Relativity

When recently thinking about this, I suddenly realized why I am not more bothered about the statement in relativity that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. Naturally it seems quite counter intuitive to me now, just like a lot of quantum theory. I admit I do not know either to a great degree, but I know more about quantum theory having done some A level coursework at school on early quantum theory(e.g. work done by Planck, Einstein, de Broglie, Bohr's model of atom etc). To get to the point, I imagined I was in a vehicle moving at a very high speed, let's say about a 1% of the speed of light(if we ignore relativistic effects on mass). If I shin…

How would something being able to go faster than instantaneous or less than zero time speed work? Please, do not say anything about lightspeed (where youe xperience zero time), tachyons, getting somewhere before you leave (causality) and time travel. I am not looking for those. I am looking for how that kind of speed works.

First of all, does anyone have any recent information about measurements of the speed of gravity? I know of some that have been made by observing planets etc. and most results imply that the gravity propagates somewhere around c. And also, could it be thought that if gravitational interaction is caused by exchange of gravitons, that each graviton that arrives at a particle sort of pulls it to the opposite direction of it's velocity vector? If so, would an object traveling towards another object at the speed of gravity cause itself to receive more gravitons in a given period thereby experiencing heavier gravity than normally, and forming a front of gravitons that the other…

for a while now theres been something regarding relativity that i just cant seem to understand...i asked my physics professor and it looked like he had a reasonable explanation but he doesnt speak english very well and it was hard for me to understand his explanasion.... as we all know relativity states that there is no ABSOLUTE velocity or speed...but it is only measured relative to its surroundings or environment... so when talking about time dilation...for example...a rocketship versus the earth...the rocketship is moving near the speed of light...and the earth is still...so time is passing slower on the rocketship than on earth...therefore when the rocketship …

So earlier I posted a thread where I asked if any of the theories of quantum gravity presently being devised modeled the universe as a cellular automaton, and Martin's answer was no. (Actually, I think my question was about LQG. I don't think Martin was trying to say that no one had devised a theory which models the universe as a cellular automaton) So, I did a little more digging and found this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907013 Any thoughts? I really, really like this idea... (at least what I can distill from the abstract)

In my research, I have come across posibile explantation of gravity, not in Newtonian Mechanics, but in wave mechanics.... please bear with me... Physics has been attempting to find the unified field theory, a universal force that would link gravitation with electromagnetic and subatomic forces. To date, no one has been successful. My proposition is that the force of gravity is caused by a wave emitted from a mass oscillating in space-time. Assume an object falls into a pool of water. Waves radiate outward from the central point, decreasing in amplitude as the wave moves farther from the central point. The model of an object falling into a pool of water is thr…

I already saw the whole nova thing based on the book "The Elegant Universe," would it still be worthwhile to read the book also?

In many cases, the answer to "why can't information travel faster than light?" is causality. Taken from Wikipedia, there are three ways to get rid of the light-speed barrier: ignore special relativity, ignore absolute relativity, or ignore causality. Yet causality is the link between two events. Basically, from my layman's understanding, object A can't travel faster than light because light from object A's starting position has to be seen at object B before object A can reach it's destination. An object is considered to be in causal contact (this understanding coming from Wikipedia) if an event can effect both objects. What, then, makes it impossible to send informati…

''TSOLKAS'S PROBLEM'' FOUR QUESTIONS ON THE ADVANCE OF MERCURY'S PERIHELION QUESTIONS 1. At what distance (in Km) does the Sun's center of mass lie from the center of mass of our solar system? 2. What kind of movement does the Sun perform around the center of mass of our solar system (circular, elliptical, etc) and what are the particulars of this orbit? 3. How much time (period, in years) does the Sun need to make a complete revolution around the center of mass of our solar system? 4. To what extent (expressed in ° degrees) does the Sun's movement (around the center of mass of our …

What force is giving radiation (light, gamma and all other EM) its exact same speed c, wether it originates from an electron or nuclei, and what determines the direction, always directly away from the particle's core?

so velocity has a limit, the speed of light; and since accerleration is just the differentiation of velocity, does this mean there is a limit to how fast an object can accelerate? ~ and for ms^-3 and ms^-4? and were there a limit, would that mean there is a limit to the integration to distance? a limit to the size of the universe?

