Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    x
    The student has a wrong understanding.
    Space, Time and Gravity are intricately linked.
    The Space-Time continuum is the name for this 'membrane' as you understand it to be.
    Gravity is the bending of this continuum.
    As such, gravity is a by product of this bending of space-time and is therefore linked directly to time.
    As a large gravitational force means a large distortion in space-time, a large gravitational force means a large distortion in time itself. An object with mass in a gravitational field of a massive object will have a slower perception of time due to this warping.
    This is shown in this equation:

    that states quite simply that time is inversely proportional to the root of the gravitational strength.

    As G increases, T decreases. i,e time slows down. Seconds become longer.

    I dont see what your argument is from your previous statements.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    The student has a wrong understanding.
    Space, Time and Gravity are intricately linked.
    The Space-Time continuum is the name for this 'membrane' as you understand it to be.
    Gravity is the bending of this continuum.
    As such, gravity is a by product of this bending of space-time and is therefore linked directly to time.
    As a large gravitational force means a large distortion in space-time, a large gravitational force means a large distortion in time itself. An object with mass in a gravitational field of a massive object will have a slower perception of time due to this warping.
    This is shown in this equation:

    that states quite simply that time is inversely proportional to the root of the gravitational strength.

    As G increases, T decreases. i,e time slows down. Seconds become longer.

    I dont see what your argument is from your previous statements.

    Why do the teachers recite present theory and not answer the students questions?


    You do not see what my argument is, yet I state questions clearly, that nobody has answered.

    I accuse the teacher of not understanding and suggest the student knows more than the teacher.


    K=0 and k=1,


    Relative space occupies absolute space,

    Space itself does not curve and Einstein never said it did.

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/fo...?topic=66412.0

    I suggest you reread if you have missed my argument, 0 can not dilate,


    added - 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state relative to what exactly?
    ''reply - relative to one period. It's a number, obtained by counting. ''


    Not relative to time.

    If I was born on Pluto and my clock was a Caesium clock, and for thought the clock ran at half the rate of an Earth clock, would I measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be 599585136 m/s?


    because if we agree on the length of 1 second of light, we have to agree on the length of a second, if I was on Pluto I would disagree on the length of a second if I used a Caesium clock, so either both of our clocks were wrong, or the speed of light is wrong, so which is it?


    ''No. You would do enough experiments to convince yourself that the speed of light is constant so you would define the second and the meter in terms of the speed of light and the frequenxcy of your clock.''

    me - You say no then say the same thing as I just said. If my clock is running twice as slow as your clock we will record a different speed. In 1 second on your clock light would have travelled 299 792 568 m , but my clock runs half the rate of your clock so your second is twice as long, I record 299 792 568m / 0.5s

    Look at this way , you are on Earth measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, I am on Pluto observing you doing the experiment, you tell me light travelled 299 792 568 m in 1 second, I tell you according to my clock it only took half a second because my time runs slower than your time.

    See the dilemma now?



    ''relative to one period. It's a number, obtained by counting.


    *this may explain a lot!''



    A number obtained by counting, relative to one period, please explain what one period suppose to mean?

    I have a feeling you mean a fixed length on a chart or graph,


    If 9 192 631 770 relative to one period


    and 9 192 631 760 relative to one period

    I have a feeling one period = one period because surely science is not daft enough to measure a shorter period and declare there is a change.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Is English your first language? Your posts are very disjointed and most of the maths you have posted seems to be without context. This makes it difficult for most of us to comprehend what you are trying to say, let alone consider whether it has any worth! For example, in your first 'fact' you simply posted a bunch of symbols without specifying what any of them, which makes what you said virtually meaningless!

