Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

maths does not prove anything, you can make any theory self-consistent in mathematics, einstien proved it tadA, with maths. i want empirical proof.

"round and round the merry-go-'round"

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:07:58 PM

you said movement was relative, so how can you claim that something is moving or not?

That's the point of RELATIVITY.

yes but his statement went against his wn interpratation of relativity

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM

Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?

Something you drop.

"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...

Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

"round and round the merry-go-'round"

yes, i'm glad you are starting to see the flaw in your reasoning

Quote from: Khrissetti on August 25, 2007, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM

Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?

Something you drop.

"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...

Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

how? by dropping something-laughable

MY reasoning? I only joined in about 4 posts ago

Quote from: Khrissetti on August 25, 2007, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM

Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?

Something you drop.

"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...

Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

*sigh* I'm tired, ok he was asking what we were accelerating in relation to, he didn't understand how this could be so, I explained. Probably badly but it's 1am here

excuses excuses, your obviously not an existentialist

Don't big words. I explained how it's 1am here, right?

Quote from: Gulliver on August 25, 2007, 05:14:49 PM

Quote from: Khrissetti on August 25, 2007, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM

Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?

Something you drop.

"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...

Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

how? by dropping something-laughable

Easily. Yes, you could drop something. Yes, you could use an accelerometer.

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on August 25, 2007, 05:14:49 PM

Quote from: Khrissetti on August 25, 2007, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM

Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?

Something you drop.

"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...

Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

how? by dropping something-laughable

Easily. Yes, you could drop something. Yes, you could use an accelerometer.

i hope your being ironic...

Quote from: Gulliver on August 25, 2007, 05:25:03 PM

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 05:16:07 PM

Quote from: Gulliver on August 25, 2007, 05:14:49 PM

Quote from: Khrissetti on August 25, 2007, 04:56:31 PM

Quote from: burt on August 25, 2007, 04:54:02 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on May 18, 2007, 09:08:26 AM

Quote from: Trekky0623 on May 18, 2007, 07:27:58 AM

Yeah, what are we accelerating in relation to?

Something you drop.

"something you drop" an object? that gets carried along with the momentum of the earth it is on.

that's laughable, you seem to be saying that when i chuck the object up the earth slows down

Well relative to what exactly? something on the object thrown could deduce either they are accelerating or the Earth is decelerating, it depends on viewpoint...

Uh, no. Acceleration or deceleration is detectable and does not depend on viewpoint.

how? by dropping something-laughable

Easily. Yes, you could drop something. Yes, you could use an accelerometer.

i hope you're being ironic...

fixed

...typed in haste... 





p.s both times

Wait, what's wrong with dropping something?

Well, did any of you know that science has now proven two things: 1. That a light pulse can travel faster than light (since light is both a particle, and a wave, this might suggest that objects can too) and 2. that said light pulse actually arrived before it left when it traveled faster than light. This means, that it essentially travelled back in time. This notion may seem ridiculous, but I have provided a link to the article. This suggests that it might be possible for matter to break the light speed barrier under very specific conditions. So, let's say the earth is flat (but it's not). And then let's say that these specific conditions are met somehow, and the earth starts travelling upwards at a speed faster than the speed of light. Well, then we would all be travelling backwards in time, which we know is not true. Therefore, the earth cannot be constantly gaining speed (not only because it can't travel faster than light without travelling back in time, but also because of the obvious reason that there is nothing propelling it upwards) because, as was stated in the beginning of this thread, the earth would have broken the light speed barrier by day 354. Well, the earth has obviously been around much longer than that, so it would already be travelling faster than light, which can't be possible, or we would be moving backwards in time. Hope this settles the gravity factor once and for all, but I'm expecting a bunch of conspiracy claims, so it probably won't.

