Reply
Mon 2 Aug, 2004 07:15 pm
Well, was he?
I think the special relativity (for coordinates without acceleration) is almost sure, and that there are no evidences which show incorrectness of the general relativity. It is being tested.
Thank you Satt. You're a dear. Now all is clear
this is in fun, my friend.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=821908#821908
I agree that Special Relativity is so well verified for a century as to be almost certainly correct.
Clearly General Relativity predicts many phenomena correctly, that had never been understood or, in many cases suspected, before, but what practitioners in the field may know about verification or refutation of the theory, is over my head.
Also, of course, Einstein did pioneering work in other fields like Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel Prize). I believe he may also have done some work concerning stimulated emission, which forms the basis for the functioning of lasers, but I am less knowledgeable about that.
Re: the admonition for us to post contrary to our proclivities, here are some poems about Relativity that I learned as a boy:
There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was much faster than light.
She set out one day in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
There was a young man named Fiske
Whose fencing was agile and brisk.
So quick was his action, Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk.
Relativity has two branches Special and General - or the microscopic and the cosmic.
It appears to hold true - up to possibly galactic structures - but this needs verfication (e.g. Modified Newtonian Dynamics MOND) to explain expansion (i.e. non zero point energy of a total vaccuum).
At the world of the very small we have no clear model of how the 4 forces interact - say as a proton gets very, very close to a nucleus.
In frames of existence where the energy density is extremely high >> 100 GeV, the four forces may unify (e.g. birth of universe, black holes, wormholes).
The most exiciting next stage advanced physics is SuSy (Super-Symmetry) or string theory and M-Theory - 10 -> 11 dimension reality. These transcend and extend our definition of reality beyond relativity and may introduce new capabilites and rules.
I tend to be skeptical about most modern and older "knowledge" so Einstien was partially correct about much, but exactly correct about almost nothing. Neil
Thanks all. Sorry that I don't have more expertise in the science field.
Brandon, those limericks were absolutely great, really!
Neil, guess he was correct enough to usher us into the atomic age.
g-_day, g_day.
neil wrote:I tend to be skeptical about most modern and older "knowledge" so Einstien was partially correct about much, but exactly correct about almost nothing. Neil
Neil,
He did win the Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric effect. Are you saying that you doubt the validity of Special Relativity, and, if so, could you tell us which aspects of it you consider to be incorrect?
Brandon
It is "correct" as far as we know, but incomplete because it does not take the Uncertainty Principle into account. This is one of the major endeavors of physicists today: to create a Relativistic Quantum Theory, aka. The Theory of Everything.
Neil, saying that you are skeptical does not prove that he was incorrect. What evidence do you have?
Hello, egglover. This thread was started on the basis of a challenge. The only thing I really know about the theory, is that if one could travel at the speed of light, he made be able to look down on the planet earth and watch history in reverse.
Welcome to A2K.
Letty wrote:Hello, egglover. This thread was started on the basis of a challenge. The only thing I really know about the theory, is that if one could travel at the speed of light, he made be able to look down on the planet earth and watch history in reverse.
Welcome to A2K.
Sorry, Letty, but that is one thing it doesn't say. In fact it says that it is impossible for any material object to be accelerated to the speed of light.
Thank you, Brandon. As I said, I know nothing about it; I was attempting to try out all categories and encourage others to do so.
I suppose I have not earned the right to even have an oppinion, but many of the conclusions drawn from Einestien's theory of relativitity and special relativity, sound some vauge alarm bells for me. I guess mine is a historical perspective. Nearly everything believed a century ago has be changed in at least minor ways, so I suspect much of today's science will also suffer minor changes over time. I have made some comments about what happens just inside the event horizon of a very massive black hole which apparently is at odds with most peoples' take on black holes. Neil
Special Relativity
I am not very eductated but am quite interested in Special Relativity. I don't know the math to prove my idea but I believe the apparent time travel is an optical illusion. If you could travel faster than light you would only appear to travel back in time. Since we see by reflected light and we are traveling faster than light then the light from "now" would not have caught up with us. I believe the true events continue to happen on the same timeline and are truly locked in time and only what we hypothetically would "see" appears different as a result of an optical illusion. As I said my education ended at high school and I can't back it up with math but it seems logical to me. If anyone can see the flaws in my thinking please let me know. I'm sure I am probably overlooking something.
Re: Special Relativity
kctech wrote:I am not very eductated but am quite interested in Special Relativity. I don't know the math to prove my idea but I believe the apparent time travel is an optical illusion. If you could travel faster than light you would only appear to travel back in time. Since we see by reflected light and we are traveling faster than light then the light from "now" would not have caught up with us. I believe the true events continue to happen on the same timeline and are truly locked in time and only what we hypothetically would "see" appears different as a result of an optical illusion. As I said my education ended at high school and I can't back it up with math but it seems logical to me. If anyone can see the flaws in my thinking please let me know. I'm sure I am probably overlooking something.
Special Relativity does not say that if you travelled faster than light, you would travel back in time. In fact, it says that you can never accelerate to the speed of light at all. Effects having to do with the propagation of light are always subtracted out anyway. It might be helpful in denying the theory to skim it quickly once.
thanks
Brandon9000
You are correct I mispoke. My apologies. I am less than a layman on this subject to be sure. It has been a long time since I read the theory. I may not remember the details but I recall something of the appearance of time differences. Now that you have correctly pointed out my not describing the theory properly - and I am guilty of that - would you mind addressing the apparent time shift? I would really appreciate the opinion of someone that unlike me actually understands the theory. Is the apparent time shift real or an illusion as I believe? I admit I know nothing of this so I would like someone to explain it. I will not be surprised to be shown to be wrong in my thinking just as I was shown wrong in my description of the theory itself. Thanks.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace