Janus

How is using 1.25 hrs any different than saying 1 and a quarter hrs? or 1 1/4 hrs. The fact that the number is followed by "hrs" indicates that the numerical value is applies to the one unit, hours, while with 1:15 the ":" denotes a marker between units, or 1 hr, 15 min. I'm sorry if this confuses you, but when working with such problems it is easier to the work the math out in decimal hrs and then convert back to Hr and min afterwards if you need to. If the clock left you moving at 0.8c to a point 1 light hr away ( as measured by you), while both it and your clock both read 12:00, then it will take, by your determination, 1 hr 15 min to reach that point. You, however, will not see him arrive when your clock reads 1:15, as It will take an another hr for the light from his arrival to reach you, so you will see the image of his arrival 2 hr and 15 min after he left, when your clock reads 2:15. In other words, you will "see" his entire trip as being stretched out over 2 hrs 15 min. As you watched him recede from you, you will see him via relativistic Doppler shift. This does not only effects the measured frequency of the light you get from him, but also the rate at which you would "see" his clock tick. The Relativistic Doppler shift rate for 0.8c is 1/3. Since you see this happening for the entire 2 hr and 15 min, you will see that clock ticking off only 1/3 of that, or 45 min. Thus when you see the clock arrives at that point 1 light hr away, you will see it as reading 12:45.

Orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees were the apes we saw, and were all "greater" apes, while gibbons belong to the "lesser" apes. Maybe the lesser ape species didn't survive. Or maybe they had their own separate communities.

No. The detected frequency would be 1.732 times the source frequency. The red or blue shift is due to a combination of both The changing light propagation times and relativistic time dilation.

If the universe were not expanding, we would not see any red shift with distance. Thus the increasing red-shift we see with increasing distance is evidence that the universe is expanding over time, and was smaller in the past than it is now. If we extrapolate back in time, we get the very dense, very hot state of the Big Bang. The acceleration of the the expansion over time is evidenced by the exact relationship between red-shift and distance. There are three possible scenarios for an expanding universe. All of them will show a red-shift: Case 1: expansion slows over time Case 2: expansion remains constant over time. Case 3: expansion speeds up over time. Only in case 2 will there be a perfect direct relationship between distance and red-shift, where doubling the distance exactly doubles the red-shift. In the other two cases, doubling the distance results in a red-shift that is not an exact doubling. Whether it is less than double or more than double distinguishes between the two cases. We have found that the red-shift distance ratio indicates that the universe's expansion rate has been increasing over time, and thus the rate of the expansion is accelerating.

Galileo would have assumed that light followed the rules of Galilean Relativity and that the speed of the light emitted by B relative to A would depend on the velocity of B relative to A. Thus, if B were traveling away from A at c, its light emitted back towards A would be not moving at all relative to A. If B started at any non-zero distance from A, A would see light coming from it right up to the moment B started moving away at c, and then would see no image of B at all. If B then stops relative to A at a 1 light hr distance*, A would eventually see this two hrs after B left**, If both A and B read 10:00 while near each other, B will read 11:00 when it reaches its destination, and this light will reach A when its reads 12:00. Thus A would see B tick normally up until it starts moving away at c, and then A would see nothing until 12:00, when it would suddenly see B one light hr away and reading 11:00. Knowing that the light took an hour to get to him, that clock B at that moment also reads 12:00. Galileo would assume that clock B just ticked normally the whole time, and there were just portions of the trip that A simply could not see. If B were moving away at greater than c, A would also not be able to see it as it receded, because, once again, the light emitted by B would never get to A (in fact, it would have a velocity away from A.) If B were then were to suddenly reverse direction(for simplicity we'll assume an instantaneous change of velocity) upon reaching 1 light hr from A and returns at c, Galileo would expect A to the see the following. For 1 1/2 hours after B leaves, A sees nothing, Then at 11:30 it will see B at 1 light hr away, reading 11:00 and coming towards A at c. During the next half hr, It will see B close the distance, while B's clock appears to tick twice as fast, accumulating 1 hr of time until both clocks meet with both reading 12:00. If B make the same type of trip at 2c, A sees nothing for 50 min, then at 10:50 B suddenly appears, at a distance of 1 light hr reading 10:30. For the next ten minutes, A sees B close the distance while B's clock ticks 3 times faster, accumulating 30 min, to read 11:00 once it returns to A. In short, Galileo would not assume that anything out of the ordinary happens to Clock B in terms of its tick rate, just that the combination of the SOL and the relative velocity of B to A will alter how the information about B reaches A. And as long as A takes this into account, A will say that clock B always keeps perfect time with clock A Note that this is completely different for Relativity, where A, after taking into account the SOL effects on how the info arrived would conclude that Clock B did not keep time with clock A. Thus in my earlier example, When A sees a 1 hr and 75 sec difference between itself and clock B, 1hr of that is due to light propagation delay, and the remaining 75 sec is due to time dilation that occurred during the outbound trip. *Galileo didn't have a good idea of how fast light traveled, only that it was much faster than sound, so here, we'll just assume some finite value for c. ** This light will pass the stationary(relative to A) light left behind by B on its outbound trip.

