the god Einstein has a flaw, or does he? =|

[Khalee]

Time is relative

Einstein's work famously showed that time is relative. In 1907 his General Theory of Relativity showed that clocks run more quickly at higher altitudes because they experience a weaker gravitational force than clocks on the surface of the Earth.
The phenomenon - called gravitational time dilation - has been demonstrated by putting atomic clocks on jumbo jets and flying them at high altitudes.

Full article here


And if it helps at all, there's this one

Einstein's edifice is constructed on an experimental fact: that the velocity of light is independent of your own motion. Whether you are moving towards the source, or away from it, or are stationary, doesn't matter: speed of light is universal. This is counterintuitive. A fast racing car overtakes a slower one more gradually than it does the static spectators at trackside; however, a light beam passes everyone the same – spectators or Lewis Hamilton would measure the same speed. Counterintutitive certainly, but true, and it led to Einstein's world-view. And one of the basic consequences of Einstein's theory is that the speed of light – in a vacuum – is nature's speed limit. Nothing can travel through a vacuum faster than light.

Full article here, about neutrinos

...physicists are finding that light is both waves and particles and particles have mass, so they shouldn't be able to travel at the speed of light but they are light (particles) so they do. (get your head around that one!)

Ever looked into how long scientists scratched their heads over why a bee can fly?
~

[King Alboin]

Not to be snerky or nuffin, however, I think I covered ya'll two's subjects in the beginning posts. Thankyou for showing your work, btw. Anyhoozit, the questions I bring up, show Einstein's separate conjectors to be flawed.

Take the "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" conjector.

Even Einstein with his TOR [theory of relativity] blows this one out of the water. Using his formula we get Energy by accelerating mass faster than the speed of light, not twice as fast but fast squared. therefore propter quo sic mass has gone beyond what nothing is said to not be able to do. The Universe's speed limit is broken, give mass a speeding ticket and call it's legal service, for the Universe cop's radar detector, detected mass soaring along at 34,700,983,524 billion miles per second or for those down under, 89,875,517,873.68176 billion kilometers per second.

If one was to believe nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and yet by accepting that Energy is mass going squared the speed of light, then the belief that nothing can go faster than the speed of light is a flawed belief system, simply because mass has been shown to go faster than the speed of light. We are not talking about light photons, here. We are talking about a set standard of measurement., albeit a light photon's speed in a vacuum, is used to set that speed standard for setting the speed limit.

Take said time measurements, now. Time dilation, sure, k ... impressive article, cept the professor spelt conterintuitive wrong, mayhaps he was writing his article at a diner and the waitress bent over to pour him a cup of coffee, ... idk.

In my first post, I posit a query about a tennis/bob ball, of which a lego astronaut was the traveller. In my way of thinking, it dont matter if the little lego dude's onboard clock slows down, time itself does not slow down. Time on a linear timeline remains the same. The lego astronaut may have an illusionary perception that time slowed down for him, but although he was travelling within the tennis/bob ball, outside time did not change, not one iota. The galaxies did not speed up, and the Universe went about it's daily affair of expanding into nothingness. I argue that the acceleration may have an affect on machines, such as an atomic clock, but not on time itself. The measureing device I agree can have it's measuring apparatus circuit de-calibrate, but time, the linear foward movement of existance, remains constant. The "second", in miles per second [kilometers per second] used to denote a 1/60th of a minute is still a second, 1/60th of a minute.

[Khalee]

Just to point out that you are incorrectly quoting the theory. Einstein theorised that nothing could travel through a vaccuum faster than the speed of light.

As an attempt to explain E=mc2 however.... does it help to review the formula as:
c = sqrt(E/m)

You're mixing up a formula, with a practice.

The formula indicates that the faster something moves, the heavier it gets, thus requiring more power (just ask the airlines, anyone remember the concord?)

Try this except

E=mc2 was never about moving faster than light, it was about what stresses are involved in movement.... things like energy & mass being the same thing, and diminishing returns etc.

[cushseth]

yes, the tiny lego astronaut would be travelling at the speed of light, within the tennis/bob ball, and like the fly could do stuff like, Idk, whatever tiny lego astronauts do do in situations like this. But like the fly, it would have it's own environment, and as such could fly to the back of the vessel, and then fly to the front of the vessel, but I ask you this ... if the fly was at the back of the vessel, and flew to the front of the vessel in the direction the vessel was travelling, then in essence would not the fly be travelling faster than the speed of light, if but only like about a micrometer faster? but yet still faster?[/B]

This has always been a theory of mine, but then IF Einstein's law is correct we can then expand on this and say that fly/spaceman is NOT going his speed inside of the vessel+ the speed of light.

The vessels speed would the speed of light, the spaceman/fly's speed would be zero, since the vessel is air tight there is no resistance (not that there is any in space) for the spaceman/fly. It doesn't make sense, but I'll try to insert it into an even crazier theory my drug infested mind has concocted.

Now, we have a vessel moving at the speed of light. And we have a passenger going speed 0 inside of a vessel moving at the speed of light. Moving away from the two theories previously posted.

