swansont

No. It depends on how well you can make the measurement. It may well be that the deviation is so small that such a measurement is not practical or possible. The difference between relativity and classical physics is small but not non-existant. So it all depends on what you are measuring. One cannot simply assume that there is a classical explanation for any phenomenon that is peculiar to relativity. It might exist, to a high degree of accuracy, but it might not.

If you watch video of the lunar lander leaving the moon, there is no visible plume.

Then you should have no trouble providing a citation and/or link

! Moderator Note Hijacking a thread was not a good start towards that goal.

Since this is not how we do the detection of our craft, and such a scenario has never existed, this is tough to answer as posed. If the reaction is from something that burns without a visible flame, all you can do is use thermal imaging. How big, hot and bright is the object going to be?

! Moderator Note Can you post a link to a relevant site in English, please?

Renewable means you have to be able to reverse the reaction. That may not be easy to do — it depends on the reaction(s) involved.

That would be the only time you could hope to discover the plume. If interstellar travel were actually feasible, that would be very late in the game.

If one is able to show that time is affected, not just the device for some mechanical reason (i.e. this not the action of a force), then everything is affected. The light clock is used because it has no mechanical parts that could be the cause. Once you have shown that, you shouldn't need an explanation with some other more complex device or system. For a high-schooler, it was a decent effort, but there are some obvious flaws. He mentions inertial frames, but all of his subsequent examples were of non-inertial frames — showed the earth orbiting, for example. The earth is inertial only to the extent you can ignore its rotation and revolution about the sun. Sometimes that's a reasonable approximation, but not always. He mentions speeding up and slowing down as accelerations, but ignores rotation. Acceleration does not require a change in speed. That's a rookie mistake, but he's a rookie, so it's understandable. I would have preferred he use an active example for the physics in two different frames, like tossing a ball in the air, or bouncing it on the floor. The passive example isn't bad, but I think an active one is more illuminating. His example of light having to catch up to a moving target as a reason for time dilation doesn't work if you change direction, such that the target is moving toward the source. So that explanation fails under closer examination. Time moves slower. Figuring out the ramifications is left an exercise.

And my response is that "relativistic" depends on how well you can measure. It's not a naive "going near the speed of light". With a good enough clock, for example, 100 kph is relativistic. Moving up or down a meter in elevation is relativistic. Interferometers are generally sensitive devices. Therefore, they may be able to measure relativistic effects at relatively low speeds.

You gave no examples of the light clock being used to explain gravitational time dilation. The observers at different potentials would disagree on the length of the travel of the light (and thus also for the time) but not for the same reason as a moving clock.

The light clock explanation shows that time runs slower for a moving object. Why do you need another explanation?

Relativity predicts a relative frequency shift that depends on your position in a gravitational well. For the light, the upper detector sees a redshift and the lower detector sees a blueshift. Or, viewed another way, the upper clock runs fast while the lower one runs slow, relative to the light. For light, this is fairly easy to show, as it has to do with conservation of energy. If the light did not undergo a frequency shift, it would have the same energy at the top and bottom of the well. You could, in principle, take a photon, move it higher in the well, convert the energy to mass and have the mass drop down, which would gain mgh of energy per cycle. You then use the mass energy to create more photons and you would have an over-unity device. So the frequency shift has to happen.

Why? If there was a classical explanation for relativistic effects, we wouldn't need relativity. Relativity need not be invoked only for things traveling close to c — that's simply where the effects cannot be ignored under any circumstances. The ability to measure relativistic effects is also a function of the sensitivity of the measuring device. You could measure kinematic time dilation with a car going 100 km/hr if the clock was good enough — we're right on the edge of doing it with standard atomic clocks. And we already know it works on a plane, going just a few times faster than that. Interferometry is often a fairly sensitive measuring technique.

That's a site written by a computer scientist, and suffers from the very pop-sci foibles I mentioned earlier.

Not really a theory as science recognizes it. More of an observation. Yes things tend to evolve in time. But time can pass for a static system, too.

The same way we detect other objects? Which they would do at the beginning of their journey, far away from us.

! Moderator Note If you have things to discuss, discuss them here. The rules state the people do not have to click on links to participate.

I think most people with functioning eyes are aware of them. That's a form of electromagnetic perception, though it's limited to around the 400-700 nm range of the spectrum. Skin is a lower-resolution form of electromagnetic perception. Most people are probably aware of sunlight on their skin, under some circumstances, and can perceive sunburn. What are man-made frequencies?

Surely the most intelligent person in the world could easily acquire this knowledge without having to deign to surfing internet discussion fora, where you have no certainty about the expertise of the people answering you. Surely your intelligence allows you to understand what the doctors are telling you, and to ask pertinent questions to clear up anything you don't. To quote Kirk from one of the ST movies, "What does God need with a starship?"

! Moderator Note Then ask about psychology, and not for opinions about whether kids today are snitches, etc.

! Moderator Note What science do you wish to discuss here?

What you are likely to find (and what I've found the times I have followed up on this) is that phrase "orbital speed" is used in pop-sci descriptions of the phenomena (possibly along with suggestions that the mass has changed), but when you go to the primary literature they generally discuss the energy, because that's what's in the QM. What's happening is that the kinetic energy is not what is described classically, because the energy high enough that the relativistic solution for the orbital differs from the classical one. That happens at a few percent of the mass energy (depending on what you mean by "significant") The mass energy of the electron is 511 keV, so kinetic energies of several keV would give rise to such effects. Ionization energy for inner electrons of really heavy atoms can approach 100 keV. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/kxray.html#c1and the KE is that same magnitude (Though I may be forgetting a factor of 2, but that doesn't change the concept) The speed calculations take the kinetic energy and solve for a speed, but that's kinda dicey physics when you're discussing QM. There's always a momentum uncertainty, so the speed cannot be precisely known.

Atlas Hyperion has been banned as a sockpuppet of SigmaR.I.F.T_CKF (and of VehGalTal)

In proof-by-contradiction, it means that one or more of the assumptions was wrong. That seems the most likely explanation. Also the clusters will not look the same, because their composition and other characteristics change with time. You appear to be assuming that they are static, which is a horrible assumption.