Relativity

if an observer was looking at a particle going into a black hole, and he saw the particle slow down, then time from the particle's view would speed up to infinity and the black hole would be long gone. The particle wouldn't have anything happen to it as it would never get to the middle of the black hole until the black hole no longer existed. When it is said "the faster/closer to a black hole you go, time slows down", this means the closer someone went, the more real time they would skip and they would therefore appear younger if they went too close. If they went right into the middle, or if someone went to the speed of light, they would skip infinity...

I know this has been discussed to death and I acknowledge the fact that there truly is no conclusive answer. However, I have to do my best to outline that light is indeed a particle through its properties of reflection. So far, I've simply come up with the fact that laws of reflection follows laws of motion. Any help regarding other sources of light behaving as a partcle through reflection is appreciated. Also, what properties or experiments decidely supports the corpuscular theory (I know only about Photoelectric Effect). Furthermore, how does light behave as a wave through the following: Propagation, Refraction, Partial Reflection/Partial Refraction, Diffraction and Dis…

Einstein wasn't wrong but could there be more to the picture than his version of special relativity? You can see what I'm talking about if you rewrite the Lorentz transformation gamma factor in the form of the Pythagorean theorem: c*c=v*v + c*c/g/g. The complex quantity ~c = v + i*c/g clearly includes the gamma factor as its magnitude but also includes a phase component. The real component is the observed velocity. For photons the observed real component is c so there is no imaginary component. For photons in free space, electric and magnetic waves are in phase. Particles of matter contain a real and imaginary component. Thus from the complex representation, one can surm…

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html Seems like a credible source anyway. This is pretty interesting, as it is an aspect of relativity that it turns out I know nothing about. Most things on this subject are garbage; people saying they create anti gravity machines by arranging some magnets in a clever way. I didn't know that a spinning superconductor could actually create measureable gravitational effects. But apparently such effects are predicted by GR. It also turns out that "frame dragging" is also associated with this "gravitomagnetism". So yeah. I found it neat anyway.

I have the following question. Some space object (galaxy or star far away) moves from point A to point B. The object is travelling with speed v at an angle theta to the line of sight. (picture sucks...) A | \ | \ | B | | |---ds---| | | | | to earth Suppose the light from B reaches earth a time [math]\Delta t[/math] after the light from A. I have to find the apparent velocity across the celestial sphere, that is [math]\Delta s/\Delta t[/math] This seemingly easy question took me some time to figure out. I named the time for the object to go from A to B t'. Then t' is the time [math]\Delta t[/math] plus the …

What would be the issue with this? Same old get close to C then stop increasing in speed? I'm not entirely sure how magnets get their charge and how much they can handle and how big of a chunk of metal you'd need to get it to pull another peice of metal at it at C. However, gravity for example. I don't know the formula but lets say you have a super heavy planet, or just a sphere made the heaviest stuff we got. I'd imagine it would have to be galaxies and galaxies wide just to be massive enough to suck you in like bat out of hell (light speed). So what happens? Your not pushing your being pulled, what happens when you get close to C or on C?

Why does concept of "before" and "after" depends on lightspeed? Also here is example - an objects is flying in a perfectly dark (without photons) area. What would be the maximum speed for the object and what would happen if it turned its engine on incredibly powerfull mode and tryed to overcome the lightspeed?

this has been bugging me for ages, this whole twins and one in a rocket at near c thing. if I`m stationary in space (I`ll do it there as opposed to a train and station for reasons that`ll become clear later), and a spaceship with my twin passes me at near c BUT at a constant speed, time will go slower for him than it will for me, but WHY? I`m moving just as fast relative to him in the other direction, so Who is getting "Younger"? Gravity is playing little part as is mass (that would occur on a train and station on a large Earth). who is to say WHO is actualy moving, what dictates the one whos time goes slower:confused:

This is my first post. I had a thought occur to me the other day that seemed intriguing, but did not add up to me. I am fairly new at physics as a recreational hobby, so don't be insulted if this seems silly. It is a known fact that the universe is accelerating in its expansion. This implies a speed of expansion less than that of c, due to Einstein's Relativity Theory. Is it therefore possible for information in the form of electromagnetic/gravitational waves to "leak out" of our universe? If so what implications may this hold? If this is completely out of line, tell me where my flaw in logic is .

