Relativity

This comes from a Spyman's post#49 in another thread. Here is a diagram from the wikipedia article on Special Relativity under "Reference frames, coordinates and the Lorentz transformation" title : "Diagram 1. Changing views of spacetime along the world line of a rapidly accelerating observer. In this animation, the vertical direction indicates time and the horizontal direction indicates distance, the dashed line is the spacetime trajectory ("world line") of the observer. The lower quarter of the diagram shows the events that are visible to the observer, and the upper quarter shows the light cone- those that will be able to see the observer. The small dots are arbitra…

I think the "Universe Created from Nothing" idea is based on: - observations which tell us the universe is "flat", in other words it has overall net zero space time curvature (Cosmic Microwave Background etc.) - general relativity, which says that in a flat universe the total gravitational energy (negative) is cancelled out by the total non-gravitational mass/energy from stars, cosmic dust, dark matter, dark energy etc. (positive). - Thus the net energy of the universe is zero. I objected to this in an earlier post because it seemed to me that this only applies to the VISIBLE universe, that is the part of the universe we can see. (We cannot see the rest of the uni…

I was wondering, in association with the predicted mass increase of special relativity, why does mass need to increase in the first place.. . why does mass need to increase when at speed..

Many fast moving objects exist in the space. If there is very fast moving big object, like planet, and not rotate, are the object's front side gravity and rear side one same? We assume speed of the object is 1/5 of the light speed.

Space & Time are relative but what is the relativity between one metre and one second? I conclude that you can use the speed of light to unite and distuingishe the relativity between space measurments & time measurements although measurments is just the creation of our imagination, it is feasible to calculate a metre in time and a second in space as in their relativity. So the speed of light is about 299,792,458 meters/second So a meter is the speed of light divided by the speed of light, then what is a metre in time? If you calculate how long it takes to travel a metre at the speed of light you can develop relativity: thus how long does it tak…

If you can project light beams against mirrors and it can in some sense keep the light beam lasting longer, what if you have a circular machine containing countless mirrors and that you project the light of an object for e.g. onto a mirror then close the machine from the outside world fast enough so that the light does not escape and is kept on an infinite loop of mirrors thus the light of the from can be kept as clear as the room itself even after the room is gone, and that if you opened it up and observed it for a split second you see the room through the mirror and would see a more than crystal clear image of the room as if it was still there and it would look so real …

I believe if you travelled faster than the speed of light regardless of it being possible or not, just say it was you would not time travel but light projection illusion time travel in other words if you travel faster than the speed of light you are moving faster than the projections themselves or the light itself thus they move relatively further away thus the light beams coming from another object would seem to get further & further away thus giving one the illusion that you are watching the object which produces the light beams as before it happened, yet also don't forget you would be moving faraway from this object thus if you moved back towards it, you would find…

I can find all types of articles yet no data that I ever can seem to use. What I am looking for is data concerning differing clock times based upon various variables from experimental studies. If anyone has any links to such data, I'd appreciate them. lol, I'm about to start conducting my own time discrepancy experiements due to a complete lack of useful data.

Say it is Monday and you and I want to watch a tv show at my house at 7:00 P.M. on Friday that is said to come on that day at that time in that location. Say also we each wear a watch and we set them to be in perfect synch with each other. Now lets say I stay home from Monday to Friday and do relatively nothing, while you on the other hand fly all over the world so that the time on your watch reads I guess faster than mine? So that when you are at my house at 7:00 P.M. your watch reads 5:00 P.M. Cause your time is two hours sooner than my time, does that mean you will have to wait two hours later to watch the same program as I do? Does it mean that the Earth made le…

Although I have not as yet determined if time passes more slowly or more quickly after retirement, it has allowed me to explore subjects heretofore archived, such as Relativity. If the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is the same for every observer, does it follow that no information may be exchanged among observers at a speed greater than c? Quantum tunneling experiments appear to have succeeded in this regard. But how about space travelers? First, consider a deaf observer and a blind "observer", and two high-powered rifles fired at them in unison from a distance. If the blind "observer" wishes to survive, he would do well to put his hand on the deaf observer's sho…

What would be your strongest argument that time dilation is true?

