Relativity

A recent vision: As an electron travels away from point of perspective, it produces a circular magnetic field around it which has always been observed to have an anti-clockwise rotation also known as "chirality". Perhaps this is common to a biased direction of spin of the electron in motion with its axis being in the direction of travel. Perhaps this spin we observe wouldn't happen at all if it weren't for the local rotating gravitational field of our galaxy. Perhaps at our galaxy's center is a black hole or magnetic anomaly which creates a quadripolar magnetic field with the galactic plane being north and its poles being south. Perhaps if we were to cross to th…

Hey guys, I'm new here, and joined in hopes that you might be able to help me out. Like the title says, I'm looking for the title of a specific book. I read it when I was 12 (18 years ago!) so the details are REALLY fuzzy. Here's what I remember: It covered several concepts of relativity in layman's terms. The version I read was a paperback with deckled pages (the edge of the pages was cut in a jagged zigzag fashion) If I recall correctly, the cover was printed in gold and black. I know that's not much to go on, but that's all I can remember. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated!

So i just realized that a black hole takes the largest amount of mass possible so to tans into the smallest atomic particle possible. (The original definition)

From what I understand so far, objects cannot accelerate to the speed of light since it would require an infinite amount of energy and would increase the objects mass relative to a "motionless" observer. The object would become more massive as it tries to accelerate. If this is so then would the accelerating object become so massive that it would become a black hole, while in reference to itself nothing changes? Another way to look at it is: if there was an extremely dense white dwarf star that is on the verge of black hole density and/or mass, and you started moving relative to it, to a considerable speed, but much less then before, then would we see the white dwarf…

Hi, my name is Ivan and i'm writing from Italy so sorry for my english I simplified the time dilation in General Relativity by following the same criteria and the same reasoning used for Special Relativity. Are you are interested in reading it, since the General has not been simplified?

The thought experiment consits of 3 clocks. Clock 0 is "stationary" on Earth. Clock 1 is heading toward Earth at close to the speed of light (say a speed of v). Clock 2 is heading toward Earth also at the speed v but it is heading towards Earth from the opposite direction from Clock 1. Further Clock 2 is farther away from Earth than Clock 1 to begin with. Now when clock 1 passes Earth, Clock 1 and Clock 0 synchronize (ie. they both start counting). Now later on clock 1 and Clock 2 pass each other. As they pass each other Clock 2 synchronizes itself with the time on Clock 1 ( ie. Clock 2 starts counting from what was read on clock 1). Next, Clock 2 passes Earth.…

As speed of light is same always,will some one pls explain special relativity & red shift of light (Doppler effect).

I have a query. I want to know that is the restricted speed for any object according to special relativity is the speed of light or it is 299792458 ms-1 The reason for this query is that I have studied that light travels at different speeds in different mediums.

What if the entire universe were moving at near light speed... and all matter existed in that small window of velocity where mass becomes too dense to accelerate further? I can offer 10 points that might support this notion in a video I produced to explain my thoughts. Could I even be a little bit right on this? Larry

I apologise if similar topics have like this have already been posted on this forum before, but since I've started reading more in depth about Relativity, I am now confused about what the "present" is supposed to be!! Is there really a present? "When" is the present?! What determines what/when the present is?!! How "long" is the present?!!! If there isn't a present, what is the "past" and "future"?!!!! Could someone be kind enough to explain all this to me...

What is the behavior of a photon inside the event horizon? Is it able to travel at c from our perspective (if we could see it)? Since it cannot escape, does it simply orbit the black hole? If it is travelling on a path from the center of the black hole toward the event horizon, since we know that it cannot escape, does it lose velocity? Do photons even exist inside the event horizon?

I've now completed my paper. It's 40 pages long, 22,730 words, and 873k in PDF format. The title and abstract is below. Canybody give me any advice regarding submission or endorsement? I'm registered with arXiv, and have printed the arViv.org > help > submit_pdf and related pages.

From what I understand, space and time can curve, warp, stretch, and maybe even fuse and fission. Can space and time also scale? Can a volume of space grow or shrink? If so, then can a geometric point in space grow to the size of a super-massive black hole? This is what I think *might* be happening with black holes. When a star becomes massive enough to form a black hole, its center of mass not only becomes a new event horizon but the space within it inflates. In inflates in such a way that there is literally nothing inside it. This might explain a few of the paradoxes surrounding black holes. From the point of view of someone far away from the black hole, it take…

So I'm trying to clarify in my head a better idea of the observer, and how it fits into relativity and quantum mechanics, but I'm not finding the info I need scattered about. Anyone mind just giving me whatever rundown you think fits the question, and/or if there's any equations that directly relate?

Hi guys, I'm just a high schooler who was thinking about general relativity and couldn't quite get a grasp on one certain idea.. I asked my physics teacher this, but he wasn't really quite sure himself. If you have empty space, and you have to objects, and one of them is "moving" at nearly the speed of light, and the other is "sitting still".. then according to Einstein (correct me if I'm wrong) the one with the higher speed would have a slower time frame (its "clock" would slow down) relative to the other object.. but if there is no absolute frame of reference then how can you distinguish which object is "moving", because really they are both moving relative to each…

According to the accelerated expansion theory, in the future the Universe will move more faster than now. At that time our atom stability is the same as the present one? At present, if we test single neutron decay rate at the high speed, how will be the decay rate? Will the rate became fast or slow?

Moving faster causes time to slow down and moving slower to speed up why? Experiments/physics have shown that two objects approaching each at great speed will notice the clock of other object passing them going relatively slower than their own, why is this? Alan

Our universe contains some (unknown) very large number of particles. It is also our tenet that our laws of physics should be such as to also apply to a universe with a different number of particles. That is they should be invariant to the number of particles. So what is motion (ie what are the observables and what do they mean) for a universe containing a single particle?

Satellites above our head experience a little more time because they are high, thus under lesser gravity and a little less time because they are moving at relatively high speeds. How do they do the necessary adjustment to compensate for differences between clocks on satellites and earth?

Something just occured to be with this. In the analogy of the elastic membrane and heavy objects warping the surface such that smaller objects circle the heavier one around the indentation it creates in the membranes requires a force (gravity) to elicit that circular movement around the indentation. If mass causes an analogous indentation in the fabric of spacetime then wouldn't there need to be a force to cause another object to move around the 'indentation'. Is the warped spacetime thing meant to explain the behaviour objects under the influence of gravity or the nature of gravity itself?

Does the time traveller move in slow motion as he approaches the near-speed of light?

Does anyone know of a good site to visualize the effects of relativity? It would hopefully include sliders to adjust the variables and show the related shift on the graph. Merci beaucoup!! =D

Since the universe is expanding, does that mean that the fabric of space-time is stretching or that more fabric is being made? Or am I just totally out of the ballpark?

My twin brother and I actively research and discuss theories involving dimensions, alternate universes, etc, and we have recently gotten into a debate in which we have more problems than usual when it comes to him convincing me and vice versa. Our discussions are usually not more than a few hours long, but this has been going on for days! The argument is about how beings of a certain dimension perceive themselves. I believe that beings of any dimension can not perceive their own dimension, but can only see things in dimensions lower than they are. I argue that, if first dimensional beings would only be lines, they would only be able to perceive points (virtually represen…

I know this may fall under the area of speculations but I just wanted to put this in relativity since it kinda has stuff to do with time. People say time travel (too the past at least) can never be achieved because it would mess up space time or because the universe will never let it, but what if we made distinct moments or places in time that allowed a person from the future to visit that moment without affecting anything. Would that work in allowing people from the future to visit their past (or our present).