Didymus

Dan, while I appreciate each of your thought experiments.... All three of them only show distance between objects... Has nothing to do with "space" itself existing. Like time, space is a way we describe where matter is... It is not, by itself, any sort of alterable fabric. If you define "one foot" by the size of a ruler.... Then stretch that ruler, you are not stretching space... only the object. Likewise, if we see a clock effected by forces (such as a muon lasting longer than expected), it would be difficult to prove that the muon is inalterably lasting a set amount of time, but that time is shifting from everyone else's perspective. It would be much more logical to state that the muon is simply decaying more slowly by that same extent. My point is that matter and energy is alterable. Space and time are ideas to describe what matter and energy is doing. They can not be altered, dilated, compressed, bent, created or destroyed any more than "Monday" can be. Monday doesn't exist... It's just a way people define when to go back to work and die a little more on the inside.

Still say if you believe that only 10 years actually passes during that 1000LY trip, then you're insinuating that traveling at .99995c=100c. If you travel 100 lightyears per year.... Only way around that is to admit that time and space don't change, only the traveler's perception of time and space.... Meaning that even if it slowed all biological and atomic function by a factor of 100.... They've still been traveling for 1000 years.

Thought about specifying "intiger" ... But I didn't want to sound snarky. As far as negative numbers go.... -8000 is still larger the +7000.... Just because it's on the other side of zero doesn't mean the number itself isnt larger.

Wrong scale. Why does steam rise? Because it be ones less dense than surrounding air that falls underneith it, pushing it up. Are you just suggesting that gravity isn't energy? Or do you seriously propose that a massive body can "run out" of that energy? ...air circulating (due to gravity) is harvested in wind energy. Why does rain fall? When the droplets become heavier than the air, it falls... These drops accumulate into rivers, which gravity pulls downhill.... This water rolling down hill is funneled through generators in dams.... Hydroelectricity... From gravity. As to your claim that an orbit is only sustained by a conservation of enery.... The moon's gravitational pull on the tides.... Constantly exerting force on our planet, we can pull a ton of energy from tidal shifts, without the moon ever "running out of gravity."

POOP! I derped and forgot to account for 10's hiding 7-8 pairs.... I hope my wife can forgive me.

So, two simple questions: Reading a book by terry goodkind called the law of nines.... So I'm in a math mood. He mentioned that the sale of his paintings fetched him 14,400 and I was like 0o, that's divisible by 9, maybe that's important... Then I went off on a tangent thinking it's also divisible by 10 and 3, obviously.... And 2, therefore 6, and 1, of course.... And 8.... and 4.... But not 7.... So I tried to think of the lowest number I could that would be divisible by 1-10.... So it would have to end in 560 to cover 7,8, and 10... So I think 7560 is the lowest one.... Anyone know of a lower one? Should this be the lowest one, it would entertain me enough to at least hold a place among my favorite numbers.... 0, OF COURSE, being my favorite, and infinity being my second.... So question 2.... I assume most people don't consider infinity a rational number? I've seen it debated a couple places

Energy is constantly being created. Gravity is produced by all massive bodies and will never "run out.". This energy is directly harnessable (the tides move because of gravity, wind power and hydroelectric plants are all methods of harnessing gravity). So, that one's shot. As for perpetual motion.... We're floating around on a big perpetually moving rock right now. An object in orbit will never stop falling because gravity will never run out (unless thé system is altered by an outside force, or imbalanced by the sun deteriorating or whatnot). "impossible" is another word for "I'm too lazy to find the exception." Or, swan, that the law was based on assumption that was nevet correct to begin with. The earth didn't start orbiting the sun when the scientific community accepted the idea. The universe is what it is, and it would be foolish to limit the universe because we're too ignorant/stubborn to understand it's infinite simplicity.

