Relativity

Fast traveler escapes from us.If acceleration moved clock of the traveler into our frame(motionless relatively of us) then how do we and the traveler define scalar slowing or rapidness of time of the clock relatively of the traveler?

This is the problem with your insistence of "plugging in numbers" instead of using symbolic calculations. I defined the variables in my post quite clearly, [math]v[/math] is the speed between the Earth and Andromeda (or any other galaxy). assuming that the galaxy moves away from the Earth, you get the same exact effect with the earthling fixed wrt. the Earth. Both scenarios are a direct consequence of the same Lorentz transform , [math]t'=\gamma(t+vx/c^2)[/math]. Like I said, you realize that motion is relative, right? The fact that Andromeda is moving towards the Earth (with a higher speed than "pacing") is also inconsequential, just replace it with a galaxy that is movi…

OK this is question I don't seem to be able to get and answer to. 1. Initially all triplets (A B and C all 5 year olds) are at rest on earth. 2. Triplet C accelerates off to 99% the speed of light and remains at that speed for 50 years (as measured by Triplet A who remain on earth) before returning to earth. 3 Triplet B also accelerates off to the 99% the speed of light but only remains at that speed for 10 seconds (as measured by twin A who remain on earth) before returning to earth. 4. Triplet A remains on earth. Now can we have the ages of the triplets, you can give numerical ages if you like. Best of luck!!! First correct answer wins a …

Hi guys, this is my first post here, and I've just recently started studying special relativity. I don't understand some thing so I hope to get an appropiate answer. If we have an object that serves as an inertial reference frame, is this object simultaneous with itself from its own rest frame? And are all of its parts mutually simultaneous when viewed from the rest frame of that object? I hope you can answer me.

is it possible to derive exact orbital equation of motion of planet by using gravitational relative mass of planet?

I've been reading about an experiment with light that was done a while ago. It had to do with trying to figure out if light is a particle or a wave.in this experiment they found that light can be both a particle and a wave. The most interesting thing I have ever heard of came out of this experiment. When they tried to physically observe what direction the particles were actually going they collapsed the wave function of the particle or in other words they changed the physical properties of light just by a person being aware. If their is no person being aware of the experiment then light behaves differently. wow. anyone have any idea what is going on with this?

I was woundering why time slows down when you go faster then the speed of light

Could you (or someone else, I like you all!) tell more about this? These notions are unclear to me. Up to now, I consider that light creates a gravitation field, because mass deflects light, which means some momentum change before/after for light, and conservation of momentum demands that the attracting body gets the opposite momentum, which I imagine results from attraction of mass by light, suggesting gravitation. Or doesn't it? Photon energy E=p*c can also be viewed as a kinetic energy. Or is it just a matter or wording? Now with massive particles: energy, for instance an electric field, creates a gravitation field. The electric field can lose energy transf…

New working model of old perpetual motion concept' video

Binary pulsars are often used to test predictions of GR, namely, the possibility of energy loss due to gravitational waves. But we never see any analysis of SR's predictions, although it is an extremely potential source of empirical data on time dilation due to velocity as well, since during the entire orbit the relative speed between earth-pulsar is variable. Pulsars are near perfect, incredibly stable clocks (each pulse is a tic), and we can observe the doppler shift and isolate time dilation effects due to gravitaty and velocity. It turns out that there's no indication of time dilation due to speed independant of direction (or so it seems). I've heard about this befo…

Hi I am just new so please pardon me if i insulted any of you or your intelligence. Anyway, i am just starting to learn relativity and i know some theory behind special and general and maybe some mathematics like Lorentz transformation. Anyway, how can i learn general relativity as in their maths as i always hear about the challenges faced in doing or maybe understanding the mathematics behind some of these theories. Any help or tips will be kindly appreciated.

what does e=mc^2 mc^2 mean? just an ideai have had lately

An object is in motion if it is moving relative to another object I mean the way this Video is created

