timo

They can only return to the emmision point if they manage to travel backwards in time or with infinite speed. Neither is possible in SR. Just to be certain: Are you aware that there is an infinite number of inertial systems? Each system moving with a constant velocity wrt an intertial frame is also one. Absolute velocity is called 4-velocity and does exist indeed. But I´m afraid it´s not really what you mean with absolute velocity. Why did you quote me with that? I neither understand it nor did I say this. Got the html-tags wrong when trying to answer on my post? A sidenote not related to any particular statement of yours: As long as you are talking about space and not spacetime when trying to talk about SRT you are actually calling for problems and mistakes.

To me it sounds like trying to get an interference pattern of two suns´ photons.

Not sure if I completely understand that question plus it´s quite some time since I did interference experiments but if I remember correctly some coherence is a nessecity for an interference pattern. Another interesting question would of course be how you want to create an interference pattern with gravitons.

That´s why I added the 2nd sentence to my answer: You must have a large ammount of coherent gravitons. Probably a really really large ammount if you want to do measurements with say pendulums or lasers. Afaik, not even normal (the non-quantized ones of General Relativity) gravitational waves have been detected so far (but there are several currently running or upcoming experiments trying to do so).

Neither is there need to apologize for a silly question nor was that one silly. In fact, I consider it one of the more interesting questions I´ve seen lately and the links are really nice. Generally, the only question that I can think of now that people here feel bothered by are the "can you give me the answers for my homework?"-ones. But try to stay away from silly claims (state them in the form of a question ). Welcome to this forum, btw.

To detect the interference pattern of gravitons you must be able to detect gravitons. If you can detect gravitons you´ve allready proven them. For large ammounts of gravitons you´d also need them to be coherent. I don´t think anyone would know how to construct a "gravitaional laser".

Sry, but it seems you misunderstood my last post a bit. I wasn´t asking for the setup to be explained again, I was asking what this is all about. Well, from what I understood so far I can give you two remarks: - The "invariant point in space" still makes no sense to me. Within the scope of relativity points are spacetime-events which implies that they have a time associated to them. Loosely speaking points only exist at a certain time. Hence, the thing about a point moving in space becomes rather meaningless. One might construct something like equivalence classes of points that are representation of each other for different times but this would be a frame-dependant assignement because the time I speak of in this case is frame-dependant. And frame-dependant expressions are not really elegant and should be avoided (which is not allways possible). - I get the impression that you think this experiment disproofs relativity because relativity said the two photons must allways arrive at the same time or at least with the same time-difference. That´s of course not true. Events (=Points in spacetime) seperated by a spacelike distance can have any order in time if you chose a suitable frame of reference. In fact, one could claim that this is the reason the whole thing is called Theory of Relativity. Btw.: Of course I think that the photons arrive at the same time in a reference frame in which L and R are at rest. Everything else wouldn´t make much sense, as far as I can see it. What´s "Godot" ?

Bother to sum up what this thread is about? I can´t really see your point and I don´t really want to spend too much time thinking about what you meant by terms like "invariant emission point" or statements like "SRT insists this [one photons hits the edge before the other one] is not possible".

Yes, that statement would violate the Uncertainty Principle of QM. Luckily, there is no uncertainty principle in Relativity so it´s ok to say something like that as long as you stay within that scope. For QM: The axioms of QM state that a particle is completely described by it´s wavefunction f(x) and it´s probability density in space is |f²|. The important point here is that the particle is completely described by f(x) alone. Unlike classical theory you don´t need the momentum to define the particle´s state. Now, any state can be made up on a combination of plane waves g(p)=exp(i kx) which are states with definite momentum (and thus definite velocity). If you try to make up a function f(x) which is nonzero only at a certain point A out of a linear combination of g(p) you will notice that all p contribute to this sum. So a particle at a certain point has all momentums and thus not one definite one.

