A-wal

Read this: Link removed by moderator If the speed of light is constant then if two objects with different velocities relative to each other are measuring light moving at the same speed relative to both of them then time and space have to be relative, not a fixed background. Now leave special relativity alone! What's it ever done to you? If you want a theory of relativity to bash then have a go at general relativity. It superceded special relativity, by far the most beautiful thing I've ever seen in my life. It must be punished! (:

Easy, just accelerate. It would take over a second from the perspective of anyone staying on Earth, but the accelerator could do it in under a second from their own perspective because length contraction would mean they don't have so far to go and time dilation would mean they have longer to do it.

Inertial, I think I did that in the rest of the paragraph. (: I wouldn't normally word it like like but I was trying to make it accessible to complete beginners and I thought I'd start gently. The idea was to show that stationary isn't what most people think it is. If it wasn't right at the beginning I'd have said non-accelerating (inertial).

So what's the difference between a neutrino and a wimp then? Sounds like neutrinos are just high energy wimps. You could apply that logic independently of this idea though, so it's not really relevant. I missed this before because it was just before I posted. Thanks for the support. (:

If an object is stationary in space and it sees another object coming towards it at half the speed of light then you could just as easily say that it's moving towards the other object at half the speed of light and the other object is stationary. There is no distinction between which one is moving. The only statement you can make is that they moving towards each other at half the speed of light. All the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame, meaning all frames are equal and no frame can be said to be unique in any way. Having said that, you could use the cosmic background radiation as a frame of reference for all others, but you could do that with any frame of reference. If you're in a car and you throw a ball into the air then it doesn't go flying backwards because the laws in all non accelerating frames are the same, including the speed of light. You can't measure your speed relative to light because you'll always get the same answer of 186,000 miles per second. So if two objects are heading away from Earth at different relative velocities and you shine a flash light then the light beam will pass both of them at the same speed, meaning all three observers measure time and space differently to keep the speed of light the same for all of them. Velocity is just a measurement of distance over time. There's one spacial dimension involved because you can always draw a straight line between any two objects, and time. Both shorten from the perspective of an accelerating observer to keep the speed of light constant. This is called length contraction and time dilation. If a ship were flying away from Earth and a signal was sent from Earth to the ship and from the ship to Earth then would both signals take the same amount of time to reach their destination? Yes, but both Earth and the ship would say no. Both observe outgoing signals taking longer than incoming signals because outgoing signals have to catch up to the receding destination. Outgoing signals have to travel further and take longer than incoming ones do to make the same journey, because outgoing signals are measured to when they arrive while incoming signals are measured from when they're released. Signals sent by the other observer would be travelling a shorter distance and wouldn't take as long to reach the destination as a signals sent from themselves to the other observer because outgoing signals are travelling to where an object is going to be and incoming signals are travelling to where an object is and the difference is length contraction and time dilation. Objects are always travelling through space-time at the speed of light from all frames of reference. In your own frame your stationary and moving through time at the speed of light. Objects also see other objects with a different relative velocity moving at the speed of light because they're moving through time slower (time dilation) from each others perspective and their total velocity through space-time will always equal the speed of light. Imagine two ships moving at different velocities, both with a light beam moving up and down between the ceiling and the roof. It takes one second for the light to travel up or down from mirror to the other. Each would see the light on the other ship move in a zigzag as its relative velocity is added to the lights vertical motion. Light doesn't speed up to make up the difference, so it takes longer than one second for the light to get from one mirror to the other on the others ship from both perspectives. A second for either is a shorter amount of time than a second for the other, so each sees the other moving in slow motion because the light on the other ship has further to go. Now one is stationary relative to a tunnel which the other ship travels though. The ships front end comes out one second after its back end enters, but space is length contracted in the direction that it's travelling in, making anything in the other frame including the tunnel length extended by comparison. Its front end emerges before the back end enters from the perspective of the ship at rest relative to the tunnel. From this frame, the ship is longer than the tunnel. If you (A) flew away at half the speed of light while your twin (E) stayed on Earth then you would change your frames of reference relative to each other. You're always stationery from your own perspective and light is always moving at the same velocity ©. Everything else is relative. From both perspectives the other will be travelling at 0.5c but each sees themselves as stationary. A travels one light-year in two years, but a light-year has changed from As perspective relative to Es because they've moved into a different frame where the speed of light is the same relative to both of them despite their different relative velocities. It moved further from As perspective in the time it took for the light to get one light-year from Earth from Es perspective and the same is true from As perspective of E. So the distance that the other ship covers wont seem like far enough from each perspective over any given unit of time, and if the distance that the other is covering decreases then the space and time separating them must decrease by an equal amount split evenly between the two (there's one time and one spatial dimension as we're moving in straight lines to keep things simple). The measurement of the others space-time has lessened because