I'm trying to understand Einstein's "Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations." Maybe I should be posting this in a basic math forum, but I thought I'd ask it here. He gives us the two formulas (x' - ct') = Y(x - ct) and (x' + ct') = Z(x + ct). And then says when we add and subtract these two equations we get: a = (Y + Z)/2 and b = (Y - Z)/2 I don't get how he gets these. Perhaps I need to go back to high school and equation addition. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Edit: I'm double-checking the math and I think I've made an error somewhere here... ---- Here's an outline of a thought experiment that shows that the effects of the twin paradox are not determined by who experiences proper acceleration. Start with a basic twin setup: Observer E stays on Earth, observer R is on a rocket that passes Earth at time 0, moves at a velocity of [math]v[/math] for a proper time of t, then turns around and returns at a rate of [math]-v[/math] for a time of t. R then has aged 2t while E has aged gamma*(2t), where gamma is the Lorentz factor. Only R experiences proper acceleration. Now modify the experiment so that R doesn't turn around. Inste…

If the bug is accelerating, an intelligent bug should be aware of the situation. The bug should feel a force.

Say I have a sphere that's rotating with an angular velocity aproaching that of the speed of light. What would it look like to an outside observer?

Let's say that Bert and Steve are racing for 100 light years. Bert is travelling 99% the speed of light and Steve is travelling at half that speed. From Bert's frame of reference, when will each arrive at the finish line? What about from Steve's? What about from a stationary Observer? I am having difficulty understanding the time dilation aspect of relativity. From Bert's perspective, won't Steve arrive at the finish line first, since time appears to speed up in the space outside of his ship?

Was watching an SR lecture and the professor gave an interesting example: Traveling at a speed of .99C, time dilated and space shrinks by a factor of about 7. Therefore, if I pick a point 7 lightyears away and head that way at a speed of .99C... Everyone watching me will see it take a little more than 7 years to make it. However, from my perspective, I'd see something 7 lightyears away, travel for about a year.... Then stop, seeing that I've traveled to a point 7 lightyears away in what was, to me, about 1 year (but was only 1 lightyear away while I was moving at that speed because of space contracting while I move that's way). He left it off here, but, my ques…

Now take 3 observers A, B, C A is on Earth "at rest" B travels to the left C travels to the right (in the opposite direction of B) Lets say all observers are all 20 years old (for the sake of simplicity) at departure time. B<----------A---------->C A observes B reaching the planet X after 7 years. A observes C reaching the opposite planet Y after 7 years Theory says that when B and C come back to Earth, only 2 years of their time has passed (they are 22 y. old) although for observer A 14 years have passed (he is 34 y.o.) But what does B observe concerning C? If he observes A aging faster than him, he must observe that C is aging much more tha…

Let's say that we had some equation in physics that was v(m+c)/v, which isn't real I am just using it, would you be able to simplify it to m+c? You shouldn't be able to because v for velocity has a possibility of being 0, correct? You can't simplify if you would be cancelling out a variable that could be zero, is this true?

Preface: A second used to be defined by 1/86,400th of a solar day. This wobbles a bit, so a more stable definition was given as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. Fine and dandy. This is presumably because, unlike the earth's rotation, which can wobble and is slowly slowing, cesium always behaves the same, no matter what... it is what it is and it doesn't change. So, my question is mostly a philosophical one. I understand the supporting evidence for the math showing that these atoms slowed down, but why is it preferable to believe that these atoms ar…

While the speed of light is governed by c = 1/(μo εo)½--a derivation of Maxwell's equations where μo is the magnetic permittivity in free space and εo is electrical permittivity in free space--does increasing mass help govern c as well? As shown by Einstein, when the Lorentz factor (y = 1/(1 - v2/c2)-1/2)is included in E = mc2 as E = ymc2, as a thing approaches the speed of light, its relativistic mass approaches infinity. So does this too help to govern c, or is increasing mass just a side effect? And if it's just a side effect, how does infinite mass when v = c not play a role in restricting this speed?

Is the gravitational field according to general theory of relativity independent of mass

I was wondering what the implications of the failure of Einstein's original prediction of gravitational waves would be - how far would this invalidate the theory of general relativity? Several professors and researchers at the university I read physics at are heavily involved with international collaborations to detect gravitational waves, and so this lead to me to think of how "bad" it would be for current established physics if it turns out that they do not exist*. I don't mind if you include mathematics and fairly advanced physics in your replies, as I am currently studying physics at degree level - so I should be able to handle some of the stuff you throw at this …