I've been wondering that, what is supposedly pulling or pushing the Earth to make it constantly increase in vellocity?
and from the other side of the argument, about the going back in time thing, if you consider time to be the 4th dimension, then shouldn't it behave like the other dimensions in that it would be relative to ones perspective? ( If this is a stupid question, forgive me, I'm only in 8th grade)

Well, did any of you know that science has now proven two things: 1. That a light pulse can travel faster than light (since light is both a particle, and a wave, this might suggest that objects can too)

Light cannot travel faster than light. The effect that's been seen is a wave effect whereby the phase velocity can exceed the packet velocity. Nothing is traveling faster than light. You can make a shadow travel faster than light if the projection is far enough away. It doesn't mean anything actually move faster than light or that any information or communication crossed a distance at faster than light speed. That is impossible by special relativity.

and from the other side of the argument, about the going back in time thing, if you consider time to be the 4th dimension, then shouldn't it behave like the other dimensions in that it would be relative to ones perspective? ( If this is a stupid question, forgive me, I'm only in 8th grade)

Indeed it is relative to one's perspective. For example, if you leave on a spaceship travelling 80% of the speed of light, you will see time pass on earth at 60% of its normal speed. Likewise, the people on earth will see your time pass at 60% of its normal speed.

Note: that's not a contradiction even if it sounds like one.

Dumbass thread. 13 pages wtf?!?!

When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

To a stationary observer your velocity will asyptotically approach c.

Go read 'Tau Zero' by Poul Anderson for a good description/explanation.

When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.

Quote from: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 03:59:30 AM

When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.

Ah, one of those posts that appears to argue, when it actually agrees.

Quote from: Brennan on September 24, 2007, 03:59:30 AM

When you reach a high velocity you undergo time dilation due to this you are experiencing less time than a stationary observer so you measure your acceleration wrongly (your length perception will also be out).

There is nothing "wrong" about the acceleration or length measurements from the high velocity observer. These measurements are relative. According to the observer, he is standing still and it is you that are approching the speed of light.

I disagree with the last sentence. Adding a few assumption such as initially relatively at the same speed, he observer, having felt acceleration, knows the he or she, not you, are (relatively) moving. Otherwise, I concur.

You can feel feel the pull yes. So you can measure the acceleration but not the speed. It's still relative. There is a co-moving intertial frame at any given moment in time. This has all the same time dilation and length contraction properties as the accelerated frame. And it exhibits an exact symmetry with the other observer.

And Brennan we may agree on the physics, but I don't think we agree on how to interpret the physics of this.

You can feel feel the pull yes. So you can measure the acceleration but not the speed. It's still relative. There is a co-moving intertial frame at any given moment in time. This has all the same time dilation and length contraction properties as the accelerated frame. And it exhibits an exact symmetry with the other observer.

And Brennan we may agree on the physics, but I don't think we agree on how to interpret the physics of this.

I think we agree totally. You just think I said things I didn't.

You said an accelerated observer measures his acceleration "wrongly" because of length contraction and time dilation. I don't agree with this. An observer in a comoving inertail frame will measure the exact same acceleration as the accelerated observer. And this observer's measurement of the acceleration is just as valid as any other inertial observer's measurement of the acceleration. All speed is relative.

You said an accelerated observer measures his acceleration "wrongly" because of length contraction and time dilation. I don't agree with this. An observer in a comoving inertail frame will measure the exact same acceleration as the accelerated observer. And this observer's measurement of the acceleration is just as valid as any other inertial observer's measurement of the acceleration. All speed is relative.

I know exactly what you mean. All I meant was his measurement would be 'wrong' from the POV of the stationary observer due to relative time dilation exerienced by the accelerating observer... I never mentioned anyone in a reference frame exactly the same as the accelerating person's.

It sounded like an absolute characterization in the original post so that's why I disputed it. Sorry. "Differently" would have been a better word.

Sorry. "Differently" would have been a better word.

True. People aren't half pedantic round here.

You can feel feel the pull yes. So you can measure the acceleration but not the speed. It's still relative. There is a co-moving intertial frame at any given moment in time. This has all the same time dilation and length contraction properties as the accelerated frame. And it exhibits an exact symmetry with the other observer.

And Brennan we may agree on the physics, but I don't think we agree on how to interpret the physics of this.

You can't scientifically omit the memory of acceleration.

We're starting to mix GR and SR when it really isn't needed. But if you think that is proof of motion then you just proved the UA hypothesis correct because I feel the ground pushing up against my body.

We're starting to mix GR and SR when it really isn't needed. But if you think that is proof of motion then you just proved the UA hypothesis correct because I feel the ground pushing up against my body.

You'll have to tell the reason you feel that I just proved that. Oh, and GR is a superset of SR, so I don't see how we're starting to mix them.