Relativity

I am an ameteur physicist (i actually have my degree in meteorology), and i have some questions about the EM properties of liquid metals or ferrous liquids when in spherical form. I understand if you are too busy or if i sound off, but if you do have the time to answer a few questions, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Aaron Stewart

Considering the first law of thermodynamics i would like to pose the following theoretical question; Two equally massive bodies (solar) at complete rest in the universe, a distance of 30 million Km separation between them. Gravity acts upon them they attract each other, and the distance between them becomes less, where does this kinetic energy come from?? Is this impossible? If the answer is obvious please don't mock me, i'm only starting my level 2 chemistry studies at the OU, though i really enjoy some basic aspects of physics and i find cosmology just frightening!(but amazing) ta M

I am in the spaceship in frame A. I burn fuel quantity q and with the help of accelerometer I notice that I gain speed of 0.01c. Now I am in the frame B. I again burn quantity of fuel q and again gain velocity of 0.01c and enter the frame C. Since my instrument cannot measure uniform velocity, I keep a record. Question is, should I consider my velocity as 0.02c in frame C or use relativistic velocity addition theorem (VAT) and consider my velocity lesser, say 0.019c? Note that the frame B is no different from any other inertial frame and for all mechanical laws; velocity of the frame can be considered as 0. This is a fundamental law which …

Ok here is a weird thought experiment (or an extremely expensive real experiment!) If you fired a set of small black holes towards a location such that at one point they from a thin spherical shell of black holes what happens to: 1. The space inside the shell? - it is completely isolated from the universe but is not within the event horizon of a black hole. Thus it could contain a recording device.* 2. When the shell is formed it is exactly the same as a larger 'solid' black hole when viewed from the outside so would it have gravity grater than the sum of the material making up the shell? *I know the black holes would smash into a recording device but I…

scientists have now slowed light down to a speed of 32 mph in the lab under controlled conditions using low temperatures in a vaccume They then went onto make it stop completely Does this prove realitiviy is not correct ?

Photons are particles in a field around the earth moving with the earth thru space enclosed in the sun's field/ether & rotating round the sun on a yearly basis. Responsible for gravity inertia. Electrostatic & magnetic fields are distortions in the ether at right angles to each other, EMR being an oscillation between them. Satisfies Michelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments. Relativity works if the inertial frame aligns with the ether.

Ok, so I am trying to imagine up to the tenth dimension. I am stuck on 6. I know that 4 is time, and 5 is the possible sequence of events that could take place in time. I don't really get the 6th. I know that 7 is all the possible events (infinity) considered as one point. I still don't understand 6. Can anyone help me try to understand the 6th and possiby 8, 9, and 10? Any comments are appreciated! Thanks! Gobblewobble123

for better coverage in this thought experiment i first need to ask some questions relative to planet earth, would a spaceship moving at 50% the speed of light have it's time moving half as fast compared to us? if not then what speed would it take for time to be halved? does radiation, such as a photon, move in a wave like the books show it? or if you were theoretically able to see it, and were looking from the side, would it bounce up and down like the books show or would it sometimes seem like a flat line as it bounces at you and away at times? if we were to shoot a light beam in front of our planet and another straight behind us relative to our motion around…

So, imagine that an extremely dense object, such as a neutron star, is accelerated to close to the speed of light. Its mass increases until it falls inside its Schwarzschild radius and becomes a black hole. However, to an observer flying at the same speed, the object is not a black hole. Say the observer fires some type of absurdly powerful bomb into the object which blows it apart. From a stationary perspective, the explosion would appear from inside the event horizon. Doesn't that kind of go against the whole point of an event horizon? Also, is the object a singularity or not?

Could gravity be as relative as light and thus could a black hole be "gravity-dilated" due to relative velocity/gravity? Why does GR assume relative spacetime and absolute gravitational relations? Is that too abstract a question for this thread?

When a photon Wave Function ("Wave Packet") encounters a partially-silvered mirror, it bifurcates, into two Wave Functions -- one "transmitted" wave, and one "reflected" wave. More generally, quantum waves always split, when encountering spatially sharp potential barriers. Now, considering the case of a fundamental point-like particle (e.g., electron), this "splitting" of Wave Functions, is qualitatively similar, to the "spreading" of Wave Functions -- which amounts to the successive splittings, in every direction, of the original delta-function-like, point-like particle, position eigenstate. What then is similar, between (1) a photon wave encountering a partially-s…

Hi all, I was just wondering if someone can explain this to me. If [mass increases] and [speed of time decreases] as speed increases, what is the speed relative to? Can there ever be absolute rest? If something is at absolute rest, what happens to the speed of time (to outside observers), or is it just relative to the outside observer's speed? And what about the mass of the object at rest? Can mass just disappear when an object slows down enough (is mass created by speed)? If everything is just relative, then where does mass fit in? I can understand with time because time 'appears' no to change for the objects that are changing speed, but the change in…

According to gamma= (1/(1-V^2/C^2)^(1/2)), It is understood that as a particle reaches the speed of light, it will approach infinite mass, infinite density (length contraction), and time for the particle will be viewed as by an observer as approaching no change in time (infinite time dilation). Thus from my understanding (that of a biologist) this would mean that the smallest possible particle that as it approaches the speed of light would become the largest in terms of mass, but yet it would have no volume. Also, it would seem as if time is not passing for the particle. Yet, if time does not seem to passing for the particle, wouldn't this mean it would appear to not be m…