    I don't particularly want to go into an argument with you as you've been so rude to others who are trying to help, but I'm willing to have a discussion. If we suppose that light travels at constant speed for all observers, we can use very elementary mathematics to show that observers moving at different velocities measure different time intervals*. We can calculate precisely how one is related to the other:

    \Delta t = \dfrac{\Delta t'}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},

    where \Delta t is the time interval in one frame, \Delta t' the time interval in a frame moving at speed v relative to the first frame, and c the speed of light. Hence, if we wish to maintain that this formula is incorrect and instead \Delta t=\Delta t' \ \forall \ v, we must have that either:

    1. Arithmetic is wrong and we need to reinvent most of mathematics.
    2. Light does not travel at constant speed for all observers.

    If we reject (1), we are left with (2). But we have good experimental evidence that light does travel at constant speed for all observers, and so if we care about reality we should reject (2) as well!


    *Sussex have a very clear explanation here.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Why do the teachers recite present theory and not answer the students questions?


    You do not see what my argument is, yet I state questions clearly, that nobody has answered.

    I accuse the teacher of not understanding and suggest the student knows more than the teacher.


    K=0 and k=1,


    Relative space occupies absolute space,

    Space itself does not curve and Einstein never said it did.

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/fo...?topic=66412.0

    I suggest you reread if you have missed my argument, 0 can not dilate,


    added - 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation at ground state relative to what exactly?
    ''reply - relative to one period. It's a number, obtained by counting. ''


    Not relative to time.

    If I was born on Pluto and my clock was a Caesium clock, and for thought the clock ran at half the rate of an Earth clock, would I measure the speed of light in a vacuum to be 599585136 m/s?


    because if we agree on the length of 1 second of light, we have to agree on the length of a second, if I was on Pluto I would disagree on the length of a second if I used a Caesium clock, so either both of our clocks were wrong, or the speed of light is wrong, so which is it?


    ''No. You would do enough experiments to convince yourself that the speed of light is constant so you would define the second and the meter in terms of the speed of light and the frequenxcy of your clock.''

    me - You say no then say the same thing as I just said. If my clock is running twice as slow as your clock we will record a different speed. In 1 second on your clock light would have travelled 299 792 568 m , but my clock runs half the rate of your clock so your second is twice as long, I record 299 792 568m / 0.5s

    Look at this way , you are on Earth measuring the speed of light in a vacuum, I am on Pluto observing you doing the experiment, you tell me light travelled 299 792 568 m in 1 second, I tell you according to my clock it only took half a second because my time runs slower than your time.

    See the dilemma now?



    ''relative to one period. It's a number, obtained by counting.


    *this may explain a lot!''



    A number obtained by counting, relative to one period, please explain what one period suppose to mean?

    I have a feeling you mean a fixed length on a chart or graph,


    If 9 192 631 770 relative to one period


    and 9 192 631 760 relative to one period

    I have a feeling one period = one period because surely science is not daft enough to measure a shorter period and declare there is a change.
    I am only a student, like you. I am not a teacher
    0 cannot dilate no. K can though. If k=0, k can change to be a different value. It is not set at a solid 0.

    Secondly, the periods of caesium are not dependant on time no. Our measurement of time, a second, is a set number of oscillations between energy levels of the atom, ON EARTH being the number it is due to g. The set amount of oscillations for a second on the moon would be less, as time is perceived as faster.

    Now you have brought about the problem of measuring speeds using time. This is a valid point, let's take the speed of light. Gravity, as we know, can affect light in many ways. Light gets pulled into black holes for example, and we know that the distance travelled by light changes due to gravity.

    Just to address your point on this, Einstein did not explain explicitly about the curving of space time, although it is a direct by product of his general relativity.

    OK back to light, the curving of this space time due to gravity causes a longer path for the light to travel through. This longer distance compensates for the time dilation and as thus the speed of light must be constant. (through the theory of general relativity.)

    Now you can argue that his theory is wrong, and do so to little avail unless you directly disprove his work. Cite and show that his theory is wrong, and I will change. Otherwise, it is correct as far as it has been proven.