Easy answer: No, neither time or space exist in and of themselves. There is no alterable fabric of time or space.... Both are explanations to describe where and when something happened. There is no beginning or end. There is no way to compress or expand it, only our perception of it because each is nothing but perception to start with. If we "froze time"... But could still count... Guess what, that is still time. Even if we somehow have sped ourselves up to count in a period of time that seems smaller to everyone else.... All that matters is that we can still observe it. There are certainly ways to change how we observe it.... But that still isnt time or space changing.... Only our method of observing time or space. If we assume cesium clocks to be inalterable.... Then put them in jets and find out that they've been altered by relativistic speeds.... Guess what, that wasn't time changing. It was the clocks. A clock can not tell time "more accurately than time itself.". .... Any more than defining a second by a little hand ticking around in a circle. When you take out the batteries, you have not stopped time. You've invalidated your definition. Easy answer: No, neither time or space exist in and of themselves. There is no alterable fabric of time or space.... Both are explanations to describe where and when something happened. There is no beginning or end. There is no way to compress or expand it, only our perception of it because each is nothing but perception to start with. If we "froze time"... But could still count... Guess what, that is still time. Even if we somehow have sped ourselves up to count in a period of time that seems smaller to everyone else.... All that matters is that we can still observe it. There are certainly ways to change how we observe it.... But that still isnt time or space changing.... Only our method of observing time or space. If we assume cesium clocks to be inalterable.... Then put them in jets and find out that they've been altered by relativistic speeds.... Guess what, that wasn't time changing. It was the clocks. A clock can not tell time "more accurately than time itself.". .... Any more than defining a second by a little hand ticking around in a circle. When you take out the batteries, you have not stopped time. You've invalidated your definition.

In 2 years, you could get your a&p license and work on aircraft. It's pretty fun and you don't have to stab people. Decent if you're settled down in one place, but you can make bank if you're willing to do contract work and travel around the country/world (that part doesn't work if you have a family, though). That or a bikini barista.

Can you define that? What situation makes more rational sense to explain the change we observe as an alteration of time and space as opposed to an alteration of a process? I.e. muons... we define their halflife as unchangeable... yet observe them last longer than expected. Therefore, we conclude that they couldn't have changed, but that time around them must have changed by the degree anticipated by Einstein. What if his numbers were fine, but his explanation was backwards, and instead of them decaying at the same rate, but the rate expanding.... the function was extended by that same ratio... but it was the function itself, rather than time? Using a different explanation of the same math, it's quantitatively identical... but logically sound. Whereas the assertion that muons tell time more accurately than time itself is fundamentally ridiculous.

Logical answer: yes, passing the event horizon of a black hole. This matches newton and general relativity. However special relativity takes priority in this community and any example of c being broken is Chalked up to the lorentz transform.... An item can pass the EH of a black hole from one side at NEAR c... But God stretches time just enough to make sure Einstein stays correct. Two objects can approach from opposite ends, and although each will have a velocity near c relative to the black hole.... Their velocity relative to each other will be approximately equal to the velocity relative to the black hole.... Even though they're approaching eachother. Cuz Lorentz transform>rational thought.

I think he's referencing the idea to unify the wave-particle theory... How do particles move in a 2 dimensional wave in three dimensional space? If they're traveling in a helical path (spinning while moving). Thus, a higher wavelength could be considered to have more energy even though the particle is massless.

The idea is founded on the concept that A: "spacetime" is a finite, physical fabric created during the big bang. And B: This means there is currently a location "outside of time" and "before space" (everywhere that the big bang has not reached yet). It's a crackpot idea, but it makes people feel better about themselves and they like this definition because it let's them avoid the concept of limitlessness. Truth is, regardless of how the matter in the universe is expanding or how big it currently is... Everywhere that matter can be is in "space." Assuming the big bang accurate.... The space we are in has always exited... Even if there was no matter there at the moment. There can be no end to space because whatever boundaries one might set... There is always a location outside of those boundaries. To say otherwise is a purely arbitrary fantasy for which there is absolutely no evidence. Likewise time is an arbitrary abstract concept to describe the order of events. If you coups stop all matter in the universe except yourself... If you can define one thing as happening before another this... Time exists. People would like to describe it as a finite material they have some control over... Something that can be altered, possibly traveled through some day as if the past still exists "somewhere"... If only we could get there. ... This is a way for people to believe in an immortal soul and predestined future.... While rejecting any of that nasty religion stuff (although latching to one in the process). Fact is, you're right. Time and space are infinite because neither exist. They're ways to describe where and when something happened. Pure and simple.

