JaKiri

I see more the expansion of the universe away from every[/u'] point. Go to any point in the universe and you will see the expansion happening te same way.

This doesn't disagree with my post, you know.

In Newton eye space and time are absolute.

Actually, the big difference with Newton was entirely relative space; everything before that had presumed an aether.

And of course Relativity doesn't presuppose an absolute; Relativity says an absolute doesn't exist.

I thought we did know where the center of the Universe was?

Nope, for the reason I explained above. Also others, but they're less relevent. The rest of the post also assumes that the expansion of the universe is uniform, and away from a certain point.

If velocity is relative, how can changing the relative rate of movement between two bodies (acceleration) be an absolute? What makes acceleration real, while it's resulting velocity is simply relative.

To accelerate, you need a force. SR does surprisingly little to forces.

as for Absolute Motion' date=' surely that would just be maintaining a constant and fixed distance from the center of the Big Bang, whilst everything else does its own thing (Expand away from that point I assume)?[/quote']

 

You can only define the center of the universe in relation to other objects, so, depending on your inertial frame when the universe began, you would see it as a different place.

 

You see?

 

(Sorry I haven't done an overall guide to SR, I've been rather busy lately with university things)

I told you to stop posting this, and still you persist!

This time, perhaps a 2 week gap will distract you from this tiresome subject.

The only reason that Freeman doesn't speak in Half Life is an immersive one. Obviously, it would be counter-immersive for him to be silent in a film, so he would speak.

You don't just show a game at the cinema, you have to adapt it.

good point.

 

hmm' date='

 

well, maybe we dont actually need to see it to use it's shape to give it away.

 

I wonder what the sacle of intergrated ccts is compared to that of a virus.

 

perhaps a virus has another signature that can be isolated.[/quote']

 

How do you intend to shoot it if you can't know where it is?

 

Why not just use some kind of thing that targets the virus, but nothing else?

 

Oh wai

Electron microscapy is the only plausable way under current technology, I'm afraid. It's quite possible that there will be others, but that involves finding a charged particle of extremely low mass.

Oh, and I for one don't want a laser shooting randomly into my bloodstream.

You're no gamer, you're a fraud!

you see' date=' i've been setting the functions equal to each other thus

[b']1/x^4-x^4=x^2[/b]

and integrating this with respect to x between 0 and 0.9 which is it's positive intersecting point.

 

why can't i do this?

Becuase you can't do that in integration. Just look at the 1/x^4 - x^4 curve in isolation; is integrating that between 0 and 0.9 really what you want to do?

So if you froze time for the entire universe NOW so everything stopped and went to visit everywhere/thing the position and states of those things will have changed, even though time for the entire universe was frozen??

You can't stop time, so basing thought experiments around it is rather stupid.

Do you mean that Lorentz transform apply only to constant velocity ?

Suppose Bill going away at constant speed we will see his clock going slower. We can use Lorentz transform to calculate how much slower we will read. (It is a guess )

Suppose Bill coming back at constant velocity after is turning back. We will see his clock runing faster than our clock (mesurement effect). But the Lorentz transform will not give the correct answer.

No, you're misunderstanding.

In constant velocity interactions (ie one where are the parties are going at a constant velocity), all Lorenz Transformations are SUBJECTIVE. They only apply to each individual rest frame, and are different for every one. That's what I meant by a measurement difference; because all rest frames are equally valid, there's a difference in measurement that's reflected by no physical change over all the rest frames, unlike Bill, undergoing acceleration to come back to earth.

I don't see anything wrong with any of that.

Except it is incorrect. You forgot that part.

Whatever programming language the author chose to write the program in. Perl, Javascript, C++, Java... you name it.

If it was a measurement difference then when Bill come back' date=' Bob will see Bill's clock going faster. Lorentz transform doesn't distinguish between motion away from the observer and motion toward the observer: the v term is squared v^2 .

I am still puzeled....[/quote']

 

That's not a constant velocity interaction, because the velocities aren't constant.

Absolute time...

I think that's the way gravity equations works. You compute the position of the sun in the sky where he is now . If you want to observe it with your telescope' date=' you will point to where it was 8 minute ago.[/quote']

 

That's only under newtonian physics; under General Relativity, gravity waves take time to travel, just the same as light (and at the same speed too). If the sun was destroyed 7 minutes ago, there is no way to know for another 60 seconds, because any ways we have of knowing that it's been destroyed all take 8 minutes to get to us.

 

Or, to put it another way, the speed of light is the universal speed limit for information transfer, which includes force interactions.

The mobo cd is useless until you've installed windows anyway, you did the right thing in that regard.

It obviously seems like something burnt out, which implies a lack of cooling somewhere, most likely on one of:

the processor (not enough/any heat conducting paste on the heatsink? fan not working? insufficiently good heatsink?)

the northbridge (although that should have just shut things down)

the graphics card (likewise)

the psu (could be)

I'm surprised that it would get that far, though; in my experience of building computers (which has all been with AMD chips) computers shut down before they overheat, but I'm not sure how intel does it.

there MUST be an absolute though?

 

an event occurs at NOW' date=' that NOW is everywhere, whether the effects are seen or not in their ref frame.[/quote']

 

Fraid not. Time is not absolute.

 

[edit]

 

I know what you mean by 'absolute time'; a form of universal clock, where you can say 'This happened THEN!', and then ream off a number of things which happened simultaneously.

