h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

but when your dealing with 1st year degree phys + 2nd year degree phys and then going past it (and my current) training its going to get complicated.


First Light bouncing.

Technically light dosnt bounce per se, (there are remote exceptions)it hits an electron gets absorbed excites the electron then the electron dexcites sending back out an identical photon. but
even when light does bounce it dosnt change speed only its direction and momentum changes, like in a perfect elastic collision
(a perecet bounce).

Secondly Perception

time is a relative concept,
now this is complicated,

imagine a graph on the Vertical is time on the horizontal space.
numbers dont matter now,

draw a line at 45degrees coming out the origin, thats light, if anything is sloped closer to vertical than 45deg its slower than light if its closer to horizontal its faster.

Physics has complicated equations that tell us by normal rules nothing that starts faster than light can be slower than and nothing slower than can go past.

if we consider the vertical line to be a 'still' person on earth (rubbish but) we use them as the base time. now this person sees a line horizontally outwards due to observations etc this is a plane of simultaneity, anything on that line is
'seen' to be happening at a given time and this plane moves up along the time of the observer (his line is now called a world line)
a person going at half the speed of light has a world line at an angle
this angle is halfway between the vertical and 45deg which is light.

due to even more complicated physics his world line is tilted to the same angle from the Space line (horizontal) as his line is from vert, so it is possible for him to see part of Observer 1's past as happening NOW and part of O1's future universe happening NOW, and they will both Disagree with what the time is.

This is confusing and poorly explained but that is tryong to keep it very simple

Thirdly Light and matter.

Point 1 Light itself does nothing to time, only trying to push mass that fast does.

Point 2 matter.

E=MC^2 is a part of a proven more profound equation what it is saying is matter and energy are linked by a number that just happens to be speed of light squared.

upshot is if you have enough energy it can turn into a small amount of matter (and consequently) antimatter,

This allows science to answer why the old rule that said

you cant get energy from nothing or lose it to nothing,
is broken by Nuclear power plants and Atom Bombs

and the rule
You cant get matter or destroy it.
are breakable,

the new rule is

You cant make matter without losing energy or vica versa etc etc.
This is well proven and based in fact.

now to make an object travel at a certain speed you need energy but to get to the speed of light the energy involved will start making mass and pushing the requirements up etc
till you need infinite energy to get a thing to travel at the speed of light

light gets away with it because it has no rest mass if light could be stopped it would not weigh a thing. even so it has a small weight when it moves because of the immense energy involved

this is all very clumsy a Professor who is into Cosmology wuold make better arguments and give more concrete proof im just a 2nd year physics student

case in point, I'll post more of my theory soon, but chew on this

~~Assirtion1:
Accelerationhas the same 'feeling' as gravity.

~~Assirtion2:
The cumulative effect of Multiple particles joinedtogether causes ther to be a greater attraction force that each particle would individualy, This attraction warps space.

~~Assirtion3:
Space and time are linked, as time is only another dimetion to the universe and all dimentions in the univers interact with one another.

~~Assirtion4:
Since gravity bends space, and therefore time, pushing something so that it 'feels' the same effect as (let's say earth 's total)gravity, causes it to warp space and time just as much as the earth would(insert your crude linegraph example here).

~~Assition5:
if space time is warped by an objects speed, and lightspeed is the maximum speed any object can achieve, before said object ever reaches lightspeed, space and time would be so warped that the object would never quite reach light speed, as it suddenly developed too much mass and it's personal time has become too elongated for it to reach that speed.

~Errors detected in Assirtion4!
~~Error1:
To 'feel' the same effect as gravity, there must be constant acceleration!
~~~Conclusion: space and time would only be warped by the acceleration factor!

~~Error2:
Effect of acceleration simulating gravity is caused by particles repelling one another! Gravity is caused by objects pulling one-another!
~~~Conclusion1: Simlar 'feelings' between Gravity and acceleration most likely don't have same results on space, as theay are caused by two different forces!
~~~Conclusion2: Results of Acceleration would be opposite and only effect space in the object's path, if at all!

