Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Gobbleston

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. Every once in a while we find a small bug here and there that we would like to check out with the microscope. We don't want to kill the bug because we want to see it while it's alive. But the issue is that I can't find any kind of containers of any kind to hold the bug. I've been using various things, napkins, whatever, with a light on top (usually a flash light, I just bought a little reading one for exactly this purpose.) But what I would like, is some kind of container for the bug so that it can be seen, but still mobile. In my mind, this container is like a small glass box, with a piece of glass on top that slides open or closed. I can't find any such item though. Any ideas?
  2. I'm confused here, you say if both of the planets had the same mass and diameter, but I was asking about two different planets of greatly varying mass. I mean, if it would cause their clocks to be out of sync, wouldn't that follow that their lifespans would also become out of sync? Oh, also, I know what a paradox is, just calling it that because that's the common used term for the situation.
  3. Say, if a space ship were traveling at close to the speed of light, and it hits a space bug (somehow doesn't splatter it). The bug on the outside of the ship should be affected by the gravity and the gravity's changes on space/time created by the speed, and so it's time frame would be different from what his bug friends are experiencing back at the hive. Say he were to hang out on the windshield for some years, when he is finally carted back to the hive, he should be a different age from the rest of them solely because of the gravity incurred by the mass generated by the high speed. I mean, without specifically referring to the twin paradox thought experiment, if you were to have one twin living on planet a, and the second twin living on planet B which has several times the mass as planet A, they would age at different rates when finally reuniting, correct
  4. As an aside, if some object of any mass was propelling through space, as it's speed increases, it's mass increases. Regardless of the initial question, it would generate it's own gravitational field due to its increased mass, right? So, while something inside of the mass might not be affected by the changes, if something were to come into contact with the speeding object, the space/time relevancy would be affected for it, correct?
  5. @mathmatic Hmm. I feel like I'm almost there. I haven't even heard of Larentz transformation before, so there's a big blob of ignorance. I'm unclear as to why twin 2 would experience it much quicker. If he is going light speed, and it is 4.3 light years away, going at light speed should still take 4.3 years. For both twins. I mean, if some event on Alpha Centauri happens, (it blows up, whatever) it will take 4.3 years for us to be able to see that event, and likewise, the time whatever event happened will have long happened there when we see it. Like, if person A on Alpha Centauri turns on a christmas tree, and we see it 4.3 years later, we turn ours on back, and they will see it 8.6 years after they turned on there's. I don't understand how the same wouldn't be for an object, or person inside of said object, taking the same trip.
  6. @pmb You do know that you're not being helpful, right? You're just telling me I'm wrong. Great, thanks for that. @swansont I didn't mean the mass of the object itself as being a factor, I meant the mass increasing proportional to the speed. As for the use of the word acceleration, I was just referring to what was said earlier, in that the more you accelerate, the faster you are, the more mass you have. I don't understand how something with a much larger mass (a ship traveling close to the speed of light), can't have an effect on the way time behaves toward it.
  7. But isn't acceleration directly linked to mass and mass's effect on space/time? So the twin's mass from their acceleration should have at least some relation there, shouldn't it? The faster you go, the more mass you accumulate, the more mass you accumulate, the more gravity you generate, the more gravity you generate, the more space/time is bent. Like the whole thing about clocks at different altitudes running differently from one another. I understand that the acceleration would be faster at higher altitudes, but wouldn’t the gravity also have less effect the further you were from the bulk of Earth’s mass, thusly making the curvature of time less as well? The theory of special relativity with space/time factored in (which is the basis of relativity, right?) states that acceleration and gravitational pull should have the same effect on objects if the forces equal each other. Is the way I’m understanding this just a different angle than how it is usually viewed?
  8. Hello, I originally had a fairly basic question about the twin paradox but when attempting to look it up, I clicked the Wikipedia article and it was totally chock full of equations relative to speed, and the Doppler effect, and other such things. I was led to believe that the twin paradox has to do more so with the two twins and their relation to one another based on the bending of space time because of their acceleration/mass. Einstein’s theory of general relativity basically means (as far as I know) that the faster an object moves, the greater its mass increases, and because objects of larger mass create a greater gravitational pull on space time, that would account for the differences in age. Is that wrong? Forgive me if this is laden with complete ignorance. :/
  9. Hello again, One of the earlier findings behind the theory of relativity was measured distance between the sun and earth dependent on location. In the book I’m reading it isn’t too clear on this point, saying that two different people would get two different results, but because the speed of light is constant you would have to factor in a different of time levels instead of speed or distance. Now, I’ve been pondering this for a bit between having written this email (yesterday) and having posted it. At the beginning of my pondering I was thinking that even with the speed of light remaining constant, shouldn’t time and distance still measure proportionate to one another? Upon further pondering, (though it wasn’t explained), I’m guessing that the two times were different with the difference in distance already factored in? Is that correct? There weren’t any examples in the book. Something like Person A: time measured = speed of light x distance to sun (already measured from location) Person B: time measured (not expected value in accordance with A) = speed of light x distance to sun (already measured from location)
  10. Ah, a shame there isn't a picture of the eclipse. Does anyone here know the name of the ring? (NGC###) I'd like to observe it myself, and perhaps get my own picture if it isn't too faint.
  11. Ah, I see. So the original description was theory, and then the demonstration (proof) was the stars around the sun. So, during the eclipse, the stars that astronomically should be directly behind the sun were seen as a circle around the sun? Is there any astrophotography of this phenomenon? ( mean directly, of the eclipse version)
  12. Hello, So let me start of by saying that I am a high school graduate, but not a college one. Personally, I blame the California school system. Anyway, I have been reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, because I have a great interest in learning as an adult. I understand a great deal of the book, but some of it I'm more of the "well, if you say so." attitude. I would prefer more understanding on these subject, so I imagine I'll have more than a few questions for here. So, my first bit of trouble is regarding Einstein's theory of general relativity, related to the equivalency principle. I get the basic gist of it, how light would behave the same way related to an accelerating object as it would to the same force of gravity. But my question is, is this something that could be observed, or simply a concept? I mean, is there anything that can be used on earth to demonstrate this? In my mind, I want to be able to demonstrate this with a car accelerating with a hole punched in an opaque cover on the side window, but I suspect that wouldn't work. How do we know this is true? Also, would this be observable from within the accelerating object, or only something we know to be true when observing said object from a different vantage point? I find this all very fascinating, and I am playing around with the idea of writing a book that simplifies much of this for a layman to understand. I looked at the "for dummies" book on the subjects, and it turns out that it isn't for dummies. I think these are more intimidating concepts then they might need to be, and I think more people could be interested if it were put into very simple terms.
  • 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.