|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Purple dosn't beleve in relativity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rfnorgan Inactive Member |
I have only just discovered this site so i hope that I am not repeating what has been said before.
If any experiment designed to observe the effects of relative velocity on matter systems, eg clocks for their simplicity of observation,shows that one clock of two identical clocks does not keep identical time with the other over a period of time, (the start and end readings to be made at the same point in the IRF of the observer so as to remove observation effects )then the STR is invalid.For one clock must be fast with respect to the other and the STR cannot predict 'time contraction'. Several experiments show this time difference. If it is considered that any experiment of this type is invalid due to one or both clocks not residing in an IRF throughout the experiment, then any velocity effect prediction made by the STR of an observation made fom Earth must also be invalid as the Earth does not inhabit an IRF. Consequently a velocity effects theory which will allow predictions from Earth is still required. My tip for other posters to this site is that they should distinguish between observations which include observational effects ie arising from the circumstance of the observer,and real effects that do not. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 780 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
Thanks for yours and everyone else's explanation. This has got me to thinking about a new topic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
there is zero net gravitational attraction in any one direction, but there is still massive gravity affecting the universe fabric. Yeah, see that was why I called it the "bottom of the well". So Space time IS streached is that right? By the way the center of mass between two stars (or any objects) orbiting eachother is called the Barycenter. This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 12-10-2004 06:23 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Of course it doesn't matter how many G's you experince!
Think about something falling. It is still affected by a gravitational feild and time STILL slows down right? Anything that is falling experences 0g's (just like objects in a barycenter or center of mass) but is stil subject to time dialation! Even something falling into a black hole would experence 0 g's (though the horrible streaching might count as g forces) but we know time still slows down! This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 12-10-2004 06:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
stretched between, compressed at mass locii ... like topology of a foam mattress with bowling balls on it, and the closer to the "massive" objects the more drawn to them you are by the curvature
a rolling marble. I thought Barycenter was where chuck was on stage ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
like topology of a foam mattress with bowling balls on it, and the closer to the "massive" objects the more drawn to them you are by the curvature Right but even if somthing is in the barycenter space is still streached out. Or to use your metaphore, the matress is still lower. This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 12-12-2004 05:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
funny, I think of it as being more compressed, like the foam under the ball. I guess it is from visualizing the gravity lines like a topological map and seeing them closer together at the denser objects and so the are compressed in one view. of course if you look from the "side" they would be seperated out.
it's a matter of perspective. (Klein Bottle Hats and Scarves) (Acme Klein Bottle) (I got a hat for my dad last christmas) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Well the original metaphore was of a rubbber sheet witch would become thinner and more streached out... Like butter scraped over too much bread, I'm old Gandalf.
Woah, sorry. So are we done? Reletivity is hard to understand, granted, but it makes predictions that we have EXTENSIVELY tested and found to be accurate. Just becase it's confusing and weird doesn't make it wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
true.
but. there is still a problem with gravity not matching observation to theory without throwing in some epicycles of dark matter and epicycle on epicycle of dark energy ... something is not ... quite ... right yet. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teratogenome Inactive Member |
Just a few questions, let's say that all of the earth's mass was collected into 5 miles of crust so that on the surface, no change in vector or strength of gravity could be felt. If you dug down 5 miles and broke though, wouldn't you fall?
But if you threw a ring onto a foam mattress and dropped a marble in the center, wouldn't it run towards the depression close to the ring? Also I have read that if you travel at relativistic speeds (I forget if it is while you are undergoing acceleration or not, maybe someone can help me out), that you would be unable to see stars if you looked in any direction perpendicular to the direction you are traveling. You could however see stars in the front and back, and in fact, would be seeing stars there (for example at 30 degrees off center) instead of to your side. Does this have to do with the "vector of impact" that photons arriving from your side appear to have? Also, if time dilation can be measured after synchronized watches are returned to the same inertial frame, why can't length contraction be measured... or can it? Or is time dilation "real" and length contraction only a distortion? Also, am I even asking the right questions or am I way off the mark? This message has been edited by teratogenome, 12-13-2004 04:34 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
But if you threw a ring onto a foam mattress and dropped a marble in the center, wouldn't it run towards the depression close to the ring? Yeah the analogy breaks down. It's only an analogy, it's not meant to be taken purely literaly. It's not even in 3 dimentions.
you would be unable to see stars if you looked in any direction perpendicular to the direction you are traveling. Yes. I believe as you approach the speed of light the stars seem to "collect" in front of you as you go faster and faster (it doesn't matter about the accelaration only the relative speed). Soon it gets to the point where you can only see one bright spot in front of you, and darkness behind. I'm sure there is a website where you can see a diagram of this.
Also, if time dilation can be measured after synchronized watches are returned to the same inertial frame, why can't length contraction be measured... or can it? Or is time dilation "real" and length contraction only a distortion? Both can be measured. They are both "real". By the way Welcome to the forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, you would fall toward the point at the centre of the ring/sphere, and then oscillate around it. But if you threw a ring onto a foam mattress and dropped a marble in the center, wouldn't it run towards the depression close to the ring?[/quote] I would so yes and no, as Dormammu notes the anlogy can be pushed to far. Yes the actual ring material is what is exerting gravity, and if you were very close to one side of the ring you would be attracted to that ring material gravitationally. But that attraction will be much smaller than the attraction exerted by the whole ring/sphere as if at its centre of mass. So you will still be attracted more toward the centre than toward the edge. Where the analogy breaks down is that a ring exerts local pressure on a sheet that accords with the topology of a ring, while gravity always acts on the body as a whole and at a point of fulcrum at the centre of its mass/density distribution. The ring scenario should properly be imagined as making a dent in the rubber sheet that keeps sloping inward toward the centre of the ring, while having a lesser dent forming a shelf at the ring itself. At least, this is how I understand things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymon Inactive Member |
I'm pretty sure you have it wrong on one point. Once you are inside a sphere of uniform density, you don't feel any gravitational force.
This fact has a neat little corralary- If you had a hole that went from one place on the surface of the earth and followed a straight line to another hole on the surface of the earth, and you dropped a ball down the hole, it would have a period of occilation of 84 minutes- even if the hole was through the center of the earth.(I'm a physisist, so I'm considering a spherical earth of uniform density) Which means that gravitaionally speaking, every place on earth is 42 minutes away from every other place on earth. Who says Douglas Adams just wrote fiction!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Raymon Inactive Member |
dupe
This message has been edited by Raymon, 12-14-2004 12:16 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
but in the way I really enjoy.
Re: 42 minutes. Is this an evactuated hole? Is this a 21 minute = radius drop picture? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024