He will see whatever time that was on clock B when the light left it. So what? Where are you trying to go with this?

But that is just light propagation delay, which generally is factored out when we deal with SR. Suing your example, with B traveling to a distance of 1 light hr in 1 day: To do this it has to travel at 1/24c. At that speed, the relativistic Doppler shift ( which determines the rate at which A would visually see B tick at as it recedes), is ~0.95917 Since it takes an additional hour for light to travel from a 1 light hr distance, A doesn't see B arrive at the 1 light hr distance until 25 hrs after B leaves. Thus for 25 hrs, A will see B tick at a rate of 0.95917 and accumulate ~86,325 of ~sec, while accumulating 90,000 sec itself. this is a difference of ~ 3675 sec. 3600 of those sec is accounted for by the 1 hr light propagation delay, leaving a 75 sec real time difference. Thus, A, at 10:00, will see B reading 08:58:45, but after accounting for the 1 hr propagation delay, will determine that B actually reads 09:58:15.

It's not enough to just "see" the events simultaneously to say that they were simultaneous, even if you are halfway between the events when you saw them. For the observer to claim that those events were simultaneous, he also would have to have be either stationary with respect to these events or the relative motion between himself and those events would have to be on a line perpendicular to the line joining the events. Another observer moving parallel to that joining line, even if he was at the exact same point as the first observer, and "saw" the events simultaneously, just like the first observer did, would conclude that the events themselves were not simultaneous. So for example, this shows events according to the observer at rest with respect to the events. The white expanding circles is the light produced by the events For him, the events occur simultaneously. Both light flashes and the railway car observer arrive at his position at the same time. However, for the railway observer, the order for the same events is different: The light from both flashes meet at his position at the same moment as he is adjacent to the track observer, but the events producing those flashes did not occur at the same time. This is because he must measure light as traveling at c relative to himself. In other words if he were to measure the speed of either light flash as it passed him, he would measure both as moving a at relative to himself. Thus for him, the light flashes, once emitted, expand outward from the point of emission at c. (the red dots move away from these points, but we don't care what they do after the flashes are emitted) Now for him, the time it takes for a flash to reach him from either event is equal to the distance between him and the event at the moment the event took place divided by c Since the events have to occur prior to his seeing the light flashes, they had to occur before he was at the halfway point between them. He had to be closer to one event than he was the other. Different distances means different travel times at c, and therefore when he sees both flashes at the same time, he also knows that one of those flashes had to travel a longer distance and take a longer time to reach him, and ergo, the events producing those flashes could not have occurred simultaneously.

The reddening we see with the setting Sun is due to the blue end of the spectrum being scattered. Thus the light coming from the direction of the Sun has less Blue light and looks redder. The red-shft we see from distant galaxies cannot be due to a like effect. We measure red-shift by looking at the light's spectrum. In it are patterns of lines that are like "fingerprints" for elements. Each pattern isn't only unique, but it is produced in a certain point of the spectrum. If the red-shift was due to a scattering out of blue light, all you would see would be a dimming in the blue end of the spectrum. The spectral lines would still be there and in the same place. This is not what we see. Instead we see a shift of the whole spectrum towards the red. Spectral lines have moved further to the red end of the spectrum. The wavelength of the light itself has been changed, rather than just certain frequencies filtered out leaving redder light behind. (in fact, red-shifting will shift non-visible frequency ultraviolet into the visible light range.)