~~~~Error2 causes Assirtions 4 and 5, and conclusions derived from Error1, to become invalid unless unless Error2 is compleatly disproven!
~~~~~Untill proof can be collected all further Assirtions are theoretical only!
~Reseting Assirtion numbering system.....Compleate

~~Assirtion4(corrected, theoretical):
Acceleration of an objecct will not cause same effect as Gravity to space, and therefore time.

~~Assirtion5(corrected,theoretical):
Speed of light is the maximum speed of light and Electrons and such.

~~Assirtion6:
Time would Appear to slow down for all objects viewed from the rear of an Object, assuming said objects were traveling at less speed than the Object in the Object's direction, as light 'bouncing' off said objects would reach the Object over an increaced period of time,
~~~Clarification:
Effect of speed to light would be simillar to effect of lower speeds to sound, A.K.A. the Doppler effect when refering to sowndwaves.
~~~~Subentry:If name for this effect of speed on light hasn't been taken, I call it.

And the responce is.....

error 1 - Exactly there is no bending of space and time by motion at high speed the troubel is there is NO ABSOLUTE TIME, all things are relative hence relativity.

the whole issue of mass increase (no time factor, thats falling in a black hole) is from kinetic energy = energy, energy by E=Mc^2 which is proven by fusion, fission etc, mass does not change as its the amount of stuff momentum =1/2mass x Velocity^2 =Mc^2 now if your veloctity is low the 300000000squared on the right makes the added vmass (mass due to velocity) so small that
restmass + vmass = restmass,
but once you start getting towards light speed the terms equal each other so the mass doubles then that doubels and the whole thing spirals out of control until you need infinite energy for the speed of light.

Error 2
Not true the acceleration gravity is caused by the reaction to poor energy transfer,

the rocket accelerates up, because you are not atomically bound to the ship (part of it only tied to it or in it) it does not accelerate you the same as the ship meaning the closest flat surface hits you and psuhes you up, now Newton made his thidr law
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
by this the force pushing your body up with the rocket MUST be matched by what 'feels' like a force pulling you down.
This force is acting towards the 'ground' and therefore is gravity like.

and this means that space in the ship is affected just like near gravity and so is time, but no person could survive the acceleration needed to get measurable changes as that take s gravity of Stellar scale and the acceleration would crush a person.

corrections
correction to 4
invalid, if by observation of force like effect the nature
acceleration or gravity cannot be differentiated then there is no difference and they can be considered interchangeable.

correction to 5
Incorrect photons (light) can only travel at light speed,
Matter (electrons protons neutrons) cannot be accelerated to light speed only under it
(proven by partical accelerators the speed increase with increase of acceleration energy is a decay curve approaching but never reaching light speed)
Theoretical tachyons that travel faster than light can never slow down to light speed or below for same reason


Correction 6
as proven by MM experiment Light is invariant (also proven by maxwells equations for electric and magnetic fields where the constant is the speed of light and does not involve any temrs like speed or direction)

but doppler effects can occur (ie black holes slowing light)
instead of slowing light which is impossible the light is instead shifted in wavelength going red shift instead of slowed.

it is the Red shift/blue shift phenomena you talk of, if you look at a galaxy that is rotating with us at a angle the side that is moving towards us seems Redder in light than the star spectra should be (comparitive analysis with black body function and known local stars)and the other side of the galaxy rotating away seems bluer than it should be

even if you are traveling at 0.99 speed of light you will still measure the speed of light as 300000000meters per second even though newtonian mechanics say it should be that minus your speed.

You will witness the time distortion and space distortion affects on anything not moving at similar speeds,

RELATIVLY SPEAKING

with a train moving past a person on a hill the people on the train could argue the guy+hill is moving backwards but in slomove situs there is a prefered view that of person who is still with surroundings take everything from their point of view
even if a trian goes past the first train and then comes are we moving 2X them stoped etc

it can all be expressed from the guy on the hill wher the science works properly.

With light speed there is no prefered frame all things can be taken as the still guy on hill,

Light always travels at the same speed no matter what you do.

Michelson+Morely experiment
designed to disprove the theory of a Jewish, German Scientist before WW2 started,

2 devices for measuring the speed of light at right angels to each other 1 in the direction of the earth's orbit the other right angles now if relativity was wrong there was some medium (called ether) that could be taken as the guy on hill for light, the speed in the 2 directions would be different as one would have less distance to travel one would have more.

It failed, Ether was rubbish,



The thing is that the equations and theories of Relativity are all inter connected and dependant on each other so that the ones that HAVE been proved by experiment and observation prove the rest upon which the whole thing is built.

ok, I'm going to leave the rest alone for now, but this shurely has to be as interesting a debate for you as it is for me.


You yourself say that light moves at a constant speed, I'm not going to argue with that. In fact that's the whole basis for my disbelief in the current theory of relativity.

Quote(translated) direct from Einstein:
"X. On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance


