Was Einstein Wrong?

[Read-Only]

Do you realise what you are saying? You are saying that it is a clock which dictates the frequencies of EMR. You are saying the observer is obsolete.

You think nothing of neurology. You think nothing of the way that the human brain has to process reality, from its humble beginnings as it enters your eyes as EMR, and where it is then converted into electrical signals throughout the interior of your brain. This entire elaborate process has been completely deleted from your equation.

I don't think you have any idea at all about how the brain works. You seem to imagine it like a piece of glass, where the outside world literally streams in to your conscious thoughts. You appear to have no idea that your brain even exists.

Maybe this will help get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology

No, thank you very little. I suspect I already know more about neurology than you could even guess and a TREMENDOUS amount more about physics than you probably ever will. Especially since you are so insistent on remaining ignorant rather than learning something.

And that last part is truly a shame - a mind going completely to waste!

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I'd be careful. This is how serial killers always start-out.

I thought they swatted mosquitos for fun.

 

[przyk]

Now for the behemoth that is Einstein's speed of light. Imagine I have been made so huge that my rate of perception is twice as slow as yours. The motion of the Universe speeds up. What happens to the speed of light that we have been told has a roof limit of 300, 000 km/s? Remember, this is only really defining the speed of light at our current rate of perception. As a giant observer, the new speed limit for the speed of light shall be 600, 000km by the time I count to one.

If it takes you two SI seconds to count to one, then yes. In your example, your speed of "600,000" is the same speed as "300,000 km/s", just expressed in different units.

The constant that we refer to as the speed of light, is really denoting our current rate of perception. It's not about the speed of light being 300,000km/s in a vacuum - it's about asking why the speed of light is 300,000km/s in a vacuum.

No, the point of relativity is that if you use some standard physical processes (which may or may not be your own regular bodily functions) locally to define length and time units, and measure the speed of light with respect to those units, you'll measure the same speed regardless of whether you happen to be standing still on Earth or scooting through the galaxy at 0.9c relative to the sun. As such, relativity is a prediction about specific symmetrical properties of the laws governing the physical processes themselves, and not a statement about the speed of light "looking the same" to different observers judging in their own subjective manners dependent on their physiology. In spite of the attention they receive in gedankens and layman introductions, relativity isn't particularly concerned with observers.

 

[Exeter]

I always do.

If you only had done a little research before speaking, you would have found that Einstein has been shown correct thousands of times over. And You would have avoided having looked so silly here.:shrug: There's probably a million references that you would have found that clearly state - and explain why - that the speed of light is totally INDEPENDENT of the observer.

Quite correct, Read-Only. The speed of light is indeed independent of the observer. Einstein was a master at positing some very interesting theories involving the state of matter, and of course our perceptions of the same when approaching the speed of light. My own observations conclude that our perceptions can and will fail within the established norms we have come to revere, when distances are involved. Within the distances of this Universe, there exists all sorts of perplexing monsters just waiting to make even the most learned Scientist a silly ponderer.

 

[Uno Hoo]

If it takes you two SI seconds to count to one, then yes. In your example, your speed of "600,000" is the same speed as "300,000 km/s", just expressed in different units.

No, the point of relativity is that if you use some standard physical processes (which may or may not be your own regular bodily functions) locally to define length and time units, and measure the speed of light with respect to those units, you'll measure the same speed regardless of whether you happen to be standing still on Earth or scooting through the galaxy at 0.9c relative to the sun. As such, relativity is a prediction about specific symmetrical properties of the laws governing the physical processes themselves, and not a statement about the speed of light "looking the same" to different observers judging in their own subjective manners dependent on their physiology. In spite of the attention they receive in gedankens and layman introductions, relativity isn't particularly concerned with observers.

Dear pryzk, It is my contention, in contradiction to your statement, that Einstein Special Relativity is absolutely concerned with the observation of the observer.

Perhaps you can provide convincing evidence that Einstein Special Relativity utterly disregards the observer?

 

[thinking]

Hi thinking. Motion is dependent on speed.

motion is not though

does time influence anything physically , at all ?

now think about this ? seriously

then let me know what you think

don't worry I won't insult you

thinking

 

[eddie23]

No. For example, light in water is slower than light in vaccuum, and is affected by the motion of the water. But that's a bit off the track.

---
Edit - beaten by the Man!

So if you could slow light down enuff then you technicly move faster than light
LOL

 

[Read-Only]

So if you could slow light down enuff then you technicly move faster than light
LOL

Nope, never. Because you would have to move through the same medium with the light. Can't be done, sorry.

 

[eddie23]

Nope, never. Because you would have to move through the same medium with the light. Can't be done, sorry.

Why not just move in a different medium clos by.
you would not be moving faster than all light but just the light in the medium next to you.
So you would be moving faster than some light. just not the light around you.

 

[eddie23]

No, thank you very little. I suspect I already know more about neurology than you could even guess and a TREMENDOUS amount more about physics than you probably ever will. Especially since you are so insistent on remaining ignorant rather than learning something.

