Relativity

My understanding of relativity is very limited, so I'd appreciate if someone could help me understand this concept. When it comes to an object, I can move it in space by applying forces change direction etc... I can even make an object stop moving altogether in a certain frame of reference, but when it comes to time, it seems to me that there is little control over how an object moves in time. It always goes forward, I can't make the object stop etc... so how is it helpful to think of time as a dimension when it behaves very separately from the others?

I have a few question about the speed of light or about near light speed. Scientists discovered that light in vacuüm has the same speed relative to everything.(299 792 458 m / s) If But is there an (massless) object possible with the same speed relative to object x, but not relative to everything? In other words: is lightspeed possible not relative to everything but only relative to a certain object. So, speeds close to the speed of light relative to object x, but not so close to the speed of light relative to object y, when these objects reach the speed of light (when these bodies are massless), are they suddenly going at lightspeed relative to ev…

Does anyone have a good illustration, explanation, or link, for how information travelling faster than light breaks causality? I've searched and made an effort to follow various online offerings in the past, and maybe it's me, but never found one that I can go all the way with. It may be beyond my physics grade, which would be a shame, so I thought I would ask is someone could provide or link something that you don't have to be immersed in physics to follow.

I have a seemingly simple question about length contraction in SR. Suppose that you have two particles (A and B) at rest relative to each other and separated by a distance L. Now suppose particle C traveling at a velocity (4/5)c from A to B. Particle C travels to and arrives at particle B at a later time. We know that time recorded by C (i.e., T') and the length it has traveled L' are reduced relative to those recorded by observers in the reference frame of A & B. Let's focus on L'. From SR, we all know that L' = 1/gamma x L. So particle C, from its perspective, has traveled L' upon arriving at B. Now consider the following -- immediately (or very …

Einstein was wrong about the existence of "Eather" as it's known in official texts. He agreed that it was not tangible; it couldn't be observed and it couldn't be measured by any instrument. He was obviously justifying his space-time theory of space although he never explained how EM waves (light for example) is produced or even what is the propagation mechanism employed by space. I have a layman proposition that I'm suggesting you for comments. I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it. My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time f…

I am I being stupid, or does special relativity simply substitute the concept of a preferred state of velocity (the speed of light) for the old concept of a preferred state of rest?

Would like someone to finish this simulation. Simulation of General Relativity.doc

Hi, I am working on a video, and I was wondering if any of you knew of some real-life demonstrations I can do about black holes? So far I have the gravity well, and the balloon covered by foil that you crush to show same mass but denser. My video is about the anatomy of a black hole, so I cover all the parts from photon spheres to singularities. Do any of you know of some interesting and or funny demonstrations I can do in real life? Limited visual effects because I want less animation and more me actually doing stuff. Thank you!

Hey! Ive got a question about string theory. If i were to go to another random universe, are the odds of getting in a universe where i exist, where trump is president of the USA or where i write this infinitely small or infinitely big. Since the string theory suggests there are an infinite amount of universes, there is an infinite amount of both universes where the aforementioned conditions are true and universes where they arent true. Thanks in advance!

Be gentle when you explain. Like you would do it for your granny. How time can be curved when one second is coming after another and there is no second can be infinite? Can any observer of or participant in Nature be absolute static?

Is it stronger nearer to mass than Newton's force of attraction?

Rotational Velocity defies COM (conservation of momentum) & COE (conservation of energy) & is 1 of the strangest things to solve because of its non_linear acceleration. Based on Pythagoras('s 90 degree triangle) coe & com don't add (up). (But) Is that why we need relativity? Einstein made a peculiar remark in ch21 (1920) commenting (that) Ernst Mach (had) recognized the rotational energy problem the most.(?) https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_II#Section_21_-_In_What_Respects_are_the_Foundations_of_Classical_Mechanics_and_of_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity_Unsatisf…

I was reading Maxwell's treatise on electromagnetism, and on Page 3 of Volume 2, he does a bit of dimensional analysis on the units of magnetic pole strength, using the following formula: f = (m1 m2)/l2, where m1 and m2 are the strengths of two magnetic poles, l is the distance between the poles, and f is the resultant magnetic force between the two poles. The full treatise is available here (see page 3): https://archive.org/details/electricityndmag02maxwrich Let F denote the units of force, L denote the units of meters, and m denote the units of magnetic pole strength. Maxwell notes that, F = m2 / L2, which implies that, m = L√…