LET us consider two particular points on the train 1 travelling along the embankment with the velocity v, and inquire as to their distance apart. We already know that it is necessary to have a body of reference for the measurement of a distance, with respect to which body the distance can be measured up. It is the simplest plan to use the train itself as the reference-body (co-ordinate system). An observer in the train measures the interval by marking off his measuring-rod in a straight line (e.g. along the floor of the carriage) as many times as is necessary to take him from the one marked point to the other. Then the number which tells us how often the rod has to be laid down is the required distance. 1
It is a different matter when the distance has to be judged from the railway line. Here the following method suggests itself. If we call A' and B' the two points on the train whose distance apart is required, then both of these points are moving with the velocity v along the embankment. In the first place we require to determine the points A and B of the embankment which are just being passed by the two points A' and B' at a particular time t—judged from the embankment. These points A and B of the embankment can be determined by applying the definition of time given in Section VIII. The distance between these points A and B is then measured by repeated application of the measuring-rod along the embankment. 2
A priori it is by no means certain that this last measurement will supply us with the same result as the first. Thus the length of the train as measured from the embankment may be different from that obtained by measuring in the train itself. This circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the apparently obvious consideration of Section VI. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the distance w in a unit of time—measured from the train,—then this distance—as measured from the embankment—is not necessarily also equal to w. 3


Note 1. e.g. the middle of the first and of the hundredth carriage."


This is basically about him dealing with relativity in the sence of simultaneous actions being Viewed by an observer. The example in point is two lighning bolts hitting the tracks that a train is on at the exact same time. In order to view thease bolts as simultaneous a person has to be positioned at the exact center between the two. He also explains that a person in the train, which can be moving at just about any speed, who is positioned at the exact center of thease two bolts at the instant theay are striking the track will view the one in front of him as srtiking first because light travels at a constant rate. The train is for example moving at 1/2 lightspeed and to the stationary observer, the bolts strike at the same time, but to the observer in the train the bolts would have appeared to strike at two distincly different times because light would take longer to catch up with him.
By the same token as he is approaching light in front of him at at greater rate, he would absorb this light at a greater rate too, so that he would 'persieve' that everything in front of him is moving in an accelerated timeframe, though if he were to look back, light would take longer to reach him than normal, so everything would seem to be moving slower.
Also the light that appeared to be beside him would actualy be coming from an angl relative to the rain's speed, and thus even that wehich at that instant was beside him would be percieved with distortion.
To observbers looking into the train from the front, time would appear to be condenced because of light being reflected at an increased rate*, yet those behind would view time in the train as being slowed dovn as the light from the train would be reflected over an increased distance^.

Any arguments?

*curious note: if light is reflected at an increased rate, then the object would appear brighter than it should as the light is more condenced.

^due to the fact that it takes time for the electrons to excite and de-excite.

light,

i have a clock in the train it has a beam of light going up and down that counts off time. I see it going up and down at the speed of light

you standing on the platform as i go past see the beam always going at the speed of light but on a zig-zag path,

under relativity we can only trust the observations of 'ourselves' meaning we can only say 2 events are simultaneous if we observe both happening at the same time, take this example

there is a mirror half way to the next star and one all the way at alpha centauri A,

beams of light are sent out for several years then years later a flash comes back and we know when it went out and later the alpha cent flash comes back and we know when it went out, we take the time from transmission to reception half it and that tells us when the light beams reached their targets and it turns out they both happened at the same time, that is simultaneous events, you must remember that when your moving at close to the speed of light your own views of what has and hasnt happened arnt nessercarily the same as anyone else,

what you described inthe second block of text is exactly how relativity actually works,

to someone approached by the train the light signals from the train are pilling up
(take a graph draw a line between vertical and 45degrees from the origin then draw a line at 45 degrees coming off that line every centimetre, the lines arnt spaced a centimeter above each other they are closer so what should be the standard time rate seems accelerated
(time dilation) also things would appear shorter more compacted.
and vica versa all this is covered in minkowski diagrams which are 1st year physics degree stuff.

One thing to note about Einsteins theory of relativity was that it all hinged on gravity bending light (and therefore space) and all the pins relied on this and a few other key areas,

Now due to Antisemetism an racism and resistance to new ideas everyone tried to prove him wrong (well the majority) what they did do with a few key experiments (such as looking for a star out of place near the sun during a total eclipse compared to when it was in the night sky
(was there by the exact amount predicted by Einstein's maths)
the experiment to see if a device measuring the speed of light in the plane of the earth's orbit and one at right angles showed a difference in the speed