In a space time [math]5D[/math], the action for the brane [math]4D[/math] is: [math] \int dx^4 \sqrt{-h}[/math] In the Randall Sundrum the action for the hidden brane is: [math] V_0\int dx^4 \sqrt{-h}[/math], where [math]V_0[/math] is the tension on the brane hidden. follow the stress energy tensor [math] T_{MN}= V_0 h_{uv} \delta^u_M \delta^v_N \delta(\phi)[/math], where [math]\phi[/math] is the extra dimention. In other paper, where [math]T_{MN}[/math], for example in the friedman equation in http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0303095v1 (page 6)... [math] T_{00}= -\rho \delta(\phi)[/math] [math] T_{ii}= p \delta(\phi)[/math] the other component…

Does anyone know where I might be able to find a general boost formula like this one written in spherical coordinates (ct,r,phi,theta)? I really don't feel like expanding it all myself.

I have gotten into an argument with one of my friends with the size of the universe. Pretty silly argument if you ask me, but nevertheless, i am interested in what your opinions/knowledge on the subject is. Here we are: The universe is huge. Can it be infinite? Where are the boundaries? My point: According to general relativity, space can expand at faster than light speeds, which includes infinity. If the space between two points expands at an infinite rate, the universe can be infinite. I am stating that the universe COULD possibly be infinite. I don't know, I thought that relativity had something to do with expansion of the universe, and it possibly bei…

Hello All, First of all, sorry if this was asked before, it helps me when someone reads my answer the way I ask and answers it accordingly rather then reading questions that are "close" to what I'm asking. I am REALLY trying to understand the theory of relativity and time dilation and I'm having some trouble since I can't find answers to a few specific questions - thought maybe you guys could help! A lot of my questions revolve around when time "Appears" to be different and when the effect is "Actually" real. So here is what I've learned so far - please correct me if I'm wrong: -The effect of mass/gravity on space/time somewhat makes sense to me. Basically…

Ok I feel like there is a really simple answer to this but I've been trying to get this to work for days and I just can't. Here is the basic problem: The "free-field" lagrangian for weak perturbations in the metric on a flat space is: [tex]L = \frac{1}{4}(\partial^\sigma h_{\mu\nu}\partial_\sigma h^{\mu\nu} - \partial^\mu h \partial_\mu h)+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu h^{\mu\nu}(\partial_\nu h - \partial^\sigma h_{\nu\sigma})[/tex] Solving for the E-L equations, and using the gauge [tex]\partial_\nu h^{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\partial^\mu h[/tex], I get the following equation: [tex]\partial^\sigma\partial_\sigma h_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} \eta_{\mu\nu}\partial^\mu\partial_\mu h …

I can understand why time will tick differently for two objects moving at different speeds, but why does time tick at different rates at different locations (or did I misinterpret something)? Edit: In other words, how do two people moving at the same speed have watches that tick un-synchronized just because they are at two different locations.

In the way I see it (I'm wrong of course), Time is just a measurement. Take a step back at the bigger picture other than your watch. There isn't one. Time is "measured" through the decay of cesium, an isotope. So how do you jump from measuring the decay of cesium to converting it into atomic seconds? References point me to: "Atomic time is measured through electrical oscillator regulated by the natural vibration frequencies of an atomic system". What I find from this is that Atomic time is measured through a generation of electric current which is regulated by the SOMTHING of an atomic system." A few flaws from my references, an atomic system …

Hi, I recently joined www.scienceforums.net and I have a question that may sound stupid: The first covariant derivative of the metric tensor is equal to zero. Fine. But does anyone know if the covariant derivative of THAT is equal to zero? Part of me says yes because the first covariant derivative is zero but part of me says maybe not because it's an entirely different operator acting on the metric tensor. I'm not an expert on tensors, just learning them for enjoyment, so any help will be greatly appreciated!

We (humans for all of history) live in a weak gravitational field, and thus in essentially "flat" space-time, correct? And the curvature of that spacetime has been constant throughout history (to the limits of our ability to measure it, at any time in history)? Is it possible to observe Earth from a location in a weaker gravitational field ("flatter spacetime") and observe that what we see as "flat" appears curved from that perspective? Then, would geometry appear different? Would a unit circle on Earth appear to have a circumference other than 2Pi when measured from this "flatter" perspective? Or are we basically already so perfectly flat that there would be …

if a wormhole for example is opened in space to a similar universe to ours, then would time flow rate wud be exactly equal in these two universes or not? what can we say about the smoothness of the wormhole at exact time synchronisation?

With the idea of the fabic of time and space they always describe it as a marble(mass)on a sheet(time and space), the marble bends the sheet like the earth or gallaxy bends space to cause gravity or bend time. Anyway imagine as the marble travels over the sheet it pulls up a wave in the sheet which eventually catches up and gives a slight accelleration to the marble before it slows down again. if this could apply to a gallexy travelling through space it could explain why the expansion of the universe is accellerating. I was thinking this the other day and already don't think this at all a possibility just wanted to check what other people thought

I have stacked with the following question : Let assume that the light speed was 5 Km/h and we attempting to measure it. What would be the result of that measurement? Thanx in advance George