Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. Thank-you anyway. I will give this some thought.
  2. The steady state theory (read model/s) has no big bang. One model had continuous creation of matter to balance the expansion, thus creating a steady state.
  3. I forgot about the moon which would be significant. You can almost ignore the sun if you jump "today" or 6 months from now. There must be a path/tunnel that would exit you somewhere (near?) the Earth's surface if you jumped at the right time.
  4. 1. We would see their clock speed up (due to velocity) if they slowed in our reference frame. 2. We would see their clock slow down (due to acceleration) if they accelerated/deccelerated in our reference frame. So if they deccelerated relative to us "effect 1." would overwhelm "effect 2"?
  5. So if they deccelerate enough to "live longer" they are unlikely to reach the ground?
  6. Aren't they created in collisions and deccelerate they're whole "life"?
  7. Isn't the deccelleration many, many times that in significance? Is it still negligible in comparison to the velocity time dilation?
  8. Would there not be significant GR element (read non SR) due to decceleration?
  9. OK, so how much can we polarize you without effecting your day?
  10. Would any/all perturbations decrease the number of oscillations? Or could it increase it as well? I'm wondering if it's a relativistic effect.
  11. If you travelled past the horizon of a large enough black hole you would still be alive and functioning. Correct?
  12. Galileo was a genius. He tried to measure the speed of light by having an assistant on a distant hilltop "signal him back" to measure the speed of light. If you try this today they lock you up.
  13. Only if the two frames are not moving wrt one another. Edit: I already think this is wrong, it depends on the spatial alignment of events and the direction of relative movement of the frames also.
  14. Are you saying the speed of light is constant in all frames' date=' or do you mean just the ones that scientists agree that the speed of light is constant in? Or are you perhaps [b']defining[/b] a "frame" as that which the speed of light is constant in? Just a suggestion as I think this is a great forum with some very knowledgable and smart people on it (yourself included) but if we had a list of agreed definitions it could save us some grief and keep us on topic. I know I am as guilty as anyone in using the wrong terminology at times but I do not do it intentionally and try to "flag" it in some way if I'm unsure. Outside of inertial frames I cannot think of any others offhand that the speed of light is constant in.
  15. You need a "human magnet" that will accelerate all parts of the body equally with no significant internal stresses. Can't see that being plausible.
  16. Assuming it's skinny and narrow enough (but not for long)
  17. LOL, I wondered on a few posts about the QED "reference"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.