the other ships time will appear to be in slow motion (time dilation) and there will appear to be less space (length contraction) along the one spatial dimension (straight line) that they are moving from the perspective of both frames and lengthens each ships perception of anything in the others frame, which keeps the speed of light constant from the perspective of both frames. This removes the discrepancy of the speed of light from the persecutive of different relative velocities because it isn't travelling as far in space or in time, and therefore as fast as in other frames as it would if it wasn't for length contraction and time dilation, and bringing it right back to c relative to every frame of reference. Everything up until now has been symmetric, so each twin sees the same affects on the other, and in exactly the same way. The twin paradox (not actually a paradox at all) is that the one leaving Earth will be younger than their twin when they return. To start with we'll give both twins a rolling start and finish. The twins pass Earth moving in opposite directions at just over half the speed of light relative to an observer on Earth who sees them moving away from each other at over the speed of light, which is fine as long as no one sees themselves moving above light speed relative to anyone else. Each twin sees themselves moving at just over half light speed relative to Earth (Earth sees them moving at that speed so the same must be true in reverse) and each twin sees the other moving at below light speed because of length contraction and time dilation. But this isn't a real affect because each sees the other one moving in slow motion and length extended (because the space is contracted), which stops anyone from moving faster than light relative to anyone else. When they turn round they have to accelerate in the opposite direction (there's no such thing as deceleration in relativity because it's just acceleration in the opposite of some arbitrary direction). If one is at rest and the other accelerates and comes back then it becomes a real affect and one twin is literally younger than the other one. A uses one unit of energy to travel up to half the speed of light relative to E. A is now static in its new frame of course. A then uses another unit of energy to again reach half the speed of light relative to an object in its new frame. From Es frame that second unit of energy didn't accelerate A as much as the first one did, but from As perspective it did because of length contraction and time dilation. So if the same energy is needed to move over a relatively smaller amount of space-time then the mass of A has increased from Es frame, and Es has from As frame as well. So the others energy requirement to accelerate increases from both perspectives as their velocity relative to each other increases, so your mass increases the faster you move relative to something else from their perspective. Energy becomes mass as you accelerate relative to the speed of light from the perspective of other frames of reference. That's how matter and energy are interchangeable, E = mc^2. What separates them is the fact that A has accelerated and E hasn't. If E were to accelerate into As new frame then they'd be the same age again. Length contraction and time dilation would lessen as their speeds become relatively closer to each other. When their relative velocities match they'll be in the same frame again and the only apparent time lag will be caused by how long it takes for light to cover the distance separating them (light hours/days/years). You can effectively travel as fast as you like, there's no such thing as absolute velocity and there's no speed limit because you will be in a new frame every time you stop using energy to accelerate and the speed of light and your energy requirement for acceleration relative to c is always the same in every possible inertial (non-accelerating) frame. If you accelerated to half the speed of light from your starting frame then you'd be in a new frame when you stop accelerating and you'd now be static from your own perspective and the energy requirement to accelerate to half speed of light would be the same as it was in your starting frame. If accelerated again up to half the speed of light relative to an object in your new frame then you wouldn't be travelling at the speed of light from your starting frame because you are length contracted and time dilated from the perspective of your starting frame and so you're moving slower through time and space. Time and space aren't fixed. As you accelerate towards something, it gets closer to you beyond what you would expect from the increased velocity. You can move infinitely fast, but as far as the rest of the universe is concerned you can't. So if you were to accelerate away from Earth and then return, you would be younger than your twin who stayed home because you were travelling slower through time and space from Earths perspective. Gravitys strength is directly proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the mass. That just means that its strength is divided by four if the distance is doubled and multiplied by four if the distance is halved. In zero dimensions (point/singularity) it's infinite. In one spatial dimension (straight line) its strength would remain constant over any distance. In two dimensions (flat plane) it would be directly proportional to the distance. In three dimensions it's an inverse square. It's proportional to the volume it fills. We feel our own weight on Earth but it's not gravity that we feel, it's the electro-magnetic force between the atoms that are resisting gravity and pushing us upwards by the same amount that gravity is pulling us down. Neutron stars are heavy enough to collapse past this resistance and are held up by the resistance of the neutrons. Black holes are so heavy for their size that nothing can hold them up and they collapse completely. We feel the difference in the amount of force being applied to our points of contact with the ground and the rest of our bodies, which is why it's more comfortable when this difference is spread over a larger area when we lay down. The difference in the strength of a gravitational field is also all that can be felt rather than the strength of the field itself, because it's relative. The relative difference in the strength of gravity is called tidal force. On Earth that difference is very small and can't be felt but in a strong enough gravitational field it's enough to rip solid objects apart. Relativity explains how electricity and magnetism are actually the same force (electro-magnetism). A magnetic field can turn into an electric field if you accelerate relative to it because length contradiction moves the electrons closer together giving the field a negative charge, so the magnetism from the previous frame is felt here as electricity.