So, two remaining questions: 1-something I've never seen... Did they actually document how the clocks directly compared without adjusting to the inertial frame? Everything I've seen posted was after adjustment. 2- why did they account for the earth's rotation, but not it's orbital speed? What makes the rotational speed affect the clocks in a way that the orbital speed does not?

Whatever convoluted process they use... The end comparison is between the clocks in the plane and the clocks on the ground. The relative speed between the clocks on the plane and any part of the ground is the aircraft's ground speed. Do you have a different source where they state it as a comparison of the planes to an imaginary clock vs. The ground and an imaginary clock? The sources I've seen state that it's a direct reading from the plane vs. The ground clock (adjusted for GR)

K. I'll buy that it's not "symmetry of inertial frames" because of the rotation of the earth. But, this factor affects each frame equally because both are traveling with the orbit of the earth. I'm not going to get distracted from one question by asking the same questions again... but I pointed out the fact that they used an imaginary clock "at the center of the earth" a while back... I have quite specific objections to this.

woa woa woa... So, the clock on the ground is not an inertial frame because of the rotation of the earth.... but the clocks on the aircraft IS an inertial frame? An object stationary relative to the ground is not inertial, but a plane flying through the atmosphere is? Would you consider a boat traveling through the water to be inertial (say calm seas and large enough boat that waves aren't a factor, only momentum across the water)? Would you say a car driving across the ground is inertial? I'm not calling you into question, but I need to make sure I haven't misunderstood... do you actually believe that SR supports the idea that if someone on the earth viewed the clocks on the plane, that they would see the plane's clocks tick slower.... and that the people on the plane would agree that their clocks were ticking slower than the clocks on the ground because they're traveling relative to a non-inertial frame?

true. by the U+V formula, their relative speeds would be .49c. That formula compresses the number the closer either number gets to C, it drops to a relative speed of .327...c (i retract my previous statement about something interesting happening. Dyslexia attack.)

I think the most interesting aspect, though, is how each of them see each other traveling. Say Bert has a navigator named Velanthria that is more interested in the race than the finish line and the whole time is watching their opponent. Traveling aimlessly through space, she has a speed relative to Steve of less than .5C... meaning, while she's comparing her speed to Steve, space is contracted by a factor of less than 1.15 for the duration of their race. ... Now, Steve thinks Velanthria's cute and is paying attention to her this whole race. Although they're moving through space in the same direction, his speed relative to Velanthria's ship is exactly equal to her speed relative to him (in opposite directions because one is pulling ahead at the same speed as the other is falling behind) ... Care to take a swing at that mess? Some theories look beautiful, until you see all the variables that have been swept under the rug. I'm sure you'll disagree... but, please be specific as to which part. You do agree that the ships have a speed relative to each other, correct? And that this frame of reference is equally valid as a comparison to any other point of reference (such as the finish line)

By criticising the methodology of time dilation experiments, I didn't intend to support aether winds... It was only mentioned because the absence of evidence for that isn't strong evidence for any particular other theory. Just like a evidence against string theory isn't necessarily proof in a particular deity. So... No one wants to take a crack at the question: Is time dilation caused by relative speed? Because, this is what the theory states... However because no frame of reference is preferred. Thus object a will see object b's clock so.... SR Dictates that object B will see an equal lag in the clock of object A. Thus, time dilation happens equally between these two objects. Meanwhile, in the hefele-keating experiment, they took the clock readings, then adjusted for their expectation of the clocks on the jets losing time from SR... not considering that, if SR worked, the clocks on the ground would lose an exactly equal amount of time. one could claim that, since we remained at rest relative to the ground clock, we would not notice the difference... but the pilots of the jets were equally at rest relative to the jet clocks... and they were able to see the clocks from the frame of reference they were in the whole time as the ones who lost time. By definition, the relative motion of object A to object B is equal to the relative motion of object B to object A. If the experiment is to be trusted to prove time dilation, it's only proved that there is either a preferred reference frame (which turns SR upside down) or that relative speed can not be the determining factor (again, turning SR upside down).

