Relativity

Mass/gravity effects time, thus do we age faster on the moon than we do on earth? Alan

I found this excerpt on the internet and I want to know if it's true: Is this true?

I think if location is non-existant then space is non existant. In fact I think space is consequential to location and not prior to it. If we use 0D points space is not required because 0D does not occupy space. Usually, one takes a blank page which represents space and draws the origin thereon, so an origin representing existance is contrasted against a space representing 'nothing'. I don't know which scientist rose to godliness and asserted there must be a pre-existing space to expand into, but there is no reason to accept that, I think fresh approaches are just as valid, and moreso in particular applications. I invented a model which is geometricall…

I admit it -- I have a nasty habit of arguing with fundies of various sorts on the internet. There is a particular breed of fundie on a particular forum in a particular thread who keep going on and on about relativity just being an issue with the clocks (i.e. gravity is some how affecting the clocks, not time). Unfortunately my knowledge of relativity is really very superficial, and so despite my best efforts, I'm running into brick walls left and right because I really don't have a good grip on the math involved. The essence of their argument boils down to: The change in gravity affected the clock. Much the same way as gravity would influence a water clock bein…

Are those both facts true : a ) Suppose a circular wave is made in water, when seen from a plane, this is a moving circle b) Suppose a light flash was emitted in vacuum, when seen from a fast moving observer, this should be an ellipse (longer in the direction of the speed) ?

Suppose we consider a Minkowski diagram of a moving frame O' with speed v towards O We consider a moving particle with speed v1 in O. How to determine and What is the speed in O' ? a) We get co- and contra- variants coordinates. b) we get an angle Can this be decided by the speed addition formula ? (a) implies that even a 1-dimensional speed is a vector, so the norm squared should be co- times contra-variant ?

Why can't we *or something we create* go faster than the speed of light? What limits us? Is it an actual physical reason or just a theoretical reasoning based on some really advanced math and physics? somebody described it to me once as saying that the funtion 1/x will never reach zero. As x goes to infinity, the limit will be zero, which i think means it will get infinetesimally close to zero, yet never reach it. They said to think of light speed in this way. Well, if they are right, I understand it, but what disallows us from going 3.09x10^8 meters pers second? Whats holding us back?

This poll was inspired by Asprung's thread. To me it seems like a no-brainer, but I could be wrong so let's vote. It's a vote on semantic preference, what you prefer the word simultaneous to mean. View A: Simultaneous is observer-dependent. Two events are simultaneous (for the designated observer) if he experiences them as happening at the same time according to his personal clock. In the prevailing well-tested (GR) theory, how an observer's personal clock runs depends on his history--where and how fast he travels etc. View B: Simultaneous is an absolute, though practically speaking rather imprecise idea. Imprecise, because universe time (global time, cosmology …

It occurred to me the other day that Einstein's special theory of relativity should never have been accepted unless he supplied the general theory with it. The special theory, on its own, leads to the twin paradox. You need GR to resolve this. But SR was proposed in 1905. GR was proposed and proven in 1920 - 15 years later. I don't know my history that well, so maybe the answer is that SR wasn't accept until GR was proven... or maybe scientific theories are accepted regardless of whether they make sense or not so long as they pass experimental testing... or maybe physicists were desperate for something to solve the paradoxes of light that the Michelson-Morley experime…

Who first discovered c? Wasn't it Maxwell? Perhaps he wasn't the first to measure the speed of light (but I think he was), but I'm pretty sure he was the first to discover that c was a constant. What I'm actually wondering - my real question - is this: does the conclusion that c is constant - at least during Maxwell's time - necessarily imply that it is such irrespective of the observer (as entailed by relativity)? I ask this because it seems to me, based on my understand of the history of physics, that there was a contending theory to that of relativity which didn't require c to have its value irrespective of the observer. I'm talking, of course, of the ether th…

the faster you move through space the slower you move through time, ok, does this mean that the slower you move through space the faster you move through time? i know its hard to move as fast or remotely near the speed of light, but can we move something "negatively" somehow? so a referance points ages faster than another referance point moving at normal speeds?

