Relativity

When I was listening to two clocks ticking, I noticed that it would sound like one clock would tick, then the other one would tick about half a second later. A while later, it sounded like both clocks were ticking at the same time. After a while, it sounded like there was a half second difference again. However, the clocks both maintain the correct time. How can it sound like the clocks are moving at different speeds, and still maintain the correct time? Let me know what you think. ~Clara

If time slows down as object or person nears the speed of light, then wouldn't everyone in this universe be in different time (my soul is in different time than your soul. I've seen part of you that you haven't experienced yet) since everyone is moving in different speed?

Suppose the sun were to suddenly vanish. The earth would of course go flying off on a (more-or-less) straight line, tangent to its orbit. My question is, would this happen instantly, or 8 minutes later (the time it takes for light to travel from sun to earth)? Can you justify your answer by solving GR equations?

I have heard that GR is founded upon the principle of equivalence, but I've never seen a proof of this statement, so here is my question: Is it possible to explicitly prove either of the following: 1. If GR equation is true then (priniciple of equivalence is true) 2. If (priniciple of equivalence is true) then GR equation is true. If the principle of equivalence is an assumption of GR, then that should lead to the equation, and conversely if someone understands the equation, then they should be able to derive the assumption upon which it is based. Thank you in advance

From http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/EssayOnGeometry.pdf Is what is told in this quote, conform to Relativity ?

. This is a mindboggling question about Speed of Light and Theory of Relativity. It involves 5 theoretical, (but fully doable), simple experiments. I will begin with explaining the setup and this figure: C1 A1 O = Lightsource / / S2 [ and ] = Shutters ¤ o / o = Light detectors o----+----[O]----+----o ¤ = Computers \ / o ¤ \ - = light Path A2 S1 \ \ B2 + = Midways B1 C2 There are Three towers in a straight line, (just to get above all obstacles). Distance between the towers are 300 kilometers. The center tower has a…

Does Lorentz contraction apply only to the length of bodies, only to distances traveled in space, or both? The formula I am asking about is: [math] L = L_0 \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} [/math] Thank you

Particle A is spinning one way in a cyclotron,B the opposite way both at 99.9% of C .When they collide is the energy released at their relative velocity of C or that of double C?

When gravity is explained as the warping of spacetime, it is usually done using a 2-dimensional representative model of spacetime. For some reason, this works beautifully (for example a rubber sheet with a bowling ball on it. Roll a marble past the bowling ball and it follows the curved path of the rubber in a manner uncannily similar to how we see massive objects interact) But reality isn't 2 dimensional, it is 3 or rather 4 - dimensional (including time). So how come gravity isn't explained using a 4 dimensional representative model of spacetime? I have tried to visualize it in my head and it is like a name that is on the tip of your tongue... its almost there but j…

I've been thinking about how to do it and came up with these theories. Travelling to the future or past using the closer to the speed of light you travel the slower time passes for you law of relativity. I think you can travel into Earths future by getting in a space ship and travelling really fast for a few years. So what?? It'll be easier for us to perfect cryogenic suspension or whatever and travel into Earths future without even aging a day never mind a few years. So it's pretty pointless using high speed to travel into Earths future faster than you already are. Travelling faster than the speed of light, why do people think once you pass the speed of light…

I recently read in some post here, that according to GR, if a body of material is accelerated (really the person should have said experiences an external force) then gravitational waves are emitted. Is that accurate? Does GR imply that? If so, what mathematical part leads to this? Thank you

Suppose that a spaceship is initially at rest with respect to me. Then, the spaceship accelerates off in some direction trying to reach the speed of light. As I understand it, the time dilation formula tells me that the accelerated ship will experience time dilation interior to it. According to the formula, that means that time will slow down inside the ship. That means that things will appear to move in slow motion, until (at the speed of light) all motion inside the ship would stop. Isn't this the condition for the ship to be at a temperature absolute zero degrees? Time and temperature aren't related in this manner are they? And one more thought... if the time…

hello I've been thinking what contradiction will arise if information can be transferred faster than the speed of light... for example.. suppose the same old example... the sun suddenly disappeared but we somehow get information before the incident reached our eyes... we know it will happen but we cannot alter it one contradiction is that there will not be any more relative motion... but what other more significiant problem will arise? anyway is it possible to have an object that is absolutely at rest? thanks

I know that faster than light travel is impossible. Is there a way to send a signal over a distance of one light year in less than a year?

