relativity, both A and B see the light moving with c. However, because B is moving at 0.99c relative to A, A observes the relative speed between the light and B to be 0.01c. This means that for B the speed of light can't be c.
Yeah...
Originally posted by sre2f
You can send a pulse faster then light, just as you can make an electric and magnetic field propogate faster then the speed of light...this does not mean you can transfer information faster then the speed of light.
Originally posted by hanburu_juuboku
I may be out of touch with modern day ideals
First of all math is flawed so you cannot use traditional mathematics to truly understand higher dimensions.
At best we use 2 dimensional math to solve 3 dimensional problems, yet the known universe consists of perhaps 9 to 12 or more dimensions.
To best understand this; imagine that you are a 2 dimensional being and a 3rd dimensional being is trying to explain that the 3rd dimension consists of a finite amount of 2 dimensions stacked up one another.
In such a case time would always flow foward for us thus eliminating paradoxes yet maintaining the concept of a multiverse - (granted that the multiverse is also flawed because if string theory holds true in dictating a sort of universal connection then appearantly there aren't any visible boundries, thus the multiverse is more like a unified verse.
String theory has been replaced by the Brane constructs. As you say, your reading may not be current. (for those not familiar with branes, they're sor of explained for the layman here: www.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de... Don't kid yourself that the theory is as simplistic as the article explains or that the math is doable at a high school level.)
The mistake I see being made on this thread is the lack of understanding that time is not a variable in a problem, time is the solution of the problem, in an essence time is the solver of the problem.
I don't see that. From what I read, time could be a variable in any of the discussions. We just haven't gotten into the hard maths yet.
Congratulations... you got it all completely wrong.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
The simple fact that you can alter the mass of a light wave means there are different "states" of light and therefore the speed of "light" can not be constant. Visible light waves are a small segment of the electromagnetic spectim. Visible "white" light is made up of all specific "colors" of light. It disburses quickly because the "waves" bump into each other. The extention of this is that different "colored" light travels at different speeds. When we have "clocks" that are fast enough we will find different speeds.
Originally posted by Anyndur
Hey, I was reading Einstein's relativity theory, but there's something that I read about lightspeed that seems to be, well, wrong.
The part where he says that the lightspeed is a constant, doesn't matter where it is, it will always be the same.
Look this hypothetical situation: if we could, somehow, put a light source to travel at 99% of the lightspeed, and them we could, somehow, watch this light while traveling at the same speed as the light source. Ok so far, according to Einstein, we would see the light at 300,000 km/s. But, at the same time, we have a person observing and measuring the speed of the light generated by the source traveling at 99% of the lightspeed, but he is standing still. There, he would see the source travelling at 99%, and, according to Einstein, the light generated by it would be at 100% the lightspeed. Well, that would be 1% for us who are watching at the same speed that the source. There, the lightspeed wouldn't be a constant.
I'm right with my thoughts? Share your opinions here please. Thanks.