J.C.MacSwell

I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong' date=' I actually need help on something which I am working on. There is no need to beat around the bush. I want to figure out a way to accelerate people from rest to 1000g, and then have that ship maintain that acceleration in the original frame in which the ship was at rest, but have their weight inside the ship be equivalent to their weight on earth, throughout the accelerative process.

 

From your point of view this is impossible, but my questions would be along the lines of logic. What would have to be true, for this to be done. Which current theories of physics would permit it to be possible, and which current theories of physics wouldn't permit it to be possible. I have those types of questions.[/quote']

 

It's nice that you're not trying to crush them!

Yes, that's right, in a particular reference frame[/i'].

Assuming it's skinny and narrow enough (but not for long)

That depends on which QED you mean. Usually, when people put it at the end of what they think is a proof, it means "quod erat demonstratum", meaning "that which is to be demonstrated".

LOL, I wondered on a few posts about the QED "reference"

please enlighten us.

Yourdadonapogos while your waiting could you explain why you think Relativity claims that the speed of light is constant in all frames?

LOL

 

Johnny' date=' the "D" in "QED" stands for "[i']Demonstratum[/i]", which you haven't done.

 

Anyway, you are wrong. There is no coordinate system definable in SR in which the photon is at rest. There is no way to bring a "frame" moving at speed c to rest with a change of coordinates, which is what you would have to demonstrate to put the "D" after the "QE".

The D is not for "dynamics"?

there are galaxies that are moving ftl relative to us, but not spacetime. that has nothing to do with c being constant in all frames.

Allow me to bring you "closer to home". I'll pick a frame (Let's call it "Spinny")centered at the same point (Earth center) and rotating at 300,000 rps wrt the Earth. Now you and I are well above 300,000 km/s in that frame. I'm sure you can prove to yourself that the speed of light is not constant in "Spinny".

this doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but i want you to prove c CAN"T be constant in all reference frames.

This isn't a proof but I would suggest trying the "Earth Frame" . (0,0,0) is the center of the Earth and frame and you and I are at "rest" on the surface.

Are you suggesting the speed of light to be constant in this frame? Obviously most of the mass of the Universe exceeds 300,000 km/s in this frame.

This seems like a good question' date=' and it deserves thought. I will think about it.

 

However, if the universe has been here forever, then it has been passing through time forever. As it passes through time, it by necessity reaches points in time. [b']The fact that you and I are discussing this question is evidence that now is one of those points[/b].

 

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable in the study of infinity to describe an answer to the question as you posed it. Perhaps someone else on the forum can lend a hand.

This could be evidence of time with a starting point also.

.. and 9th grade is not an age' date=' btw. .[/quote']

 

It is after the third year in a row. (just kidding)

BY the way I am very young not any older than 9th grade and yet i still am giving you questions you can't answer and thinking deeper than many people on this site.

Don't worry, soon you will be old and close minded and slow like the rest of us!

Very nice question. I think that this deserves some thought.

 

Let me take an initial stab at a response:

 

Even along a continuum that extends forever' date=' there are distinct points. Not all points on the continuum will be reached, or it would not be infinite. However, some of them must. We are now at some of those.[/quote']

 

This is a good start, but if we now consider only the set from minus infinite up 'til now then the explanation (I think) breaks down. How did you ever get to the "last one" of that set?

 

When Einstein was told by Hubble that the universe is expanding' date=' he introduced a cosmological constant into his equations for General Relativity. This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.

 

.[/quote']

 

I think he introduced it earlier, then realized (or thought) he'd made a mistake after receiving Hubble's data.

Please rephrase the question. I don't really understand what you are asking.

If I asked you to pile an infinite amount of bricks prior to piling your favourite brick you named "now" how would you ever get to it, even given an infinite amount of time?

Since you are asking me, then I will give you my answer. The answer is, as I have said, that there is no origination, as time is infinite in both directions.e.

OK, so how could we possibly get to this point in time? I'm not saying I disagree, just curious as to how you view it.

Can I ask you guys what you think the odds are of there having been a big bang?

I'm quite interested.

No. I am claiming that it is likely that space has a center, and that the center is at the site of the big bang, which will be the site of the big crunch.

Well that would be right where I'm sitting then. It went for a drive this morning but now it's back. It's the only preferred reference point I'm aware of.

OK. However, when I consider your example, I am free to recognize that what you call a 2d surface is actually a 3d surface, and therefore I may treat it as a 3d surface, such that I can find a center. In other words, I do not need to recognize, and I do not so recognize, your contention that this proves what you claim it proves.

Are you claiming then, that space has a center, but not necessarily (personally I would suggest necessarily not) at any point in space?

In your reference frame 2 photons sent in opposite directions will "distance" themselves at a rate of 2c. This does not contradict relativistic velocity addition. Nothing is exceeding c in any inertial frame.

Self-referential statements... you have assumed his sentence referred to itself. Since he quoted me, I presumed he was referring to my sentence, which is my formulation of the basis of the logic I am using.

In my twisted sort of way I was doing both. I was claiming it was false and providing evidence.

Any statement is either true or false' date=' and no statement is true and false simultaneously.

 

.[/quote']

 

This statement is false.

Binary logic is a logic in which all operators are binary. That is' date=' the operators accept two arguments. And example is the "AND" operator. It takes two statements p,q to form the compound statement "p AND q". Compound statements in binary logic are truth-functional, which means that the truth value of the compound statement depends entirely on the truth values of the more fundamental statements (called "atoms" in some of the literature) and the meaning of the operator.

 

It most certainly can not tell you whether the universe is deterministic, though.[/quote']

 

Thanks Tom

Excuse my ignorance, but what is binary logic?

Yeah, what then?

Wouldn't that (outside of strong local fields) resemble GR?

maybe we neither of us fully understand' date=' maybe we never will, maybe he is wrong, but let's think about what he says:

 

he says that rotation is not relative to newton flat "absolute space"

indeed absolute space does not exist it is one idealized case of the gravitational field which can occur only if there is no matter in the universe

 

so the imagined rectilinear 3D or 4D graph paper of absolute space or spacetime simply is not real. (although all of newtons physics happens in it)

 

[b']nor is rotation relative to the distant stars as Mach thought[/b]

 

what rovelli says (and in this historical chapter he is summing up the lessons learned from Gen Rel which we have to take seriously because it has survived and indeed prevailed for the 90 years since 1915), what he says is the lesson of Gen Rel is that the rotation is

"relative to a local dynamical entity, namely the gravitational field"

this I think is very hard to understand. but as long as one is going to be puzzled one might as well be puzzled by the right thing

 

What if you changed Mach's statement to "the distant stars in the distant past"?

I already proved it' date=' and there's no nobel prize in my past, how do you explain that one?

 

Regards [/quote']

 

You were supposed to get one but a quantum fluctuation overrided it!