    Sorry about the simple explanations, I am only an A level student doing a course which does not even involve the relitivities, however I do read abit
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    I am only a student, like you. I am not a teacher
    0 cannot dilate no. K can though. If k=0, k can change to be a different value. It is not set at a solid 0.

    K is only a variable when k=>0


    When considering time, anything after 0 is instantaneous history so therefore even the smallest increment of measurement is not measuring time but indeed recording history and marking a specific point of history.
    Einstein's SR explanation and the use of lasers, rocket ships etc is simply fundamentally flawed in the fact that laser beams are not seen/observed without a medium such as smoke, the light propagating through space ''washes'' out the laser beam. The explanation of a ''zig zag'' beam is also fundamentally flawed, while the observer ''see's'' the laser travelling right to left x-axis zig zagging, the observer is observing light travelling in a straight line to them a Y -axis.

    I am afraid that parlour tricks just don't cut it in my reality of facts.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    K is only a variable when k=>0


    When considering time, anything after 0 is instantaneous history so therefore even the smallest increment of measurement is not measuring time but indeed recording history and marking a specific point of history.
    Einstein's SR explanation and the use of lasers, rocket ships etc is simply fundamentally flawed in the fact that laser beams are not seen/observed without a medium such as smoke, the light propagating through space ''washes'' out the laser beam. The explanation of a ''zig zag'' beam is also fundamentally flawed, while the observer ''see's'' the laser travelling right to left x-axis zig zagging, the observer is observing light travelling in a straight line to them a Y -axis.

    I am afraid that parlour tricks just don't cut it in my reality of facts.
    What is this K you keep talking about...
    Besides the point. The example of SR using observers and lasers is not flawed at all. It is simply a model.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    This is clearly NOT moving TOWARDS me. It is zig zagging in THE X AXIS.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    What is this K you keep talking about...
    Besides the point. The example of SR using observers and lasers is not flawed at all. It is simply a model.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    This is clearly NOT moving TOWARDS me. It is zig zagging in THE X AXIS.


    The light travelling from the diagram to your eyes is linear , It is not zig zagging



    and k=0 and k=1 is something to do with Newton and Einstein, to be honest I forgot what it actually means, I will look it up again. Something to do with variate and invariant I think it was and linear .
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    The light travelling from the diagram to your eyes is linear , It is not zig zagging
    This is a flawed argument. The source is the one zig zagging, therefore the distance seems greater. Of course the light from the source is linear, light travels in a linear fashion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    This is a flawed argument. The source is the one zig zagging, therefore the distance seems greater. Of course the light from the source is linear, light travels in a linear fashion.


    Incorrect . the length of your picture frame is invariant, the space the laser propagates through is an invariant length, 1m is 1m,


    The observer does not even see the laser and the laser does not reflect of a surface unless it is a mirrored surface, a mirror would be observer effect, angling the beam is observer effect. If you shun a laser a Y -axis on a spaceship and added smoke to the thought so we could actually see the laser, the laser will remain a Y -axis linearity as the ship moves left to right or vice versus. Please feel free to try this experiment using any laser, the beam remains a linearity and does not reflect without a mirrored surface and does not angle unless we redirect the angle of the laser.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Incorrect . the length of your picture frame is invariant, the space the laser propagates through is an invariant length, 1m is 1m,


    The observer does not even see the laser and the laser does not reflect of a surface unless it is a mirrored surface, a mirror would be observer effect, angling the beam is observer effect. If you shun a laser a Y -axis on a spaceship and added smoke to the thought so we could actually see the laser, the laser will remain a Y -axis linearity as the ship moves left to right or vice versus. Please feel free to try this experiment using any laser, the beam remains a linearity and does not reflect without a mirrored surface and does not angle unless we redirect the angle of the laser.
    If I was running, and dropped a ball, the ball would travel forwards as it fell due to the fact that it was travelling forwards as it was dropped.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Incorrect . the length of your picture frame is invariant, the space the laser propagates through is an invariant length, 1m is 1m,