Hi; I was recently something on the science channel about Einstein's life. It talked about the General Theory of Relativity in a way I had never heard before; now, I've seen that program before but I didn't catch that part I guess... It said that Genearl Relativity in effect made the force of gravity an illusion; I have known about the comparison between gravity and a rubber sheet (gravity/spacetime, one of those..) for a long time, but I never knew that gravity is now an illusion; the cause of an object moving through warped spacetime. I might've left something out or said that wrong because I don't recall the exact deatails. So my question is (other than "d…

Relativity use ct for the time dimension . Why ? Why not use simply t for the forth dimension ? I understand that ct bring te dimension of time to a dimension of space. But why do we need to do that ? Thanks for your answer

This will be proving our theories that are also against Einstenian Relativity right. According to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, time runs slow in places of lower gravity or in places of high speed. With this we can conclude that "half life" of Radioactive Elements such as Uranium, Polonium etc will differ in other heavenly bodies like the moon, jupiter and other planets. This is because the speed at which they are orbiting differs from that of Earth and also they have different gravitational pull from that of Earth. With this we can conclude that Rate of Randomness Decay of Radioactive elements are directly proportional to gravity and inversely p…

THE "EGG OF COLOMBUS" THE GREAT ERROR OF PHYSICISTS!!! If, the J. P. Cedarholm - C. H. Townes Experiment (1959) is carried out exactly as it is on a moving vehicle (e.g. on an automobile, train, etc) then it will be instantly proven whether Ether exists in Nature or not. Unfortunately, this very simple Physics experiment has never been conducted to this day and this is a great error on the part of physicists!!! Why, therefore, isn`t this very simple Physics experiment performed so as to demonstrate once and for all whether Ether exists in Nature or not? Question: Could there be a reason for its not being carried out? more...http://www.tsolkas.gr/englis…

ΤHE CAUSE One of the major causes which accounts for the advance of Mercury`s perihelion is the revolution of the center of mass of the Sun around the center of mass of our planetary system. more...http://www.tsolkas.gr/

http://yoyobook.white.prohosting.com/light.htm Visit this good website which focuses on the fundamentals of relativity and light, by considering a hypothetical situation in which light slows down to 3000 m/s. Remember to click on the G00gle Ads!

I just found this surfing wikipedia, apparently its an alternative to general relativity that agrees with all experimental observations supporting general relativity. any thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans-Dicke_theory

hey im doing my german coursework on Einstein. I was wondering if anyone could help me. i need a very very simple way of explaining the theory of relativity for me. i need to translate it into german and it needs to be understandable for non scientists. It would be great if it lent towards how its useful today. Any ideas???

In my lessons we have come across the Hulse-Taylor binary system. I have been 'researching' about why the binary system spirals in towards the common centre of mass and believe it is to do will gravitational waves produced by large accelerations of large masses in its orbit. However, I am interested to have a simple understanding of how general relativity predicts gravitational waves and how to estimate how much energy is lost to them over a given time or orbit. By simple I mean with a mathematical base but not high university level please. I would be really grateful because it is hard to find sufficient explanation that is at my level on the internet. Thanks

This has been a thought in my mind for several years now and I remembered it while lurking here and thought I'd ask you all as some of you will surely give me some great insight. I'm aware that faster-than-light speed isn't possible because of the mass issue among other things. But we tend to think of objects traveling in a single direction, trying to reach "c". So here's another approach.. So here's my question. In theory, could you build a very big wheel with a circumference of 186,000 miles or so and apply an energy source close to its axle that could spin it at 1 revolution per second or slightly faster, thereby causing some points on its outer edge to travel…

It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive by means of the changes of things. (Ernst Mach) According to Mach time belongs to the mind and change (motion) to the universe. amrit

http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html He's publishing it on Valentines day, and apparently it has been rigorously peer reviewed. Pretty interesting, makes intersteller travel look a tad more feasible.

In science we experience motion with the rational mind. Scientific mind uses "time" as a main frame into which all physical phenomena are examined. Time as a frame of the mind (we will call it "mind-time frame") was build up by observing motion. To have a rational understanding of the events in the nature human mind has developed "mind-time frame" that is composed out of past, present and future. In the universe time does not exists, there is no evidence about time. All we observe is motion. We experience motion into the "mind-time frame", we project time into the universe. By observing (watching, witnessing) the mind we distinguish between motion and time, we become a…

Who was the first one to propose that time was a fourth dimension that complimented the three dimensions of space, thereby establishing the concept of spacetime. The name "Lorenz" comes to mind. Is this right?

According to modern mathmattics, if you go faster than the speed of light you will go back in time. This has made me think about a few things. (1) If you travel as fast as light will time freeze? (2) Is it possible to go at a negative speed? If so, would it fast-forward you through time? If you have any answers to my questions or more backround information, please reply.

in the 2D model of space/time, a key feature to explain gravity is that mass "warps" the fabric by existing. The fabric is thought of as a rubber sheet, and mass makes the sheet become concave, letting other masses roll down towards the larger mass. However, everyone seems to not notice that for this effect to happen there would have to be GRAVITY for the actual masses to move down and distort the sheet. This model does not explain gravity at all, and should not be used. If this model is a literal explanation of how gravity works, then relativity has it all wrong about gravity.