It is a subtle mathematic process by which we lay out considerations of metric solutions of the Einstein field equations. The free-space constraints may be stated: [math]R_{ab}=0[/math], and in the Schwarzschild solution we apply reasonable symmetry considerations to get to a form: [math]ds^2=A(cdt)^2 - Bdr^2 -Cr^2d\Omega^2 [/math]. At this point crucial decisions are made, and they have deeply physical ramifications! <A,B,C> are functions of r alone. By a simple linear rescaling of r, we can produce: [math] ds^2=A(cdt)^2 - Bdr^2 -r^2d\Omega^2[/math]. This is the chosen form of the Schwarschild metric, where: [math]ds^2=(1-2m/r)(cdt)^2 - (1-2m/r)^{-1} dr…

In the paper available in my cache (URL below) on gravitation I offered my take on the Polarized Vacuum (PV) theoretics started (perhaps) by R.Dicke in the 1950's. All the studies I have read to date posit a scalar function of permittivity of the vacuum, which is then expressed in the Scwarzschild metric to yield the distinct radial and transverse responses. I have enjoyed a lengthy correspondence with H.Puthoff who offers the isotropic solution of the gravitational singularity. This is simply the other reasonable possible assumption on physics going into the construction. We either let the same coefficient multiply differential changes in all three spatial dimensi…

Like most people on this forum, I find the relativity of time with gravity and speed very interesting. I've done research and listened to lecture cd's about it... and i have had every question answered save one. If you have objects being shot into a black hole and stopping on the event horizon (to us as people outside of the hole) and matter builds up, would anything happen when enough matter piles up to put pressure on the matter that is stopped on the event horizon?

Maybe some people will want to try this. It uses the cosmos calculator. Google "cosmos calculator". Let's say you are an alien somewhere in the universe, in the future, and you want to know what time it is (how old expansion is). You can measure the Hubble rate and you find it is 60.8, instead of the 71 we have today. From that you can determine the critical density for flatness, and you can see the universe is approx flat, and you can measure the average density of matter and find it is 0.01 of critical (instead of the 27 percent it is today it is only 1 percent because this is far in the future.) So you do something very simple: go to cosmos calculator…

Why is time bound to space? If space bent like a wormhole does time change? obviously not, but why not. I am just a sophmore in oklahoma lol but just wanting to know how this works. I have never taken any classes on this subject.

Even though spacetime is expanding, can we consider it at rest with the universe? Maybe time moving forward is the expansion we observe? The rate of time should be constant in the universal frame with spacetime at rest with the CMB and the universe itself. When you move through spacetime you will observe time as you always have. However, depending on your speed, you may be moving accross two minutes of spacetime in one minute. While you observed time as usual, You have moved through time so your clocks will not agree with absolute spacetime. Make a few modifications for GR and this would give us an absolute reference frame for time and speed. Isn't the only …

Time, as I contemplate it, is the matainence of the present. If it is to be defined in terms of a dimension I would define it as one, other than length width and height that spaces events. I would propose that it marches on at steady pace and only the clocks that measure it vary with velocity and acceleration. Thus the clocks do not measure time running at a slower rate but slower clocks measure time running at a constant rate. This would seem evidenced by the fact that observers in different time frames could simultaneously view an event as it occurred and that observers from different time frames could return together in the present. Thus so to speak it is the clocks th…

I'm looking for an explanation of what four dimentional space-time means in terms of understanding the nature of time. Admittedly, I cannot really conceive of what a four dimenional structure would look like. I've heard all the analogies of imagining a two dimensional space with time as the third dimension, so I'm not looking for anything like that. Calling time a fourth dimension and weaving a "fabric" of space-time seems to give time some spatial qualities that I'm having trouble reconciling. If all points in a 1 dimensional line are present within a 2 dimensional plane, all ponts on a 2 dimensional plane are present within a 3 dimensional cube, all points in a 3 dime…

ok so ...if half the stars we see in the sky arent there anymore .....if we see the sun 7 minutes from 'real time' ...i have a poser.....this goes along with the whole "we have/are being visited by aliens" deal....say there is a star 13 million light yrs away and there is a planet with intelligent curious life...they look our direction....would they not see a planet inhabited by 'unintelligent' dinosaurs?....heres something else...if we are sending out radio waves to communicate with intelligent life, would it ever get to where it was going..I mean if radio waves travel slower than light waves and we shot it out to a distant star...by the time the radio waves got to where…

I know the answer to this but here goes light travels at c however when it reflects say off a mirror does it slow to zero and reversed direction???

Martin, is it the case that a major plank of the time dilation theory is that light speed reception is constant? And is it also the case that several experiments, such as measuring light speed whilst we are rotating both toward and away from the sun, have shown this to be the case?

Anyone thinking about going to BritGrav9 at Cardiff this year?

ok, this may sound like a stupid question, but i dont know. say you efficently stopped time by going at the speed of light. well, would we still age? my first guess is no, no time, of course no age. but im not sure when i really think about it. having no time on a referance frame sounds like that referance frame shouldnt age, but would it be affected by things like other timeless referance frames? also, that brings up the question, what would it be like with no time? just like now?

Given [math]\Lambda^{\alpha}_{\beta}[/math] as a LT which index is Row and which column? Have got confused on a problem with a non symmetrical LT where I get a valid answer either way! Thanks John