Of course it is the Taylor series when you develop it. The point in the Taylor series is that it often converges towards the function you develop (and it does very well in this case). Nevertheless, at least one definition (and the one everyone I know also uses as far as I can tell) is that over the sum. The advantage over definition 3 is that you don´t need to allready have the log function (which I only know as being defined via the exp function so you run in a loop, there). Using 4 allready implies that exp is differentiable so there´s no need to show that anymore. Def 1 has no real use as far as I can see that atm. EDIT: But there´s no need to discuss which def is the best one. Each author will have his/her reason for presenting it the way he/she does. In the case of my book, for example, that´s because it´s a book written mainly for mathematicans. And they tend to develop stuff from the very bottom. A book for natural scientists or engineers might well favor to introduce the exp function by one of it´s main uses that it solves linear differential equations.

The only one talking about Taylor series here is you. The sum over x^n/n! is in fact the definition of exp(x).

Two options for you: 1) The mathematical one: Look up the definition of a vector space (group under addition and well defined multiplication by a scalar, maybe others) and check if your vectors meet the conditions. 2) The geometrical one: If you´re a bit familiar with R³ you might notice that the condition ax + by + cz = 0 is an equation for a plane.

>> I want to show her that I'm capable of getting her into trouble just as if I was an adult. Adult behaviour usually implies not trying to get other people in trouble. Especially not in front of other people. That´s not really meant as an attack on you - just a statement. In fact, I had similar experiences during my schooltime, except that I never whined about my grades because I never really cared too much about them - and never needed them so far. Today I feel a bit sorry for making other people´s life harder just out of a selfish mood.

I think because they are more of a help to you when they work for your good and not for someone else´s.

You know Quick Silver, I don´t want to discourage you. But there´s a reason studying physics takes four years (masters thesis not included as that´s allready specialization). And these five years are usually spent with doing phyiscs at least 5 to 6 hours a day - with a much higher skill-requirement than school. And after these four years you only have the very basics of modern physics. Stuff like the "Standard Model" (funny name as many physicists never learn it) or General Relativity are usually only taught as specialization courses. Giving you out-of-context equations for the mix of particles and theories you named would be completely useless for you. If you´re interested in learning physics I´d suggest you start reading on basic Quantum Mechanics. If you´re not used to it it´s freaky enough to keep you occupied for quite some time. Another suggestions would be simply saying what your "theory" is so someone can point you in the right direction what you could read up.

To our current knowledge there are several particles that are elementary. That is: They are not made out of other particles. These particles e.g. are electrons and their neutrinos, quarks and the gauge bosons like the photon and the gluons.

What about the mathematics of computer graphics? That´s as easy or as hard as you want and easy to visualize (because it´s about visualizing something ).

On topic: - What do you need it for? - Is it supposed to be something mathematical (like doing an important proof) or more about the importance of math (like your example with "math in biology)? - What level? I mean: What´s your mathematical background? Basic school? High School? Undergrad Math student? The more info you give the better feedback you get.

Also, modern theories are based on frame-independent concepts like the Lagrangian Density (not sure if that helps you Saint, I didn´t understand your last post). In fact, frame-independace is usually considered a requirement for new theories.

Or you could take your direction of movement in spacetime and call it the time dimension (because in your frame of rest you only move in time direction).

Well, I asked how your country assures you´re not moving away and your answer was that Kim Jong Il threatens his people with death . And yes: I know that your answer was to the first of my questions, that´s why I called it nitpicking (because when my 1st question is aimed at world´s countries in general and the last one on a specific one and you answer by picking a specific one ... well ... ). Indeed, I got that messed up. Sry for the trouble I might have caused by that. It does, yes. My objection that countries not allowing their people to emmigrate aren´t the point still remains.

I wouldn´t even see how the terms are defined for non-integer values of n. E.g. n=0.5, what´s the sum from k=1 to k=sqrt(2)? Even when I rewrite the logarithm of a sum to a product of logarithms (that´s what 1st comes to my mind when I see such terms) a non-integer number of factors doesn´t seem to make sense at a first glance.

I´m implying that picking one country that has restrictive emmigration laws won´t make this the real problem. Afaik, china and india (which you originally mentioned) don´t have restrictive emmigration laws (at least the sheer number of chinese students running around my campus makes me assume this). And to nitpick a bit: You didn´t really answer my question. Your ... well let´s call it "western attitude" ... makes me doubt that you are really from North Korea.

You should be smart enough to know what I mean.

What emmigration laws do you speak of Flareon? Aren´t you allowed to move to any country you want? How does your goverment ensure that you don´t go there?