(one is going on a zig-zag as earth moves the other is being compressed for maximum difference)
(there wasnt not even to the thousandth of a meter per second when if light was variant for any reason it would have shown up as being a few times 90miles per second difference in a speed of million and some miles per second there was no change down to a few thousandths of a second)
(from there the equipment is inaccurate but it covers all hte data needed)

Alright, now that we agree,at least on most of that, Einstein's theory used THE SPEED OF LIGHT as a base point for time. Light moves at a constant velocity, and all of the experiments I've heard of all involve it as their base component. By useing light in every calc, only the appearence of what happened would be noted, not what actually happened. My point was that if light were discounted, and somehow we could see everything in our lign of sight, relativity would be re-written. the entire thing is based of perception. time it self isn't altered, our perception of it is.
If as you putit, twins were born, and one was placed on a spaceship which shot away for 9 years at .75C, and the other stayed on earth, when theay were re-united theay would both be physically 9 years old. As the ship accelerated away from the earth it would appear that the child on the ship were aging at a slower rate than that of the child on earth. However, when the ship turned around, It would seem that the child on the ship was aging at a much greater rate than the child on the earth. Time itself isn't distorted by speed, only light, and thus our most favorite sence: sight, is. By basing relativity of of light, naturally our sence of time's going to be screwed up.

Energy and matter are interchangeable, correct? Well I'm willing to bet that energy puts out a different type of field than matter, matter's got gravity, energy's got magnitism, and magnatism doesn't warp space(though it does warp energy).

oh, and that light clock would slow down because light was moving on an angle relative to a straight path, and since light moves at a constant speed, it would then have a greater distance to travel between emitter and recepter. Such a mechanism is not to be trusted except as a method of guaging speed and acceleration.

(I am not racist in the slightist, I just like to make people question what is taken for granted. Progress isn't made without refining the basics.)

small question: do you think that if matter did smoehow manage to exceed llightspeed, it would suddenly disintegrate as all of it's particles would suddenly become absolutely positively charged?

how can you discount the property of light speed being invariant it is proven through seperate unbreakable ways by 3 different fields,

and no on the ship for the twin situation it would not appear to swap roles only the child on the ship can have a different temporal experience due to that being the only one that undergoes a change in velocity (an acceleration) and direction is irrelevant, because the equation factors in speed for time distortion and speed has no direction unlike velocity, it dosnt matter which way the ship points people watching it see time move slowly on it even as it rockets by now the math and theory was torturous to prove this but the numbers work its similar to the black hole effect as a ship approaches the black hole it sees time shift into high velocity as the black hole pull acts as a temporal accelerator.
The only way for a child on earth to age faster than a child on a ship is if the earth is travelling at 0.75c relative to the ship's frame of reference.

(now okay the earth is moving at 90miles/sec orbital, 1milmiles/day orbital around galactic core +galactic velocity from ground zero,
so maybe if the ship made itself absolutly still it might get a mild effect but it has to get back to earth.

the fact is what amounts to 9years from the childs perspective on earth might only be 3 for the perspective of the hip child

Perception is affected by Physics,

So if you seem to be seeing the rise of civilisation on nearby planets rush by, then something is causing you to be placed in a situation where time is rushing by on those planets.

and as for going past light speed you cant
my theory for interstellar travel is not to go past that would take infinite energy under the BASIC rules we have worked out.

You need to change the rules,

Ie startrek warp drive distorts space into a subspace-space mix where the laws are different
Babylon 5 opens a tear to a higher(or lower) dimension related to our own but with different rules and systems.

Something along those lines is better.

oh and ACTUAL temporal distortion by relatavistic speeds is proven.

Cosmic rays include a particles called muons and pions travelling at 0.9C they only form when they hit the outermost edge of the earths atmosphere now you can make these in a big particle accelerator that are exactly the same as cosmic ones except without the speed.

These particles are highly unstable and decay in a fraction of a second to electrons and energy and the like.

Now its easy to calculate the distance from the only place they can form to the surface and guess what.

They cant possibly cover the distance before going poof,

but when you use the relatavistic time distortion equation

t your time= y t'(its time)
where y is 1 divided by the square root of (1-b)
b is the square of the speed of the 'frame(the particle) divided by the speed of light squared


The numbers then work, and we can with detectors detect pions and muons decaying,

everytime you turn on a gieger counter and take a background reading.

now think of this the equation is this at high speeds (close to c)

a 1 - a very small number like say for a 0.9c particle, 0.9squared which is 0.81
square root of 0.19 is small 0.435

but 1 divided by a small number is a big number in this case y = 2.3
so a particle going at 0.9
has a y of 2.3
meaning that the life we see is 2.3times longer than it should be
but as far as it is concerned its life is normal

and before you say it no the decay time cannot change as it is only dependent on what it is

protons decay after 140 million billion years on their own (or some other big number)
