Posted on 03/26/2006 8:51:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Many of the conceptual problems with relativity would disappear if scientists would just turn the concept inside out. What we call the speed of light is actually the speed of the expansion of the universe. Light just goes along for the ride. The universal law is that nothing can travel faster than the universe itself. This eliminates the problem of inflation at the beginning of time being faster than the current speed of light.
The speed of thought...
It can get you any distance in the universe larger than the dimensions of the space between neurons in your brain much faster than light.
Silly question...
But time dilation still applies. Consider the twins problem (one twin leaves on January 1st, travels close to the speed of light, and returns on December 31st) where the travelling twin carries the far end of the wormhole along for the ride. A year elapses for the one end of the wormhole, but only a week or so has elapsed for the "far" end (which has been brought conveniently back home). The well-travelled end doesn't just connect to the end that stayed on Earth; it also connects to the previous January 8th. That "little step" now takes you 51 weeks backwards in time, instead of across the galaxy.
I can move a locus faster than light (even a 17 year locus.)
And it ate the trough, and the utensils, too!
</Norse mythology>
Spicy foods when I eat too much of them.
Ted Kennedy heading for the nearest bar.
Hillary Clinton ducking a question about her finances.
According to observational evidence, the speed of propagation of gravitational force may well exceed that of light by ten to the tenth power — see http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possiblenewpropertiesofgravity.asp for more.
An excellent point, and one that I have some trouble visualizing myself!
This explanation is entirely incorrect. The Cherenkov radiation is analogous to a sonic boom, and is due to a collective excitation of the electrons in the dielectric medium.
"Because of the collective aspects of the process it is convenient to use the macroscopic concept of the dielectric constant, epsilon, rather than the detailed properties of individual atoms." - Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics
It is the "superluminal" particles themselves which are created by radioactive decay of the various isotopes being stored in the pool, and the resulting secondary reactions. I think it is this process that is being referred to in the garbled explanation.
The light from the headlight would move -- you guessed it -- at the speed of light, regardless of the speed of the train.
Cicadian rhythm :)
As established by Newton in his OPTICKS. Note this work is the origin of ROY G BIV :
"... note the confines of the colours, that is of the red MabF, of the orange acdb, of the yellow cefd, of the green eghf, of the blue gijh, of the indico iklj, and of the violet kGAl."
The letters indicate adjacent rectangles that comprise the spectrum. ( I changed the consecutive greek letters into consecutive lower case latin letters. )
You walk at 671 mph?
Foolish hyperbole.
True. That would equal 18.6 miles per second. That's some pretty quick walking.
As for the premise itself, I have no idea. I think Einstien was tripping on something. I don't understand any of his theories.
No. even if you walked up the aisle at 99.9999% the speed of light, to an external observer it would appear that your net velocity was only about 99.99999999995% the speed of light. This is because of the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime.
This is somewhat analogous to when you see a scene through a fisheye lens. Objects off to the side seem to be compressed together. If you move to the side, some of the objects you can see will expand as they get closer to the center of your field of view. As they get close to the center their expansion will slow down. Objects that are at wide angles don't seem to expand much.
In spacetime, it is the apparent set of velocities that is distorted for each observer. Each time one attempts to speed up to a new velocity, the speed of light seems just as far off.
For example let us suppose that in a certain direction you can see objects that appear to be moving away at velocites in the range of 60% to 70% times the speed of light (60% c to 70% c), a range of 10%. If you then speed up to half the speed of light (50% c) toward them, they will now appear to be moving away at velocities of 14.3% c to 30.8% c, a range of 16.5% c.
For velocities that originally seemed to be moving away from you between 80% and 90% the speed of light (also a 10% range), these objects will now seem to have relative velocities between 50%c and 72.7% c, a range of 22.7% c.
So in a sense, as one speeds up, more velocities have appeared by the expansion of initially narrow velocity ranges. All observers see the same range of relative velocities from -c to c, just as all viewers using fisheye lenses see a range of angles from -90 to 90 degrees.
Some of my relatives have been known to do warp 7 trying to flee from the possibility of having to do work.
Bell's Theorem hasn't been raised here. It should be. Either Einstein is wrong or Bell is.
I have puzzled over this for years, decades. I think Bell is wrong but I haven't been able to design a proof (Or I'd get the Nobel prize!)
Could Physicist or one of you other qualified physics types take a wack at this? I don't expect a definitive answer, I don't thing there is one.
But is there as big a contradiction here as I think there is?
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.