Good Swanson. Conversation! What leads you to believe that it's invariant rather than simply negligible? The relation between 186000 miles per second and 60 miles per hour is quite small. What, specifically, would fail were c to be a constant relative only to it's source rather than a constant relative to all frames? Do you suggest that radios would slide down frequencies as the relative speed changed? Because the frequencies certainly do.... Just a matter of attributing this frequency change to relative speed vs wavelength. I'm not dismissing your point.... I'm trying to dig in to it because I see the potential of validity. What specifically would fail? Just the equation? Radio settings (due to frequency shift)? Radio waves themselves? All of electricity? Whatever the extent, what tests justify this claim? Or is it solely based on the math Maxwell predicted?

Elf-" Do you really think that over a century's worth of physicists are that stupid?" A: Never underestimate man's desire to avoid at all costs thinking for himself. Case in point.... Have you personally looked through the H&K experiment with a critical, scientific mind? Or have you always accepted it because it's commonly accepted? Honestly. How did YOU test it before you put such faith in it to justify mocking others for doing so? B: oh really? I don't think I've ever heard someone claim velocity before! And you don't see anything wrong with this math? What is the velocity of an object that circumnavigates the globe and, after 3 days ends up exactly at his starting point? You sure you don't want to change your answer to relative speed?

Acg... The reason you're having problems gaining credibility is that you're far overconfident in your bluffs. You're attempting to gain credibility among your peers by finding ways to insult the intelligence of an unpopular person, thereby implying a greater intelligence for yourself. Typical bully psychology where your own self doubts cause you to lash out to gain acceptance. I forgive you. But I suggest against bluffing in conversations with me. You did not "do the research and spoon feed it" to anyone. You Google'd "SR experiments" and posted the link with some condescending remarks to bolster your self esteem. Did you actually read the link you provided? Because I did. I specifically asked for examples of experiments legitimately supporting C's invarience OTHER THAN aether wind experiments. Your link shows an elementary acceptance of SR "because M&M proved it." If you would like to contribute to the conversation by communicating your own understanding... I would appreciate that. If all you can do is regurgitate the popular opinion and give no support as to why... I'm sorry... But you won't impress anyone here. At least I hope not Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Explain a single experiment that supports light's invarience that didn't involve significant inherent flaws? Or... Does anyone want to answer the question posed a couple pages back: does SR's portion of time dilation occurs because of relative speed or acceleration? This seems simple, but I need someone to pick an answer they'd like to stick to. Acg, if it makes you feel better.... Yes, oh great mind of science.... I humbly submit to my lowly place among imperfect man... Still so low in the evolutionary stage where I prefer a direct exchange of ideas instead of your more highly evolved ability to accept thongs on the basis of "the internet says 'they proved it.'" I'm comfortable admitting that.

You suggest that radio waves moving at C relative to it's source would simply stop working if they hit the car's antenna at C+/-60 mph? According to what? And I don't mind researching your references.... I just don't want to have to dig through a dozen irrelevant papers because a person doesn't want to have to post anything specific. Especially when the wall of references is just names I'd have to hunt down as opposed to readable reports.

I apologize for the "faith" quip, money. That was unnecessary. I'll retract that when I get home and can edit the post from my computer. I'm fine with going over walls of text as long as they're on topic. When people have asked my opinion, I've explained it in clear, simple terms. When I say "i've researched H&K and M&M and E&R, etc and find their tests inconclusive because of some oversights... Simply posting a link with a citation to those same experiments isn't exactly participating in the conversation in a meaningful way.