No. We used to think that "space" and "time" where unrelated. But then we learned that they are just two ways of measuring the same thing. The term space-time was coined to reflect this revelation. The "illusion" was that time and space were distinct and unrelated.

Well, his 2nd marriage was to his cousin.

No, it's just relative.

And if Farid learned just how those illusions are done, I doubt he'd be impressed either. (Want to disappoint someone? Tell them how you did the trick that just "blew their mind".

Then be impressed, because they are all just illusions.

A bell is rung at 12:00:00. You are 686 meters from the bell. You hear the bell ring at 12:00:02. But just because you are now just hearing a ring that occurred two seconds ago doesn't mean that the sound of that ring is "still at 12:00:00".

Don't confuse relativistic Doppler effect with time dilation. Relativistic Doppler effect depends on whether the object is going way or coming towards you. Tine dilation does not. Theory does not predict "negative" time dilation (time reversal) for FTL objects. Just look at the time dilation equation. if v exceeds c, you end up with the square root of a negative number, for which there is no answer. For a photon, where v=c, you end up with 1/0, which is undefined.

With TTL logic, any voltage between 2 and 5 volts is a "1", and anything from 0 to 0.8 volts is a "0". (the range in between is undefined). For CMOS, it is anything above 70% of the source voltage is a "1" and anything below 30% is a "0". You can have voltage and power usage even with a "0". Also, as pointed out in a previous post, loading is an issue. If an output from a logic gate is connected to too many inputs, those inputs can drag the output voltage down. Even if it is trying to output a "1", it may only be able to get the output voltage into the undefined region, or not even out of the "0" region. This is what buffers are for. They help keep the output in the "1" range when it needs to be, but they do so by drawing extra energy from the power source.

The longest known word in Finnish is ( take a deep breath) Lentokonesuihkuturbiinimoottoriapumekaanikkoaliupseerioppilas Though to be fair, this is a compound word. One of the possible reasons Finnish has so many words is the penchant for forming compound words. "black and White" is Mustavalkoinen, which is Musta(black) and valkoinen(white) pushed together into one word. Now there might be more of a reason behind this than originally appears. Remember how I said above how adjectives had to be in the same case as the Noun? If you translate "it belongs to the black cat" you get "se kuuluu mustalle kissalle" (kissa = cat) the lle denoting a change of case However, "it belongs to the white cat" translates as "se kuuluu valkoiseen kissaan", which has different case endings. So if you try to translate "it belongs to the black and white cat" using Musta ja valkoinen for "black and white", which case ending do you use? But if you use mustavalkionen as a single word, you only need to consider how it ends and "it belongs to the black and white cat" - se kuuluu mustavalkoiseen kissaan. So making a single compound word can simplify things when dealing with cases. Thus with Lentokonesuihkuturbiinimoottoriapumekaanikkoaliupseerioppilas , which translates to "airplane jet turbine engine auxiliary mechanic non-commissioned officer student" If you kept it as separate words, changing the case, As in " it belongs to the airplane jet turbine engine auxiliary mechanic non-commissioned officer student", would involve case changes for every word, rather than just making a change to the end of one word.