Did you copy and paste that? Just stating what I'm trying to refute doesn't weaken my case, that's not how it works. I've come up with a much better explanation. If you want to refute it then tell me why the standard explanation is better. Good luck. A geodesic is a straight line. Time never stops from anyones erspective, even in the standard version of general relativity, it just keeps slowing down from the perspective of other observers. How could an object reach the event horizon when it can't ever be reached from any other objects perspective, no matter how close they are? Think about it. You're right that the rope paradox is the same as one object, the rope just makes it easier to visualise. I didn't say that anyone supports it, I said that there hasn't been an attempt to refute the content, not by anyone who knows what they're talking about anyway. It's bullet proof. I didn't know those three had read this thread. That's encouraging, they couldn't find any faults with it either.

I just think it makes sense. I know we get chemical energy but I find it slightly easier to believe that thoughts come from a high energy external source. The fact that they might have mass is very encouraging.

I'm not really sure how I can make a more quantative prediction than shooting mice away from the sun to see if their brains are affected in some way. There's no way to predict how far away they'd have to be before it become noticable or what their physical reactions would be, but at least it's a definite, if not precise prediction. As for the actual mechanism, I'm out of my comfort zone here. It would obviously have to be something to do with the atoms in brain matter taking a small amount of energy/momentum from the neutrinos as they pass through, so there would have to be a reduction in at least some of the neutrinos relative velocities, but I'm not sure if this would be realistically measurable? I doubt it. Edit: Hold on. If they don't have mass then they have to move at the speed of light. They'd just loose energy then. If I'd have used that logic with electrons I'd have know that they couldn't be responsible for mass in any way. So neutrinos are really just a form of light basically?

Okay, maybe I should be clearer when it's speculative. I'll try to do that in future. I should add that I'm not sure about the physical constants bit in the relativity thread where I also said 'I think'.

What makes you think I sounded confident? That wasn't how it was meant. I know very little about particle physics because I haven't looked in to it, and wouldn't state anything about it confidently. It didn't interest me like relativity did. It was just an idea. You see I'm not scared of being wrong. I like it because it means I've learned something. Yes I love mirrors. (:

And people wonder why I get pissed off when I come here! I said I don't think because I'm not sure and you use that to attack without making an actual point. Black holes don't count if that's what you meant because they don't exist for any length of time unless viewed from a distance. I think that maybe the actual cause of gravity might be that the electrons create length contraction and time dilation that's angular, which works differently from linear velocity and it radiates outwards, pulling everything in. If you haven't got anything constructive to say then piss off!