Since we can measure the doppler shift, relativistic or otherwise, of a receding galaxy why can’t we use the equation for calculating the Relativistic Doppler Factor (fs/fo) which I will call r for ratio, to derive the galaxies recessional velocity? fs/fo = √[(1+β)/(1-β)] r = fs/fo r = √[(1+β)/(1-β)] (1+β)/(1-β) = r² β+1 = r²(1-β) β = r²-r²β-1 r²β+β = r²-1 β(r²+1) = r²-1 β = (r²-1)/(r²+1) where: fo is the frequency that an observer sees fs is the source frequency that we can find from its spectrographic footprint β = v/c r = fs/fo If the galaxy is in redshift then r > 1 ⇒ 0 < β < 1…

Vlatko Vedral has said that we need to understand reality ultimately as having a basis in spaceless/timeless-ness -- which could be called a basis of zero dimensionality. Perhaps such a zero-dimensional basis is 'revealed' in black hole singularities -- where a spaceless / timeless-ness occurs as an underlying basis of reality, rather than an infinite curvature of space-time. At the very least, this would enable the 'transfer' of such infinities outside of space-time. So -- is there some way that the equation of general relativity could include a basis of zero-dimensions, while still dealing with curvatures in space & time.?

QUESTION: Given that proton-LINAC's use static magnetic systems to propel a proton to higher speeds, what theoretical difference would a non-static magnetic system provide in terms of acceleration or power usage or efficiency ? The question here is not on the difference between electrostatics or electromagnets or whichever form of field is applied to accelerate the proton. The question is about the ability to actually move the cavities at the required speed (matching that of the proton), instead of using fixed pulsing of the magnets to re-create new cavities at wanted times. I think the principle is about the proton moving into the cavity or …

What will be the economical cost to have your ex-wife (or husband) having one year more than you do? If you where the same age... Im beginning calculation right mow, it may take some time The VASIMR Rocket: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket) Results presented in January 2011 confirmed that the design point for optimal efficiency on the VX-200 is 50 km/s exhaust velocity, or an Isp of 5000 s **************************************************************************************************** For now Im taking the relativistic equation: As a basis for calculation. This equation come f…

I was wondering about those flash's (The superhero, of course) delayed punches he performs on Injustice, In which He performs a punch combo and the opponent's body reactions (hit animations) only take place a few time after the hit itself, I know very little about superheroes but thinking about it, I realised that most of the opponents reaction would be pretty much physics and inertia, rather than reaction time or character actions, what functions totally different, thus making the move extremelly unrealistic and senseless, although, we know lightspeed is pretty much a limit for physics as we know it (some real reality-breaking stuff happens after that ). So, If his punch…

A ball (frame1) with a rest mass of 1kg moving at some significant fraction of c, accelerating further at 1m/s without friction relative to a frame2. It's relativistic mass (or energy) would be some value which is larger than that of a stationary steel ball relative to frame2... its rest mass would be still 1kg regardless of relative motion and/or acceleration so its gravitational potential would be also the same regardless of relative motion and/or acceleration. What happens to the gravitational potential of the ball if we add rotation to it? Does the gravitational potential change? And if yes, should the rest mass change? (That would seem odd)

A month or so ago, I was asked to provide a logical explanation to the Twin Paradox that showed why symetrical views of time was not a paradox or how was symmetrical views of time completely consistent with the time deviation experienced between the twins. So as promised I fully explain: Why length contraction is the reason why the twins experience time deviation. Why time deviation was not a paradox with the twins symmetrical views of time because length contraction is the asymetrical component that was never considered. Finally, I show how their symetrical views of time really are completely consistent for the entire journey using a trasponder…

Guys you know what they say. Time is effected by the gravitial pull and speed. Here is my question. How can they be sure that the effected thing is time but not the watch, the clock itself?

It seems to be possible to detect rotation in an object without reference to anything external. This can be done from within the object with a gyroscope, a ring laser or by detection of centrifugal forces. Is there a state of absolute non rotation?

Can I project my body energy into a ball of energy and pass it to another person??

Say we have an object falling into a black hole. As it approaches the even horizon external observers who are farther away from EH than the object in question will see it slow down and get progressively red-shifted the closer it gets to EH. Then finally, the from the perspective of the object it will cross the horizon, but all external observers will disagree, as they will see it forever stuck just above the EH. The object will go more and more dim, but as I understand, with an infinitely sensitive devices, external observers should be able to observe it being stuck at the same spot indefinitely. Is that correct? Now, the object, before venturing on this one-way…

Is this correct? I thought from a quantum perspective space was necessarily granular and that until we have a ToE, or reach some similar insight, the matter (Accidental pun) will not be resolved.