Finnish I eat = syön You eat = syöt I ate = soin you eat = soit I don't eat = en syö You don't eat = et syö I want to eat = Haluan syödä I don't want to eat =En halua syödä I did want to eat =Halusin syödä I didn't want to eat = En halunnut syödä I can eat = voin syödä I could eat = Voisin syödä Let's eat = syödään I didn't eat = En syönyt we didn't eat = emme syöneet ( we ate = söimme) In terms of tacking things to together, Finnish has: Juoksentelisinkohan? = should I run around aimlessly? And while Finnish has no articles ( the or a), and makes very limited use of prepositions (Relying on cases instead), It has two words for "What?" ( with rules as to which one to use) Three words for "where" ( where is it?, where to?, and where from?) and it has separate question words for "by what"(millä), "of/like what"(miltä), To/at what?(mille), and "what kind"(millainen) On the other hand, there is Kuusi palaa, which could have any of 9 meanings. or Vihdoin vihdoin vihdoin Which seems to be just the same word repeated three times, but actually means. "I finally whipped myself with a birch branch" First Vihdoin = finally second vihdoin : Base word vihtoa = to whip or strike. Past tense = Vihdoi, Used with the pronoun "I" = vihdoin Third vihdoin: Base word vihta, = a leafy birch branch, which, when put into the case meaning "using a birch branch", becomes vihdoin. This not as unusual a sentence as you might think, as it is a common practice to use birch branches in such a way while taking sauna (Though it is one sauna tradition I personally didn't partake of.) I was eating - soin ( the difference between "I ate", and "I was eating" is made by the following case. Soin omenan = I ate an apple, Soin omenaa = I was eating an apple.

On the list, Finnish is listed 2nd, but it notes that "inflections"* are not included. I assume that this means only the nominative case of each word. For example: mennä - "to go". However, "I go" - menen, "you go" - menet, "we go" - menemme, "You(pl) go" - menette- "they go" menevät. ( with each of these could put the respective pronoun with it. minä -I, sinä - you, me - we, te- you(pl), he - they, but in general, since the pronoun is implied, is left off. The exceptions are Hän - s/he, and se - it, as they both use "menee", so it has to be either hän menee or se menee. )** Another example would be voida- "can", where adding "ko" changes things from a statement to a question. I can go - Voin mennä Can I go? Voinko mennä? Then there are the cases. Talo - house (nominative) Taloa- House as objective in the sentence Talossa - in the house Taloon - to the house ( and going in) Talolle - to the house ( not entering) Talosta - from the house ( going from in to out) Talolta - from the house ( going/coming from the house, but not from inside the house) Talolla - at the house*** I'm also not * though this could also refer to the difference between kirjakiele (standard/formal) and puhekiele(common/spoken) Finnish. For example Minusta(K) vs. Musta(P), both meaning " In my opinion" ** When I recently learned this, a light went on. I grew up in a part of Northern Minnesota that was known for having its own accent/dialect. One of the traits of this accent was to drop pronouns when they were implied. Given that ~20% of the ethnic makeup of region was Finnish ( compared to 0.2% nationwide), it is reasonable to assume that due to Finnish influence *** As a side note, adjectives also must follow the same case rules as the noun they are attached to. Ruskea Talo - the brown house, Becomes Ruskeassa talossa - In the brown house.

Today, I learned that there is a resort in Finland that shares its name with my paternal grandfather's surname at birth ( he changed it just prior to immigrating, and then again after reaching the US.) Though I really shouldn't be surprised, as it basically translates to Spruce lake, and as there are a lot of lakes and Spruce trees in Finland, I'd expect it to be a fairly common name. ( Ironically, his father was a black/gun smith, so his surname could have ended up being Seppä, which would be the Finnish equivalent of Smith.)

Then there is the fact that seismic waves traveling through the Earth tell us a lot about its interior.

To understand where your claim that accelerator results are essentially "fudged" is in error, you need to look ar the history of accelerators. One of the early types, the cyclotron relied on the fact the accelerated particles took the same amount of time to make one trip around no matter how fast they were moving, as they naturally went around in increasingly larger circles as they sped up However, this only worked for so long, as relativistic effects began to take hold. The speed/radius ratio drifted apart at higher speeds. Thus the snychrotron had to be developed to reach greater particle speeds. In other words, if it hadn't been for Relativity rearing its head, cyclotrons wouldn't have the upper speed limit they do.

Another person who debunked Geller was Johnny Carson. He had Geller on his show to have him display his abilities. Carson was however an former magician himself, first made sure that everything was on the up and up. The result:Geller failed to perform even one pyscic feat.

Or maybe it is just that the classical concepts of "particle" and "wave" aren't truly descriptive of the real universe.