 

This is how Newton saw time; it is not how it exists under Einsteinian physics, and, as evidence has shown, the universe.

 

For example, we perceive particles we create to live longer the faster their going, due to time dilation. From their point of view, they take the same time to decay, but ours has them going so fast there's a noticable difference.

 

All these effects (mass gaining, time slowing, lengths contracting) take place in this ratio, where v is the object's velocity relative to the rest frame, and c is the speed of light.

 

SQRT ( 1 - (v^2/c^2)).

 

[edit2]

 

There's not absolute motion either. That went out with Newton, and is also precluded by Einstein.

 

If there's an absolute background, special relativity doesn't work, because you lose the equivalence of all the rest frames.

 

And special relativity does work.

If it is, then integrate x^2 between 0 and the x value of the intercept with respect to x.

This will give you this area;

http://img140.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img140ℑ=grapha6sz.jpg

Then, integrate 1/x^4 - x^4 between 0 and the y value of the intercept with respect to y.

This will give you this area;

http://img133.exs.cx/img133/6342/graphba5su.jpg

Then, you need to subtract this rectangle;

http://img133.exs.cx/img133/5333/graphc2se.jpg

to give you this area;

http://img133.exs.cx/img133/5889/graphd7ds.jpg

You now have the 2 pieces of the right hand side, add them together and multiply by 2 (to get the LHS), and you're done.

Which bit? The small, visably finite bits?

I'm still not sure how acceleration can not be an absolute. I could accelerate (in space) from a particle at 3ms-2, therefore the seperation would widen at 3ms-2 and so the particle could in effect be accelerating from me at 3ms-2.

There would be a force acting on you. It would be fairly trivial to arrive at that conclusion because, even if you're not in contact with anything, you're not a rigid body.

Can we confirm if relativity is an apparent difference in measurement between two parties, or a literal/physical effect on the object/measuring instruments themselves.

Sort of both. Constant velocity interactions are the former, acceleratory thingies are the latter. It changes from one to the other, depending on what you're talking about.

Agreed, there is a difference in reference to time dilation formulae. But what is the basis of these formulae. Is it because of a literal effect on the atoms in the clocks, or is it an apparent difference due propagation between an event happening and it being observed.

The basis of this formula is that the speed of light is constant for all observers; time dilation, and all the other lorenz effects, are upshots of this. It's a literal, physical effect of the inertial frame.

If it is literal (physical) effect, doesn't this then indicate that this is a physical property and not that time itself is changed.

Scientifically, this statement is meaningless; the only way we can say that time exists is through our experiences of it, measuring it. The only way we can test time dilation is through measuring it. Hence, we cannot say that time exists independent of our measurings, and to say that there is a universal 'clock' is unscientific, and an untestable hypothesis.

Finally, on the point of pigs. I hate big heads myself but if you sit back sometimes they spur a moment of thought. And don't forget people used to think the universe revolved around the earth, the earth was flat, that when you tied someone to a chair and held them underwater they'd drown if they were a witch. Who really knows what's right and what's wrong????

This is a science forum. Science. It is perfectly scientific to say that the earth is flat, if all the evidence you have gathered suggests that it is flat. You cannot say things, from supposed authority, without evidence. Furthermore, since we are discussing an abstracted part of science ('Einstein's Relativity'), you can be absolutely correct or incorrect about it.

Oh, and re: witches, the way the drowning test was that if you survived you were a witch.

And then you were killed.

It also means "To be in accord; agree"

Didn't know that one! I'll have to add it to my vocabulary. Mr Person Who's Name I've Forgotten, I've done you a disservice!

To be fair, it isn't clear whether the website he was linking to was his; the english wasn't utterly different, the information content was similar to his posts, but it still could have been coincidence; the latter point has a fairly obvious explanation, and the former can easily happen.

Of course, I suspect it to be true, purely by his continual reference to it, but there we go.

[edit]

You know, this whole argument could have been avoided if you understood how the word 'ability' works. It's a digital thing; you either have the ability (to accelerate, in this case) or you haven't. My posts were based on the assumption that you knew the definitions of the words you were typing, although, from this post, it's clear this isn't the case. [/edit]

Less well?? Less well??[/size'] that doesn't jibe with Earth's proficiency at space travel to the moon.

Perhaps 'a lower magnitude of acceleration' would have sat more happily with you? No difference to me, the implication is the same.

Of course, I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly, given that 'to jibe' means 'to taunt/deride'. Perhaps, if you swing by some time in the future, you'll be able to explain to me your lowly servant.

But no matter. You go ahead and mentor YT, and you might BOTH end up with similar mental blocks. I won't waste another alpha wave sticking around this den of stumblebums. Good riddance. [Those who, in my absence, search for and read my accumulated 78 posts, will find a veritable treasure trove.]

You're an amusing fellow. Stick around for good times! The fact that you're immensely arrogant, opinionated and assuming doesn't change that!

if the trigger gets pulled at at 11:20:30 exactly' date=' and the melon pops at 11:20:31 it still doesn`t change the time WHEN I pulled the trigger.[/quote']

 

In America, you pulled the trigger at 6:20:30 exactly!

 

Time is NOT absolute. Time measurements are just a human invention, and the rate of the flow of time has been proven to be non-uniform.