Thanks Ernest.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 10/13/2012 11:15:49 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks for thinking of me E_a_t_B.
The reason it's called the "Special theory of relativity" is that your calculation does not hold true. It's physics, not math.
Basically it has to do with the conception that everything in the universe is in motion, ergo there is no ‘absolute reference frame’. That is to say, anytime we make a measurement of something the value we get is with respect to the contextual frame of reference we’re measuring from—i.e., we ourselves are also moving at some given rate of speed ourselves.
A straightforward example of this would be to think about what the speed of a car driving 55mph looks like from different reference frames. If you’re traveling alongside them at 60mph, then from your perspective they’re traveling -5mph relative to you. But from the perspective of a stationary (~relatively speaking!) person at the side of the road, that car is driving 55mph.
There are some caveats for the speed of light, however—see here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame
Second note ... From the Internet.
Red Shift & Blue Shift A light source moving away from the listener (v is positive) would provide an fL that is less than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the red end of the light spectrum, so it is called a red shift. When the light source is moving toward the listener (v is negative), then fL is greater than fS. In the visible light spectrum, this causes a shift toward the high-frequency end of the light spectrum.
Adding to that, two objects parting at more than the speed of light would not be visible to each other.
Basically it has to do with the conception that everything in the universe is in motion, ergo there is no ‘absolute reference frame’. That is to say, anytime we make a measurement of something the value we get is with respect to the contextual frame of reference we’re measuring from—i.e., we’re also moving at some given rate of speed ourselves.
A straightforward example of this would be to think about what the speed of a car driving 55mph looks like from different reference frames. If you’re traveling alongside them at 60mph, then from your perspective they’re traveling -5mph relative to you. But from the perspective of a stationary (~relatively speaking!) person at the side of the road, that car is driving 55mph.
There are some caveats for the speed of light, however—see here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame
And the more spectacular, and useful parts of chemistry, thankyouverymuch.
Does the math on this hold up with the M-M experiments? I guess that's the question I've been trying to ask.
/johnny
No, I don’t believe that is correct.
LMAO!! OH now that is great!!
That’s tight up there with, why do they call it hemorrhoids and not asteroids?
And because of that, it sucks in enormous amounts of funding.
Sure, np. :)
As far whether the math holds up with M-M experiments my short answer is: yes, I think so. The M-M experiments are thought to be a decisive contributing factor that later lead to the development of Special Relativity and the proposed assumption that the speed of light is invariant; it’s been awhile since I’ve taken advanced physics classes though, so I don’t have the specifics or the math at the forefront of my memory.
This might fill in some of the details better for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Special_Relativity
Old news! Captain Kirk has been traveling at warp 8 and above since the 60s!
Thanks for the link.
/johnny
Figuring out what limits light to 186,000 MPS would go a long way to faster-than-light stuff.......
I seem to remember that there was much talk about how the Sound Barrier was an absolute that could not be broken and the aircraft that tried would go out of control and disintegrate. Then, Chuck Yeager flew to Mach 1.07 on 14 October 1947 and the myth was debunked.
Who says we cannot go faster than light? The Light Barrier is an absolute? It is just another obstacle to be broken and a challenge to conventional thinking. We’ve got to think outside the box; say “yes it can be broken” and then figure out how to do it.
AFAIK, SOL is determined by the relative permeability of empty space to the electric field and the magnetic field.
Maxwell type stuff.
It’s predictable from numbers we can measure, but we can’t measure those numbers to any greater/less accuracy than we can measure the SOL.
Sort of like people ask if we live in curved space or flat space.
There is really no difference because straight lines in curved space are the same thing as curved lines in flat space.
Very true. However, in math, things can be calculated that are not possible in physics. For example, 186,200 miles per second times 2 equals 372.4 miles per second ;0)
Dear math major:
Unfortunately, that math is not accurate at speeds on the close order of the velocity of light.
First, a spaceship with mass can NOT move “at the speed of light”. Its mass approaches infinity as it approaches the speed of light. Only massless “things” can go the speed of light.
When it is going as fast as it can, and turns on its lights, it observes the light flying away from it at the speed of light. A “stationary” observer in front of him ALSO would measure the light traveling toward him at c, “the speed of light”. An observer “behind” the ship would ALSO see the beam of light progressing away from him at c. All of this due to the “curvature of space-time”.
Weird, but borne up by many experiments in particle accelerators and particle colliders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.