Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    I know lol,

    Attachment 521601

    Phys 101
    indeed

    Now how would that be explained? Peroxidation Implication
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    If you are defining a physical contraction to be one involving forces, then indeed special relativistic length contractions are not 'physical contractions'. But this is not a definition used by anyone else in physics so isn't very useful. In fact, we really do observe that the molecules making up a solid are closer together when viewed from a reference frame in which the solid is moving. If you like, you can pass this off as a 'visual distortion' - which in some sense it is. But these distortions are a fundamental part of space and time, and the fact is that in frames where certain objects are moving, those objects interact with the rest of the universe as if they are shorter than they are in their own frame. It isn't just humans who 'see' a difference.




    The problem is that SR has been tested and confirmed many times. Maybe not using an experiment identical your own, but the same principles have been used and special relativity confirmed.
    There is no difference,

    Answer this , if you was on lets say Pluto and I on Earth and we both want to measure time, how do we get past the very very big issue , that no matter how small of a measurement we try to measure, we will only ever be recoding history and marking a place mark of history, we can't get past the issue of that anything past zero , is automatic by default a past event.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    It puts great strains on a lot of science, and as yet nobody has proven any of this to be wrong.
    Scientists do not submit 'theories' then proclaim to the world "Go ahead and prove me wrong".
    That is not how it works and is childish.
    YOU need to back your theories with either proof or predictions.

    It is obvious you have limited formal education in physics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    Scientists do not submit 'theories' then proclaim to the world "Go ahead and prove me wrong".
    That is not how it works and is childish.
    YOU need to back your theories with either proof or predictions.

    It is obvious you have limited formal education in physics.
    I am not asking you to prove me wrong, I am asking you to prove the mistakes I have pointed out are not mistakes. You want me to accept the present knowledge, prove the mistakes are not mistakes. I do not want to learn incorrect information, I like strict definition not half measures from a one sided view point.


    It is childish to question what you are learning?

    I know nothing and will always know nothing....
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    There is no difference,
    I think we're going in circles!


    Answer this , if you was on lets say Pluto and I on Earth and we both want to measure time, how do we get past the very very big issue , that no matter how small of a measurement we try to measure, we will only ever be recoding history and marking a place mark of history, we can't get past the issue of that anything past zero , is automatic by default a past event.
    Why is that a problem?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    indeed

    Now how would that be explained? Peroxidation Implication
    I'm not quite sure what the question is. Does this help? http://www.askamathematician.com/201...action-happen/
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by Implication)
    I'm not quite sure what the question is. Does this help? http://www.askamathematician.com/201...action-happen/
    yes thx

    That reminded me of the Jim Al-Khalili book
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    I think we're going in circles!




    Why is that a problem?

    Because imagine we have no clocks, no sundials, no caesium, how on Earth or anywhere in the Universe could we ever agree on a rate of time according to the present model and that time dilates and there is simultaneity?


    We all could agree we need an increment of one, but also we must all agree that the increment of one is the same for all observers because of the very fact that anything after 0 is past tense.
    We have to all agree that 0 moves forward and remains 0 because measuring it is past tense, 0 is never overtook in measurement.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    yes thx

    That reminded me of the Jim Al-Khalili book
    All observers see the lightning at the same time because they can see through space,
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    All observers see the lightning at the same time because they can see through space,
    time is relative
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Because imagine we have no clocks, no sundials, no caesium, how on Earth or anywhere in the Universe could we ever agree on a rate of time according to the present model and that time dilates and there is simultaneity?
    Well, one could argue that simultaneity is an illusion based on SR because whether or not an observer sees two events occur at the same time depends on what velocity the observer has with respect to those events.


    We all could agree we need an increment of one, but also we must all agree that the increment of one is the same for all observers because of the very fact that anything after 0 is past tense.
    We don't all need to agree on it; we just need to have that we can all measure it. I may be in a different reference frame to you and so be measuring different time intervals, but I can still compute the time intervals in your frame.

    Proper time is often used in this regard because all frames agree on it.


    We have to all agree that 0 moves forward and remains 0 because measuring it is past tense, 0 is never overtook in measurement.
    Well that's kind of arbitrary. Physics only ever depends on time intervals, not on absolute time. If we wanted we could label the current time as 5,977,468,202. Then everything before 5,977,468,202 would be the past, and everything after 5,977,468,202 the future. But we wouldn't repeatedly relabel the present as 5,977,468,202 (or 0). That wouldn't be very helpful, because then we wouldn't be able to measure any intervals. If we define t=0 to correspond to the present now, the present in 1 second's time would be t=1 \mathrm{s}. It wouldn't be very helpful to consider that t=0 as well, because we know full well there is a second's difference!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    time is relative
    Relative to what?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Relative to what?
    relative to your speed and/or location (gravity and the like)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Well, one could argue that simultaneity is an illusion based on SR because whether or not an observer sees two events occur at the same time depends on what velocity the observer has with respect to those events.




    We don't all need to agree on it; we just need to have that we can all measure it. I may be in a different reference frame to you and so be measuring different time intervals, but I can still compute the time intervals in your frame.

    Proper time is often used in this regard because all frames agree on it.




    Well that's kind of arbitrary. Physics only ever depends on time intervals, not on absolute time. If we wanted we could label the current time as 5,977,468,202. Then everything before 5,977,468,202 would be the past, and everything after 5,977,468,202 the future. But we wouldn't repeatedly relabel the present as 5,977,468,202 (or 0). That wouldn't be very helpful, because then we wouldn't be able to measure any intervals. If we define t=0 to correspond to the present now, the present in 1 second's time would be t=1 \mathrm{s}. It wouldn't be very helpful to consider that t=0 as well, because we know full well there is a second's difference!
    But when you are making absolute space t=0 and relativistic space t=1 an interwoven space, it shows the true nature of the universe and before the big bang there was absolute n-dimensional space and the Universe is not expanding, it is simply objects moving away into more space.
    Minkowski space time is not independent of matter, it is dependent to matter, the value of space time and an independent time is 0 , light propagating through space has 0 dimension, the singularity thing I mentioned is 0. I assure you it all fits and my universal model is very accurate and true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    relative to your speed and/or location (gravity and the like)
    So what is time?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    So what is time?
    I have no idea, but we seem to be able to measure it quite accurately
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    I have no idea, but we seem to be able to measure it quite accurately

    So you measure something but have no idea what it is your are measuring?


    You time a runner running around a track, do you think you are timing the runner?


    or is the truth you are recording an amount of history of how long you stood observing for?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    So you measure something but have no idea what it is your are measuring?


    You time a runner running around a track, do you think you are timing the runner?


    or is the truth you are recording an amount of history of how long you stood observing for?
    no idea
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    no idea

    An honest answer , well I have an idea that I am recording my own history , if the runner is recording there own history, then I am pretty sure we record at an equal rate and I am quite positive that the video cameras around the stadium will confirm this with play back.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    An honest answer , well I have an idea that I am recording my own history , if the runner is recording there own history, then I am pretty sure we record at an equal rate and I am quite positive that the video cameras around the stadium will confirm this with play back.
    But that's the thing. If you and the runner both had a clock, they would be ticking at different rates.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 25, 2016
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.