Relativity

Hypothetically, if we could visit the future, would this eliminate free will?

We are all stuck on light why light it has been completely studied and experimented with. Instead of knowing the speed of Light we should try to discover the speed of Time.... How would you calculate the speed of time? Normally to calculate the speed of something you must calculate the time and distance it travelled but how can you calculate a distance that time travels? The only reason nobody has created a time machine yet is because we have no idea of the components or parts required to build one. If you could travel faster than the speed time, i believe the person inside the travelling vessel would either break out of our timeline only to land in another, or …

My question is, is it sensical or non-sensical to use a photon reference frame to observe, using relativity, another photon? If it is sensical, then what is happening in terms of time dilation/length contraction in the following cases... Case A: 2 parallel photons travelling in the same direction separated by some arbitrary small distance say 1 mm. I understand that this would perhaps constitute the same frame of reference for both photons but, photon A would observe photon B to be travelling at c, is this not right? Lorentz transform would give us an undefined (division by 0) answer, is this correct? Case B: 2 minutely diverging photons (coming from same sou…

This may be a very ridiculous question but I thought of something curious in physics class today and came upon a bizarre idea. If an object decreases in size and increases in mass when it reachs towards the speed of light then could an object not eventually drop below it's own schwartschild radius and form a singularirty or do the laws of general/special relativity not apply in this fashion?

If the speed of light is relatively the same to all objects no matter the velocity, then how do we know that earth isnt moving at 99% of C? If we were moving at that speed, C will still appear the same as if earth was moving 50% of C right? So how do we know our velocity compared to C if the speed of light remains constant under all conditions?

Relativity's predictions about velocity (i.e. speed of light cannot be surpassed, higher speed slows time down) have all been attempted to be verified by moving things in CIRCLES. This is NOT velocity, this is acceleration. The prime example is the CERN particle accelerator. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't get such an extreme acceleration in there! The velocity is changing from -99.9% to +99.9% of the speed of light in the VERY short time that it takes to travel the diameter of the particle accelerator. This acceleration is many times higher than the acceleration required to speed something up to the speed of light in one second. It does not prove that light s…

I have a question who is buging me, maybe I am missing something. Relativity postulate that the speed of light is constant in all references frames. For example an observer in a stationary spaceship (relative to earth) will mesure the speed of light to be c. When the spaceship move close to the speed of light (again relative to earth) the observer will mesure the speed of light to be c also. Time is dilated so space must be contracted to mathematically explain the constancy of the speed of light. Here is my bug: space is contracted in the direction of the motion, but not in the perpendicular direction of the motion. If the ship is travelling in the x direction the con…

Traditionaly, to the present, time is viewed as a referencing tool by which one can measure the change of state of events. Distance is often considered another such referencing tool by which one can measure separation of phenomena. Special relativity shows that these two referencing tools change between velocity based references. But special relativity also says that the laws of physics are the same in all references. This last statement implies that time and distance must be more than referencing tools; they also need to be potential based entities or substances similar to mass. The reason this is so is that for the laws of physics to be the same, independant of ref…

Can someone please explain to me how it was derived that gravitons travel at the speed of light?

Articles about ATPS Theory have been published in "Electronic Journal Of Theoretical Physics", see: http://www.ejtp.com Theory of Relativity is deeply routed into the universe. It is a scientific picture of the universe that is very close to the universe itself. ATPS does not touches routs of the Theory of Relativity, it makes some changes that gives Theory Of Relativity more clearness, elegance and beauty. ATPS develops the concept of “space-time” into the concept of “a-temporal space in which time run as a material change”. ATPS takes away time its “mystical” nature, makes it tangible, real, observable. ATPS shows why “light speed” is a maximum speed possible i…

To astronauts pass each other at a relative speed 0.8c. At the instant their spaceships pass they sychronize their clocks and when A reads 10mins, a flash of light will be sent to B. According to B what does clock A read when the flash is sent, and what does B read when A sends the signal? For the first part i used root [1- (v/c)^2] and found the time on A to be 1000seconds. Im confused about how to work out the second half of the question. If the speed of A is relative to B then surely the time on B would be 10mins?? But that seems wrong to me! help!!!! thanx!

Can the understanding of VORTEX help solve the space-time construct? Vortex as used here is that of trans-dimensional gateway. I propose it to be some of singularity that would help bend space and time or better still SHRINK space and time. ANd such passing thru it would give man another means of provin to be masters iof the universe.