I would like to post an observation for discussion. I will try to walk on eggshells since extrapolation of the existing understanding tends to get censored and banished to speculations. If one plugs V=C into the special relativity equations, we get infinite relativistic mass, infinite distance contraction and infinite time dilation. Although it is only a mathematical state, if you look at this singular state, the energy needed to make this reference can encompass the energy requirements any theory about the evolution and makeup of the universe, since it has infinite gamma in mass, distance and time. For example, if our universe is assumed finite it is a subset o…

A math paradox Are these math equations really the same? F=ma & E=mc² If so © is a set rate of acceleration! Then why is © squired since Einstein him self said that nothing can accelerate faster than ©? Wouldn’t that also go for all particles in a nuclear explosion? http://www.space.com/reference/brit/...r/climate.html If you drop the (c²) and just have © then you can get very close the real speed / force of the particles moving out from a nuclear explosion. At (E=mc) with a mass of (4³in. of u-234) you will get a total change reaction /or evaporation area at ground zero of roughly a 5 mile radius. So is (E=…

I've got a question that kind of bugged me the other day. Maybe you guys can help. From what I know, information cannot be communicated at speeds faster than the speed of light because of obvious reasons.... But this scenario had me thinking What if a ridged non deformable cable was set between to neighbouring planets in space and was pulled at one end causing an instant pull at the other end of the cable. Could it be possible that this pull or "information" had traveled faster than light? I thought that maybe the flaw had to do with the wave-like pull traveling through the cable at speeds slower than that of light. But what if you have a rod instead of …

Einstien's theory of special relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. BUT, special relativity only applies when space time is flat. So, for example, could a ship be built that bends space time around the ship, and therefore allowing faster-than-light travel relative to an outside observer?

Constants: globally or local to a reference frame? Hi everyone! I put this here because it is just as much SR oriented as QM but if a mod feels it should be somewhere else please move it I recently came upon this idea when thinking about light speed and have a few things I need cleared up... If we had a piece of string just bigger then the plank length and we accelerate it. We have one observer moving with this item at high speeds (99.9% of light say) and one not moving with the object. Due to the fact that things contract from the "stationary" observers reference point he should not be able to measure the length as it will have gone below the plank l…

I guess these questions will seem rather trivial to experts in relativity. However i think the answers will be informative to those new to the subject. 'a' is an observer at a fixed point in a frame of reference 'A ref'. 'b' is an observer at a fixed point in a frame of reference 'B ref'. 'A ref' is deemed to be the stationary reference frame and 'B ref' the moving frame. The velocity of reference frame 'B ref' relative to reference frame 'A ref' is 0.8c. 'a' see's 'b' moving away from 'a'. At what velocity will 'a' determine 'b' to be travelling at by use of:- triangulation. red/blue shift please state use of other. Those mega-minds who never tir…

Im wondering what the reason is. Is it a rule because we cant push objects that fast with any technology we can come up with or is the rule there because of some univerisal law meaning that there's no such thing in the universe that would allow us to do that? What happens to you at light speed, what if I were to be able to a bullet and shoot it out into space faster then light like 200,000 miles a second, would it seize to exsist, would it create a black hole would it just become invisible and move really really fast, what would happen?

I have heard that to be traveling at speed of light you need to be messless and to go back in time you need to be in negetive mess. How could something be messless?Negetive mess?

hello question? could you use faster than light travel as a crude form of a time machine. reasoning. a star we observe here on earth that is a million light years from earth, we are observing that star as it was a million years ago (the light we see now was given off by that star a million years ago). the star presently could have gone nova, or collasped in to a black hole, but we won't know for certain for a million years. therefore if i have my proposed faster than light vehicle i travel a 100,000 light years toward that star (taking into account the need to calculate where that star would be in 100,000 years), we are now viewing that star as it existed 900…

A fast moving mass is slow of its time clock, also same for the mass in gravity field. What is the relation? More specificly, what is the relation of the gain of kinetic energy cause time clock of the mass slows related to gravity?

The ole universe created the 3 spacial dimensions that we see and whatever other dimensions that could be there that we don't percieve. or have a hope of comprehending. My question is, the theory is without the universe there is no space. Nothing shouldn't be defined as just a black 3 dimensional void right, it should be viewed as nothing. Can't go there, there's nothing there, it's not anywhere, because it's nothing. What exactly...is space. There are no molecules (excluding the spots with molecules) in true space, it's just a vacuum. It's kinda bakin my noodle thinking that universe created space I just....I can't wrap my mind around it. It's not material right, jus…

If you put a light source, lets say... a lightbulb or star, in a corner of a universe with nothing in it to block it or anything. What will happen. Will it go on forever or what and why?

What would happen if you were in a car going ftl, and turned on the headlights?

What are Ghosts and where do they come from?????????