Is fast turning object influenced less gravity effect? Which direction does the gravity reduce?

i just have 1 question for all the cosmology lovers, and the followers of the theary that states that the known universe started from an explosion.. THE BIG BANG.. i have read alot and understood what the big bang theory states.. but the science we know right now fails to explain what caused the big bang.. what happend before time started, rather what caused the time to start.. the following article kind of tries to get close but that also is a hypothesis and dosent have any scientific proof.. http://kimberlygracia.clickdeindia.com/2010/07/24/universe-long-before-the-big-bang-and-after-neosecularism-vs-atheism-and-religion/

Hi all, this is my first post and I know that there are a lot of posts on the twin paradox already but I could not find one that helps me solve my thought experiment. Sadly I am no physisist but an engineer. Here goes my problem: Orbit mechanics allows for two spaceships to orbit a massive body at high velocity in such a way that they pass each other closely after every revolution, i.e. they have roughly opposing orbits. Each Spacecraft has a clock on board and has no windows. There is only a sort of near field communication when they pass each other to compare clocks. With a very large massive body in the center; no atmosphere and a low orbit a relative speed of abo…

Can someone tell me what the exact experiment was and who performed it. The experiment which shows that speed of light is a constant independent of frame of reference. I understand (I think) that Einstein said it was independent of frame of reference, but how was the experiment performed which showed this?

Generally we think summation mass and gravity are proportional to each other. But is this always right? When we divide very big object into small pieces. summation mass m1+m2+m3+m4+...+m1x1010000000==1010000000m1 gravity effect g1+g2+g3+g4+...+g1x1010000000=1010000000g1?? Where m1=m2=...=mi, g1=g2=...=gi In the case of very big planet, is it's summation mass always proportional to it's gravity?

From what i understand, relativity is based on the fact that, speed of light is always the same to any observer no matter how fast they are going. for ex: regardless of an observer being steady or in motion (near the speed of light) will measure c to be exactly the same. and time itself will slow down for the moving observer, to maintain that balance. but my question is: how did we know that? was it experimentaly proven before relativity was thought of? or was it also theoratical? if it was theoratical, then someone please explain to me how mr. albert e. came to this conclusion, that c is constant for all observers thanks p.s. im going nuts here

i was just wondering earlier today about this thought experiment i thought of earlier today, and i had some questions about it: suppose one put a small particle accelerator on a space ship and then had that space ship headed out in to space traveling at a constant speed of 0.99c, then according to einstein's time dilation formula, every second that passes on the spaceship, approximately 7.088 seconds pass back on earth. then, imagine that we rev up the particle accelerator that was put on the spaceship and fling around some muons that have an average lifetime of about 2.197 nanoseconds. now, since we are traveling aboard the spaceship at 0.99c, the lifetime of some st…

Suppose at a point 'x' where two photons are stationary. Say they have been stationed at a distance of suppose 1m. At time t=0, they photons start their journey at light speed in opposite direction of each other. Can anyone of it see each other now? Or will they be able to see each other at any other point of time? Suppose a person is stationed on each photon to observe then will they ever be able to see each other? Please reply. ChinzFactory Scientifique

There are two stars which are 0.1 light years far away. Two stars are attracted each other by gravity. If one day one star disappears, how about the other star movement?

I have a quick question in regards to relativity. Is the passing of time directly related to the expansion of the universe? If it is, doesn't that mean that when the universe passes the critical density point and begins to contract that time (being governed by the expansion of the universe) would also contract and begin to travel backwards? And that the big bang and the big crunch are the same moment just being perceived in 2 different directions of time? I know I'm probably completely off the mark, but I'm very curious about this and was hoping some experts in the field could illuminate this concept for me?

Let's think about this black hole calculation. Black hole + mass1 = Black hole Black hole + Black hole = Black hole Above Black hole mass, mass measurement is meaningless?

Hey, I was wondering if you guys can give me your opinions on my thesis paper. It's not finished but that is not to stay that it isn't polished. While going over my text come to a conclusion that i wanted to test out online before i present it to my professor. Well here it is. Let me start by explain some simple concepts. First off we will deal with space-time. So what is space/time? Is it as Einstein believe, that space/time is an interdependent, interconnected fabric of reality. Where as an object is described by the space it occupies, the time it existed in and the energy(mass, spin, charge) that i has. To most physicist these are the defining characteristics of any …

Swansont wrote: I am focusing on the "I see your clock as running slow" part. For a moving body, the "clock running slower" corresponds also to a change in distance (due to motion) and to a change "in-distance" (due to length contraction) But for an object inside a gravitational potential, where the change due to motion is null, what does that mean? Does that mean that 1, indeed, the other clock runs slower, so that as much I wait, the discrepancy will rise? no matter the fact that distance due to motion remains the same? or 2, there is a gap between the 2 clocks and this gap will remain the same no matter how long we'll wait?

In any gravitational potential Relativity states that time dilation takes place. But Relativity states also that Speed Of Light is constant. So I presume that under gravitational potential, not only time is dilated, but space too, in order to preserve the relation c=d/t unchanged. So, when time contracts, distances contract, and when time expands, distances expand. Is that correct?