Einstein@Home is a compuert distribution program. You download it in the form of a screensaver and when (and only when) that screen saver is activated ie. you are away from your computer for a while it will activate itself and then your computer is used with thousands of other computers to form one mega-computer. (available for windows, mac or linux) http://www.physics2005.org/events/einsteinathome/#einsteinathome (Read above site for more information) http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/ (possibly the official site) It comes out (final version) at the end of 2004. Einstein@Home will rely on private owners of PCs, like you, to donate computer time to the analysi…

How would it affect Special Relativity if the speed of light was not a constant. What if everything in the universe had a maximum relative velocity of C. This is because as an objects velocity increases, so does its kinetic energy(which has mass), so does its total mass. This extra mass is relative to the observers velocity, so this explains the limit of relative velocity. Light also is limited to C by the same rules. But it would always appear the same to all observers because it is very close to C and when you do the reletivistic velocity additions it would appear the same. Depending how close to C lightspeed is depends how many decimal places we have to m…

einstein took speed of light constant and accordingly varied other parameters like space-time, but can we take someother parameter as a constant insted of speed of light. e.g. space or time and can prove the theory of relativity. because light can also bend in space-time.

This is probably going to sound a little crazy, but I think I learned how to change the speed of time with my mind. If I play music at a low volume, I seem to be able to adjust the speed with my mind if I really focus. I listen to each word and sound of a music instrument in a song, and I can make it sound slightly faster or slower. I don't know if it is just my imagination, or if I'm really changing the speed. The only way it works is if the volume is so low that I can barely hear it. Try this yourselves and tell me if you can get it to work.

If Mass increases with velocity, is this due to the mass of the additional kinetic energy it possess. If so does this mean that the rest mass of an object is just the sum of the Kinetic energy of its sub-atomic particles. i.e. the mass of a water molecule is the sum of the kinetic energy of all the quarks and electrons in the molecule. Is this where the energy comes from when we burn hydrogen? a water molecule has less kinetic energy than 2 x Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atom.

Have any calculations been done to estimate the amount of time dilation caused by earths movements. The general idea of this thread is to find out how much difference there could be between the base natural passing of time, and the passing of time as we experience it. I think a good place to start would be to find out our exact amount of movement in relation to a fixed point. Has anyone heard of any work done on this subject.

Thought experiment: Imagine a infinitely large empty space, there is absolutely nothing there. Now, imagine that two hippos suddenly appeared a vast distance (30 light years) away from each other in this empty space. How long before the hippos start going towards each other? Or is it instant? Which, as we know, can't happen...

Ok, a black hole (presumably) is a star which has collapsed to a single point, a singularity in which all the mass of the star is concentrated. A lot of their properies (like twisted spacetime when they rotate or X-ray energies in the centre of accretion disks, in accordance with their mass and zero diameter) have been theorized and some even observed. But all around the fact that a black hole has almost zero diameter. But when a star collapses beyond the density of neutron stars, it keeps on collapsing till it reaches its event horizon diameter. According to general relativity, its time w.r.t. the rest of the universe comes to a complete stop. How is it then possibl…

I got this link from another site, but I'm too dull to understand it. So, I pass it on to you. Apparently a professor from UCONN came up with the concept and it is supposed to be under construction. http://temporology.bio.msu.ru/EREPORTS/mallett.pdf

Try this thought experiment. If 2 identical clocks are synchronised and then accelerated from rest to nearly C. One of them is then stopped and the other carries on at a constant velocity for a certain time period. The second one is the decelerated to a stop and accelerated back to nearly C towards the first. As it approaches the first clock accelerates up to nearly C, so they are travelling together back to the original start position where the both decelerate together to a stop. Would the clocks be synchronised. If no, why not, because the only lack of symmetry is the length of time that one moved away from the other, at close to C, and who can say which one…

I would be interested in some feedback on this issue: GPS uses the eath's rotating axis (Pole) as a local preferred rest referance frame. The earth's equator has a velocity of 463.8 m/s. GPS satellites have a velocity of 3,874.5 m/s. The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s. Using SRT in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11. Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day maximum deviation by being at the equator. Other latitudes would be less. HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of o…