electrons on their own hang about for the same time
neutrons go minutes if on their own etc etc

ok, so your saying that by hitting earth's atmosphere and colliding with a lot of particles in it, the muons have exactly the same composition? that there's now ay theay've gained or shead nutrons/protons in those collisions? Right, that makes lots of sence.
how's that possible?

muons are fundamental sub atomic particles (smaller than protons and neutrons, utterly indivisible) they are caused by neutrinos from the sun hiting atoms and causing protons to decay into a neutron + a muon which will eventually go to gamma rays (energy basically) if a muon is abosrbed by hitting something like a proton or neutorn the muon will cease to exist so the fact we see muons on the surface of the earht means some are getting through (hell there are billions of the little suckers made per second a few have to get through by sheer probability
(the air isnt pure atoms its mainly void, atoms are 9/10 empty)

good enough?

so thease muons are created in our atmosphere by particles hitting it, how does this prove that near lightspeed causes an object to age slower? Like you said theay come from our atmosphere and move downward, but sheer probability allows for this. What does this have to do with lightspeed?

btw, what times are you usally posting, and what's your gmt offset?

im in gmt, im in england in london itself


the fact is these muons can only form at a certain height now if you take that height and work out the shortest distance to the earth's surface.
(straight down)
use the most basic equation speed=distance/time
putting that distance and 0.9c in you get a fraction of a second which is nearly twice as long as the maximum possible life of a muon,

therfore no matter what route a muon takes any that arnt stopped by hitting something cant possibly reach the surface of the earth before they decay, and they cant be formed anywhere else.

Yet its easy enough to make an experiment that detects muons only (as opposed to everything like a gieger counter does) and surprise you spot muons down where they cant reach.

its like me saying you will die in 10min and me finding you 26miles down a road with you only able to run then at that end you die.

there is no way you could run 26miles in 10min.

but once you take the fundamental basis of relativity the time dilation effect by near to light speeds.

part of the theory you reject and an effect you say is only an illusion with no real effect
says that because these particels travel so fast they experience time at a different rate so that from their pont of view they can make it with ample time to spare.

Now this explanation works quite well how do you account for it.

easey, their speed itself lets them get there in enough time. Time doesn't need to slow down in order for them to get ther if theay move at sufficient speed.
If I had to travel x amout of distance in Y amount of time, all I'd need to do is reach sufficient velocity, time doesn't need to be distorted if you move fast enough.

okay so a thing going only at 0.9 speed of light that would need to go 2.7 times speed of light to get there in time but dosnt because wed know about it or not detect it at all is going that fast by your arguments

there seems to be little point to continue discussing this as you seem to think the whole world is in a conspiracy to keep the truth from the people by lying and making fake experiments

your theories have holes big enough to drive solar systems through your half way to china and yet still you dig down.

have a nice life and beware we are all out to get you and the milkman down the road is really an assassin

Conspiracy? no. I just play Devil's advocate to everything.

Seriously though, My only point is that Relativity is still only a theory, thus the name. And that it's a theory based off of What we can see.
I was pointing out there's always other factors. The Universe is a big place, and is getting bigger, a lot can happen.
When Scientists first mesured the weight of the atoms on the periodic table, theay found that every atom mesured so much. Then, when some scientist measured the table again, later, the weights that were found were different. The devices used were basically the same, but the original results were either flawed, or theay changed in time(Bigger universe = mutating physics?). Either way, that's a lot to swallow when you realise that Relativity is based off of a few experiments done a while ago, then the rest extrapolated using math.

Oh, and poor sport returing to the name-calling ways of the five year old. I would have Expected a little better than that from someone who is apparently well educated. But then again You should never expect anyone to see even the possibility of something other that their own beliefs.


So long, don't spaz out and hit yourself with a fish.(purely revenge for the milk-man remark, though I buy it myself from the store like any other Canadian, as we're not too lazy to take a 5 minute walk every now and then.)

I'm pritty shure I can paint your profile easily. Your science is your main religion, though you are probably also a cristian. You are white, a little older than 40 (too set in your ways to see the possibilty of something other than what you believe). Probably married, though you have more than likely cheeted or been cheeted on, if not totally divorced.

Pardon me for asking you to double-check the basics again. Pardon me for trying to get you to think along new lines, because untill it's prooven by physical means, it's still just a buch of fools sitting around thinking really hard and not doing enough. Red-tape be d**ned! Let's see this 5month/9year old time twisting experiment. Let's see smething grow in weight just because you's spun it really F**king fast! You can't even post a simple introduction for yourself on your page for crying out loud!You want to rip, I'll lace into you (figuratively spaeking) like so many starved wild dogs. If you wanted to drop the conversation, then do it and don't look back. just don't attack me because I won't belive pure math, because Math gets re-written every day buddy, and your too dim-witted and set in your ways to bother learning something new.