What facts? I realise you must have been dying to post something like that but it seems to me that the presentation and length were the biggest problems. That's hopefully sorted now. Why are you putting so much importance on qualifications? It's perfectly possible for someone with no education to understand something and for someone with lots of education to have simply memorised it. In fact both are fairly common. The education system systematically destroys creative thought processes! That's why I got out early. I shouldn't have called you an idiot though. I have no idea whether you're an idiot or not, but I do know that you don't understand much about relativity so you're in no position to criticise or judge this. Do it again and I will make you look stupid! People in real life are a lot more friendly and polite than they are here, and on line in general. If people weren't then I'd get into a lot of trouble but it wouldn't be me getting my arse kicked. I've been more irritable than usual lately and I've lost my temper a few times in the real world too and I haven't got a scratch on me. Light would still move away at c locally from an object hovering at a constant distance away from an event horizon because it's the equivalent of an inertial frame with inwards and outwards force/curvature in balance with each other. It would slow down as it approaches the horizon. Acceleration is to energy as velocity is to mass, and black holes don't have mass as such, that's gone. They're more like negative energy. Here's a prediction. If free-fall really is inertial then the speed of light should stay the same. If I'm right the speed of light is never c when in free-fall. Why didn't I think of that before? It's so simple. This is what I meant by needing interaction. I worded that badly. We don't reduce the overall force felt, we just spread it out over a larger area. Gravity is very hard to feel because there's hardly any difference between the amount of gravity at our heads and feet. Gravity is trying to pull us towards the centre of the Earth and electro-magnetism is balancing this force, but it's concentrated only on our points of contact with the ground. Short version: Introduction If you reverse everything within a system then relativity everything stays exactly the same unless it's viewed from an external frame of reference. The general theory of relativity introduces the concept of curved space-time, which basically means viewing motion as a change in the distances between objects rather than movement of the objects themselves. There is absolutely no difference between following a curved path in flat space-time and following a straight line in curved space-time. The reason why quantum mechanics and general relativity are incompatible is because general relativity doesn't treat them as physically equivalent. It describes a free-falling object as the equivalent of an inertial object because the force is acting on the space-time that the object is moving through instead of the object itself. This is incorrect. Length contraction and time dilation also change the space-time that objects are moving through when they accelerate in the conventional sense and this can be used to explain the force they feel as the difference in the curvature of space-time that the different parts of the objects are moving through in the same way that general relativity describes tidal force. Massive objects cause inwards curvature, making them gravitate towards each other, while energy causes outwards curvature, making objects move away the the source. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, so gravity is that much weaker. Black Hole Geometry When a black hole forms it expands outwards at the speed of light until it's reached its maximum size and then immediately contracts inwards at the speed of light creating a four dimensional sphere. Information moves at the speed of light as well so an observer would see it appear at its full size and then rush inwards. It's size in all four dimensions increases as the distance of an observer increases, and at an ever decreasing rate the further away the observer. At zero distance the black hole has no size at all. A singularity is a point in time and space and so can never be reached by an object, even one accelerating towards it because the closer an object gets, the smaller it is. A black hole is just what a singularity looks like from a distance as length contraction and time dilation decrease. Horizons When an object is observed free-falling towards a black hole it becomes more length contracted and time dilated as it's relative velocity increases in exactly the same way as an object accelerating away using energy, and light from an ever decreasing distance will never reach them as long as they keep accelerating at at least the same rate in the same way as the Rindler horizon approaches an accelerator if their acceleration increase. If an object were able to reach an event horizon then light from behind it would start from in front of it as the two horizons cross over, in exactly the same way that a Rindler horizon and light emitted from the front of an accelerator would cross over if it were able to accelerate to a relative velocity of c. Event Horizon Paradox It can't be possible for an object to reach an event horizon from the perspective of any external object, even one accelerating towards the black hole. If it was then then that object would have to escape from the black hole and come back across the event horizon from the external objects perspective if it accelerates away, so if objects can't possibly reach the event horizon while there still is an event horizon. In others words black holes are unreachable. Rope Paradox A spaceship attached by a rope to a another spaceship maintaining a constant distance from the black hole free-falls towards the event horizon. The rope goes taut after the free-falling ship crosses the event horizon from its own perspective and then the other ship then tries to pull away. The free-falling ship is still outside the event horizon from the perspective of the ship pulling it out so it can be done from the perspective of this ship, but not the free-falling ship. General relativity isn't even self consistent. Universal Curvature/Acceleration The universe is also a four dimensional sphere, but one that we can't exit rather than enter. It's curved just like the surface of the Earth but in time as well as space. We see red shift because we're looking across this curvature, and objects become more red shifted the further across it we look. Everything funnels into a singularity if we look across to the opposite side of the universe in time or in space, creating the illusion of dark flow and the big bang. I don't think the physical constants are independent variables, they're relative. If you were to adjust one then the others would also change, so that in fact there would be no change at all.

Whatever physical process you want to think of has to be experienced using your senses. Our sense are what create the physical world out of nothing, other than pure geometry/mathematics. If you think of any physical process without using your senses to imagine what it would look, sound, feel, taste or taste like and think about what's actually happening then all you're left with is geometric mathematical equations. If you were to jump in front of a bus then your brain would stop creating this perceived illusional reality. We don't even know that our brains translate the external input in the same way. What you think of as sight, hearing, ect may be nothing like what I think of them as. Everyone's getting the same data and drawing the same conclusions from it but there's no way for us to compare the bit inbetween. It could be as unique as a finger print.

