Nicholas Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 Choose two objects lets say a train and the station. There is a set distance between them until it accelerates. If the train could approach(accelerate to near) the speed of light it would measure a shorter journey. I call this space variation. But how can you say that the distance between the train and the station in the begining isn't an absolute? Every reference that stayed behind or was at the station waiting would say the train had an absolute space to travel through. As Einstein said Relativity is a thoroughly bad name for the theory. He considered calling it invariance theory! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted June 25, 2005 Share Posted June 25, 2005 But how can you say that the distance between the train and the station in the begining isn't an absolute? What do you mean by "an absolute"? Do you mean independent of reference frame? If so' date=' then I can say that the distance is not an absolute because that statement is consistent with the best empirical data, and the negation of that statement is not. Every reference that stayed behind or was at the station waiting would say the train had an absolute space to travel through. This is so vague that I can't even guess at what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted June 26, 2005 Author Share Posted June 26, 2005 Space only varies with motion. Speed up and space-time shrinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted June 26, 2005 Share Posted June 26, 2005 From whose point of view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 From the point of view of who did the accelerating ie who exerienceed weight. They will see those left behind as being blueshifted and when the measure space they will find it is shorter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Rubbish. You are being vague as usual. When they measure the length of their dining table it will be the same, n'est pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudoswallo Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 I can see what your saying, Nicholas. Is this the 'observer based effects' part of the theory? Anyway, there are spinnies of trees, mysteriously placed every kilometer. Now, someone in a spinny sees the next, and mesures the distace correctly as 1km. On the train, however, they mesure it, again correctly, as 700m. Tada! And is the dining table at the station or in the train? ps. Those in behind would be red-shifted, and those in front would bllue-shifted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 i see the closing of the other threads and your warning haven't stopped your spamfest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Space only varies with motion.Speed up and space-time shrinks. And expands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 And expands Do you make the difference between galaxies with space expanding inbetween(space stretching) or galaxies moving through space apart? There is a difference. In one only would there be relativistic effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eon_rider Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 What do you mean by "an absolute"? Do you mean independent of reference frame? If so' date=' then I can say that the distance is not an absolute because that statement is consistent with the best empirical data, and the negation of that statement is not. [/quote'] I second this. Tom's answer is as clear as a bell in response to the first part of your question. best, Eon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charm quark Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I hope that no one is implying that nothing in this universe is absolute.Think about it if the universe is always changing than the only way to be absolute is to change our theories,laws, and principles to govern space-time effectivly. A great book that really stresses this is "Brian Greene" The Elegant Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charm quark Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 I don't mean to sound like I'm second guessing your intelligence,but maybe you should take a second look at Einstiens theory, because what it sounds like to me is that maybe you didn't fully understand the point he was trying to get across. Or a different approach, possibly you couldn't get your main point across in the process.Do you understand? If you don't you're being truthfull because I AM BEING VAGUE! Do you now understand why it is that you have to be undeceivably clear in the point you are getting across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charm quark Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 In light are you saying photon? What I mean is you have a caption saying light falls. In the scientific world at least is an understanding that photons have no mass and also they have no effect on the particle hence, photons never fall below 670 million mph in turn showing no effect from gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now