    The observer does not even see the laser and the laser does not reflect of a surface unless it is a mirrored surface, a mirror would be observer effect, angling the beam is observer effect. If you shun a laser a Y -axis on a spaceship and added smoke to the thought so we could actually see the laser, the laser will remain a Y -axis linearity as the ship moves left to right or vice versus. Please feel free to try this experiment using any laser, the beam remains a linearity and does not reflect without a mirrored surface and does not angle unless we redirect the angle of the laser.
    I now see where you are confused in your understanding.
    The light itself is linear yes. However, to an observer, the source of the light moves a greater distance. The diagram that i have given shows this pretty clearly.
    Due to this 'greater distance' travelled by the source to the observer, the sense of time gets slowed for the source. (speaking model wise)
    Now the source will emit light that travels linearly yes. This linear motion of photons coming from the source is drawn as a zig zag across the sky for the observer.
    The smoke-laser effect is flawed also. Instead, use a laser of visible light, and track the motion of the impact of the photons onto a surface while the source of the light clock shoots a photon every second. This will also form a zig zag to the observer on the ground.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    If I was running, and dropped a ball, the ball would travel forwards as it fell due to the fact that it was travelling forwards as it was dropped.


    Yes and the ball is not light is it, a completely different situation involving the relativistic effect of gravity.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    I now see where you are confused in your understanding.
    The light itself is linear yes. However, to an observer, the source of the light moves a greater distance. The diagram that i have given shows this pretty clearly.
    Due to this 'greater distance' travelled by the source to the observer, the sense of time gets slowed for the source. (speaking model wise)
    Now the source will emit light that travels linearly yes. This linear motion of photons coming from the source is drawn as a zig zag across the sky for the observer.
    The smoke-laser effect is flawed also. Instead, use a laser of visible light, and track the motion of the impact of the photons onto a surface while the source of the light clock shoots a photon every second. This will also form a zig zag to the observer on the ground.

    But you are clearly wrong, the light between your eyes and any object is clearly not opaque, relatively it is invisible light, a clarity of light propagating through space. Space is ''see through''.


    We do not observe beams of light in any sense unless they are man made, the nature of light does not behave this way.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Yes and the ball is not light is it, a completely different situation involving the relativistic effect of gravity.
    If I was to shine a laser down, and was running, the point of laser light would move too. Therefore, it looks like the light is moving diagonally: forwards and down. This is what the diagram represents.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    But you are clearly wrong, the light between your eyes and any object is clearly not opaque, relatively it is invisible light, a clarity of light propagating through space. Space is ''see through''.


    We do not observe beams of light in any sense unless they are man made, the nature of light does not behave this way.

    That is irrelevant
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    But you are clearly wrong, the light between your eyes and any object is clearly not opaque, relatively it is invisible light, a clarity of light propagating through space. Space is ''see through''.


    We do not observe beams of light in any sense unless they are man made, the nature of light does not behave this way.
    At this point i am sure you are a troll, or you fail to grasp the concept through ignorance to fact. You are going off on a tangent, saying im wrong because light isnt opaque?
    That is like me saying youre wrong because my waffles are not made of watermelon.
    The diagram i posted clearly shows this effect, watch THIS to solve your issue.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    AlbertXY
    What do you think occurs?
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    This website may help: http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    That is irrelevant

    So you think that imaginary beams are relevant to Einstein explanation and the actual truth of observed evidence is irrelevant?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The-Spartan)
    At this point i am sure you are a troll, or you fail to grasp the concept through ignorance to fact. You are going off on a tangent, saying im wrong because light isnt opaque?
    That is like me saying youre wrong because my waffles are not made of watermelon.
    The diagram i posted clearly shows this effect, watch THISto solve your issue.
    You think a student is a troll for questioning the integrity of the knowledge been presented to him?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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