I'm reading The Elegant Universe at the moment and it states that as people with clocks travel past each other at a significant constant velocity, they BOTH see each others clocks slow down. This makes complete sense in that everything is relative etc, but i dont see how BOTH can be correct. Hopefully one of the experts can clear this up for me . Cheers, Dan

Hey, right wonder if any of you could cast your opinions on the following: i am currently a first year physics student studying in bristol university, i am currently at home over the break. i have a couple of homework pieces to be done but in an effort to avoid doing any actual work i have been pondering on some bits and pieces that have puzzled me throughout my first term. the first wonder i have is that of time. i have read alot in special and general relativity and from what i can gather if one was to accelerate ones self to the speed of light then one could live forever. what i put forward is that time is only the result of velocity. that is we as a universe o…

I would like to know why people find relativity interesting. I find relativity interesting because It has a lot to do with fact that its meaning proses to relation. There are so many words in any language that are related to one another. Example: relation, relative, relativity, relationship, relate, and relative. I think that is awsome! But It seems to me that the more it is cut down to size, relative would be more of an accurate definition. That mabey why Einstien chose to call it relativity. Any thoughts?

As most of you know, with the Relativity Theory limit the speed that can be archieved. Acording to it, anything with mass can´t acelerate to the speed of light and even more pass it. However when Einstein developed is work he used all what he could proof, and the speed of light was the most higher value of speed know. Latest research as show that some particles apear and disapear, showing that the move faster than light. Also the photon have mass, if not why the light got distorted on a black hole?, they need to have mass to get atracted. Mass should be infinite to up and to down, the photons have mass, very little one on the same way an star have a big a…

Does Einstein's e=mc^2 prove the big bang theory? Anyone helps me briefly explain these 2 theories? thanks respecfully.

Imagine you would be as fast as light , could you walk or wouldn't you be able to walk ?

Here is a question I've posted on here and other forums before. I'll keep asking until I get one of the answers enough that I feel I can trust it. Ok, you accelerate a massive body to a high percentage of c. Its relativistic mass grows accordingly. Does this added mass/energy exert an extra gravitational influence on other bodies? All I'm looking for is a yes or no here. I've recieved both answers in the past, and have had both explained to me. If you know of an authoritative source that specifically states the answer, that would be useful too.

I feel as though I should post this. I have noticed that a lot of people use more of thier intellect rather than explaining in simple terms (I am also guilty of that, but I do keep it in mind). The reason I say this is because not everybody has the same education to a certain degree, everybodys education is different, I know there are people that know this and I can undertand why it can be a bit annoying that im saying this. But! The way I see it is, if there's a problem solve it, try not to just let it slide. I have great respect for Einstien who once said, "Everything should be made simple but not simpler". I understand this as, If I understand you and your able to …

How is it possible for an object to appear to slow down as it approaches the event horizon of a black hole? Gravity redshifts the light to lower energy so the object appears more red to the observer, but the light is always travelling at the same velocity right? Each photon emitted by the object would still reach the observer in the same amount of time as usual (no redshifting), so how could it look like it's slowing?

What exactly is a primordal black hole? How is it different from a normal black hole?

Hey guys, Once my teacher was taking class on thermodynamics.. and we came to know about kelvin's experiment. he said that if the body is cooled upto -273.15 deg. C or 0 kelvin, the pressure exerted by the body will be 0. I have a doubt. If p=o, force/area = 0, mass * g / a = o. a cannot be infinity.... so there are two cases.. either of mass or acceleration due to gravity is 0 case i.) g=0 that means temp. has efect on gravity... i.e. if temp. =0 , g=0. as far as iknow gravity and temp. are independent. case ii.) m=0 if mass = o, enormous energy will be liberated. And if mass = 0, that means the body no more exists. so how can superconductors exist …

Say we followed a Lunar Calender, and counted 12 months each year. (related to the moon and not related to the sun) How far would the moon travel in 12000 lunar orbits? And say an object that has very low mass, traveled that distance in a day. How fast would the object be going? Take into consideration: Lunar Month = 29.53059 days [synodic relative to sun] | 27.321661 days [sidereal relative to the stars] Terrestrial day = 24 hours [synodic relative to sun] | 23 h 56 min 4.0906 sec [sidereal relative to the stars] Is there anyone one here who can answer this question please?

1.If I'm on a train that is moving along at the speed of light or a couple hundred miles an hour under, if I shot a gun what would happen? Would the bullet not fire? Would it in fact do what bullets do which is come out of the gun at over 1,000MPH + whatever speed your traveling? 2. What's the force behind light? why does it move, what makes it move, why can we slow it down but not speed it up? Is it a wave or a particle? (I dont fully understand how waves work). 3. Why is the speed of light the determining factor on the limit in speed? For instance, if light was only as fast as 1MPH, we wouldn't be able to move faster then 1MPH right? Why is that is my questi…