An increase in the amount of neutrinos isn't really a fair test because we could only be using a fraction of the ones available to us under normal circumstances. What we really need is to reduce the amount available to us, and possibly by quite a large percentage. The only way to really do it I think is to put some mice (sorry mice) in a rocket, shoot it far away from the sun and just see what happens. I did actually know that neutrinos only interact with the weak nuclear force but it was ages ago that I read that and I'd forgotten. So the only difference between neutrinos and the theorised wimps is that wimps have mass? Do they have electrons? I don't think they can or we'd know for sure that they don't exist. I don't think it's possible for something to have mass without electrons.

Time is a dimension, no different from space accept in our minds. They're even interchangeable in a sense. Everything is always moving through space-time at the speed of light. If an object is in motion relative to you then its speed through time decreases to keep its overall speed through space-time constant, but it would say the same about you. If you accelerate into their frame then it's that frames rulers for space and time that you have to use instead, so acceleration makes the illusion of Doppler shift become a reality. That's what causes the difference in age in the twin paradox (not actually a paradox at all) in special relativity when they meet back up. Our brains have two separate systems for storing information, a bit like RAM and ROM. It's seems so much more likely that deja vu is caused by a memory bypassing the short term memory and getting filed straight in the long term memory instead because of a processing error.

That would still be the case though whether the idea is right or not.

Sort of, but that's not really how I was looking at it. I didn't think it was that bad. I was hoping people would enjoy reading it even if it's not exactly perfectly written. You can't edit posts after a certain amount of time here can you. ARSE!

I've just noticed the title mistake. Any chance that can be changed? That's going to annoy me know I've seen it. I can't believe I didn't spot that before. Also there's two spaces between 'help registering' on the front page. I noticed that straight away and it bugs the hell out of me every time. (:

How is determinism chaotic? It's the exact opposite of chaos. Quantum mechanics suggests that everything that can happen does happen, so there wouldn't be any chaos. I don't like chaos. Everything happens for a reason. Good. That backs up the idea. I should probably clarify that. I didn't mean that you could remember something before it's happen because if you remember it then by definition, it's already happened from your perspective. The arrow of times comes from the fact that we remember in only one direction of it. We're not really moving through time. We have the feeling of being in the moment at every point of our lives. Now has no real meaning because it's always now, it always has been and it always will be. If you were to remember something that happens ten years from now then it will have already happened from your perspective, because you remember it. So you'd jump ten years into the future with no memory of the last decade, and if you were to get those memories back it would still be ten years from now. You can't get information from the future and act on it in the past because if you remember it hen it's in your past. If we could remember in both directions then we'd perceive it as another spacial dimension, or we would if it was possible to perceive something without the illusion of a moving timeline. What would be really interesting is if we were to meet aliens who perceive time in the opposite direction. That would be an extremely interesting and very confusing conversation. They'd already remember us of course, then we'd meet them, get extremely confused, and from that point on we'd remember them but they wouldn't remember us. My brain hurts. I'm going to bed. I'm averaging ten posts a day. (: I'm not going to be able to keep that up in a few days. I can't believe it's only been four days, seems much longer. I'm averaging more than one warning a day as well. Bloody hell. That's definately going down!

How are they detected? They must interact with something or we wouldn't know that they exist. If fact if they didn't interact with anything then they wouldn't exist. That's the definition of existance. Wow, that was quite deep.

It wasn't meant to be rude. I struggle when I have to sit and write without actualy talking to someone. I'm not hand waving. It tends to start off well and slowly goes down hill. I do so much better with the back and forth of debate. It brings the best out of me. The initial post contains most of it all in one place and the idea was to clarify it by talking to people. When I've made enough posts I'm going to edit the first one with the best bits I've written copy and pasted from here. That for me is by far the best method.

He basically told me to go jump in front of a bus. This dude is really getting on my nerves. He's going to get me banned soon. By the looks of it he gets his kicks by putting others down because he has such a low opinion of himsef. He's a troll! The bad kind. You know him better than I do. Tell me I'm wrong.

Nothing is beyond logic. It's just that we don't fully understand it so it can seem that way, like quantum mechanics does sometimes. There's nothing in the laws of physics that prevents us from remembering the future, it's physically no different to remembering the past. I don't think you should call it time warp though. It sounds too silly. (:

I don't know much at all about them to be honest, but I was thinking that maybe they loose a bit of energy after they've passed through brain matter and that bit of energy is what thoughts are. This really is just wild speculation. It's fun though. Cheers, I'll take a look.

Not sure. Maybe it doesn't actually have to absorb them, just use them as they pass through. I see. That makes sense.