And that last part is truly a shame - a mind going completely to waste!

I know this is a technicality but if you dont make it fun it tends to get too argumenative.

 

[Read-Only]

Why not just move in a different medium clos by.
you would not be moving faster than all light but just the light in the medium next to you.
So you would be moving faster than some light. just not the light around you.

That's just nonsense, sorry.

 

[Read-Only]

I know this is a technicality but if you dont make it fun it tends to get too argumenative.

This place is aupposed to be about science, not fun. If you actually want science, fine - but if you want fun, go play a game, watch a movie or whatever other pastime(s) you enjoy.

 

[eddie23]

relax Read I was just poking fun. You are getting way too serious.
a joke is not a bad thing unless someone is so up tight that humer actualy hurts.
I dont beleive this is the case with you.
I think FTL travel is possible. I just know that we dont have the technology to do it yet.

 

[Read-Only]

relax Read I was just poking fun. You are getting way too serious.
a joke is not a bad thing unless someone is so up tight that humer actualy hurts.
I dont beleive this is the case with you.
I think FTL travel is possible. I just know that we dont have the technology to do it yet.

Ok, I'll go along ( a little more, anyway).

Just what is it that makes you think FTL is possible when everything we know about physics (which is quite a bit, actually) indicates that it's not?

 

[eddie23]

1.to tell you the truth no one has ever given an explanation of why you cant that actualy makes sence.
2.Just because we cant do it yet doesnt mean it cant be done.
3.The sound barrier could not be broken, scientists gave all kinds of logical explanations why.Yet it got done.
4.Nasa scientists have stated that just beyond the event horizon of a black hole space and matter are moving twords the black hole at FTL speeds.
5.The fuel needed to get to faster than light speed is based on our current technology,which means nothing. we already know we cant do it with our current tecnology.
6.we dont even know for a fact that it doesnt already happen,since you wouldnt be able to see anything moving faster than light.We just dont have anything technologicly to detect it.

 

[eddie23]

some theories state that a black hole can spin at the speed of light.

 

[eddie23]

and how is it that scientists can say that the universe is 20 billion light years from middle to edge, and alse claim it is 15 billion years old.
That leaves 5 billion light years of travel time unaccounted for unless it expanded faster than light for some time at the begining.

I know that the examples of FTL speed are on such a massive scale that we cannot hope to do it any time soon, but if these FTL examples do exist then one day way in the future maybe man will figure a way to do it.

 

[Read-Only]

1.to tell you the truth no one has ever given an explanation of why you cant that actualy makes sence.
2.Just because we cant do it yet doesnt mean it cant be done.
3.The sound barrier could not be broken, scientists gave all kinds of logical explanations why.Yet it got done.
4.Nasa scientists have stated that just beyond the event horizon of a black hole space and matter are moving twords the black hole at FTL speeds.
5.The fuel needed to get to faster than light speed is based on our current technology,which means nothing. we already know we cant do it with our current tecnology.
6.we dont even know for a fact that it doesnt already happen,since you wouldnt be able to see anything moving faster than light.We just dont have anything technologicly to detect it.

Bad, bad assumptions on your part I'm afraid.

If you knew anything at all about physics, you'd realize there's a big difference between the puny speed of sound barrier and the speed of light limitation.

For example (and regardless of whatever future technology you might imagine), just getting a tiny object to 0.9c requires a tremendous amount of energy. Getting the next little incremental increase in speed takes even more than it did to get to 0.9c. And so it continues - the curve starts to arch straight up very, very quickly. That's because with each incremental increase in speed, the mass of our tiny object increases at an unbelievable amount. And to get the last tiny bit of speed to finally equal c would require more than all the energy in the entire universe.

Sure, silly little uneducated people can sit back and claim there's a way around it. But genuine science clearly proves there is not!

And to begin to understand that proof, you need to do a little study on particle accelerators like the LHC and Fermilab. A few hours spent on that would help you a great deal in understanding WHY it's impossible.

 

[eddie23]

so if it takes all the energy in the universe to get to the speed of light how do you explain the 3 examples 1.black holes can spin at the speed of light.
2.the unaverse is larger than it could possably be without some FTL travel.
3.Space and matter just beyond the singularity in a black hole move faster than the speed of light.

If the fuel equations were actualy correct the universe would no longer be here do to it being used for fuel.

 

[Read-Only]

so if it takes all the energy in the universe to get to the speed of light how do you explain the 3 examples 1.black holes can spin at the speed of light.
2.the unaverse is larger than it could possably be without some FTL travel.
3.Space and matter just beyond the singularity in a black hole move faster than the speed of light.

If the fuel equations were actualy correct the universe would no longer be here do to it being used for fuel.

Each of those statements are completely incorrect.

I really, really suggest you do a little serious study on your own rather than depending on people on a forum to tutor you on every little detail of physics.