Now let us say we have a vessel with a limited area, but an area we as people can not imagine (all of space, perhaps?).

This vessel is moving at the speed of light, but the passengers inside of the vessel perceive it as them moving at speed 0, as they are not aware that the vessel is actually a vessel moving at the speed of light.

The passengers themselves would then only be able to get up to the speed of light themselves, following Einsteins law, but if their moving in the same distance as the vessel that contains them, does that not mean they are going the sol+sol?

Speed is generally measured in relation to the object around you, it is a hard concept to actually grasp if you think to hard about it, and often times it will end up not making any sense.

So I suppose, technically speaking, you could have 15 vessels each moving at the speed of light inside the last vessel, and in the fifteenth vessel we could have a space man walking forward, 1 foot per second, and we would have a space man going FAR FAR faster than the speed of light, but compared to his surroundings (which is how we measure speed) he is going 1 foot per second.


Note: I only read the first page and I'm not an educated man. The limit of my knowledge on this subject is what Morgan Freeman tells me on Through the Wormhole, and The History Channel.

[Rodri]

Take the "nothing can go faster than the speed of light" conjector.

Even Einstein with his TOR [theory of relativity] blows this one out of the water. Using his formula we get Energy by accelerating mass faster than the speed of light, not twice as fast but fast squared. therefore propter quo sic mass has gone beyond what nothing is said to not be able to do. The Universe's speed limit is broken, give mass a speeding ticket and call it's legal service, for the Universe cop's radar detector, detected mass soaring along at 34,700,983,524 billion miles per second or for those down under, 89,875,517,873.68176 billion kilometers per second.

If one was to believe nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and yet by accepting that Energy is mass going squared the speed of light, then the belief that nothing can go faster than the speed of light is a flawed belief system, simply because mass has been shown to go faster than the speed of light. We are not talking about light photons, here. We are talking about a set standard of measurement., albeit a light photon's speed in a vacuum, is used to set that speed standard for setting the speed limit.

Take said time measurements, now. Time dilation, sure, k ... impressive article, cept the professor spelt conterintuitive wrong, mayhaps he was writing his article at a diner and the waitress bent over to pour him a cup of coffee, ... idk.

In my first post, I posit a query about a tennis/bob ball, of which a lego astronaut was the traveller. In my way of thinking, it dont matter if the little lego dude's onboard clock slows down, time itself does not slow down. Time on a linear timeline remains the same. The lego astronaut may have an illusionary perception that time slowed down for him, but although he was travelling within the tennis/bob ball, outside time did not change, not one iota. The galaxies did not speed up, and the Universe went about it's daily affair of expanding into nothingness. I argue that the acceleration may have an affect on machines, such as an atomic clock, but not on time itself. The measureing device I agree can have it's measuring apparatus circuit de-calibrate, but time, the linear foward movement of existance, remains constant. The "second", in miles per second [kilometers per second] used to denote a 1/60th of a minute is still a second, 1/60th of a minute.

E = MC2 is a calculation of energy potential, not speed, so C2 is not an actual speed but just a numerical value for the purpose of calculation of potential energy. I don't know what speed raw energy can move at but it's not as fast as light through a vacuum because nothing can move faster than light through a vacuum. Your leggo astronaut is inside the ball and that defines his relativity within that area. In much the same way as a fly can buzz around the back of a truck moving at high speed, while it remains in the stable environment surrounding the truck it can 'keep up' and 'go faster' than the truck but if it flies too far out of the stable area it is quickly left behind because it wasn't flying any where near as fast as the truck was travelling in the first place. So leggo-man can move around inside the ball because he is in a relatively stable environment.

In all honesty, I have no idea what really happens to time at those high speeds but I don't think time is a straight line or linear forward movement. Time is a dimension and as such it can't really be described in spacial terms such as length, even if we do that all the time. Time isn't measured by length, it is measured by duration and when we are measuring time, really we are just measuring it by our standards, relative to our environment (24 hours in a day, etc.). Is time a constant? That is the question.

[cushseth]

Ever looked into how long scientists scratched their heads over why a bee can fly?
~

http://www.livescience.com/528-scien...-bees-fly.html

Mystery solved.

[MechHead]

so i was thinking about this yesterday and i came upon an interesting theory, if energy is MC^2 with C being the speed of light wouldnt we be much faster at the speed of energy

[Nishinta]

so i was thinking about this yesterday and i came upon an interesting theory, if energy is MC^2 with C being the speed of light wouldnt we be much faster at the speed of energy

while i see what youre trying to get at no, it's in the different units, energy is defined by joules or kg.m^2/S^2 which while is related to speed isnt actually defining the speed of the energy if that makes sense. its the whole basis of the formula, that relationship.

e=mc^2

m=mass=grams(g) or kg

c=speed of light=M/S

MC^2=

kg*M/S*M/S= kg*(M/S)^2=joules(j)

so no energy is not faster than light.

[King Alboin]

I posted in my first post ...

If I am wrong, set me straight, show your work, serious or not so serious responses will be appreciated. Trolls will have a stern note safety pinned to their collar, so their mother will be sure to see it when they get home. =P

So I must accept my colleagues gentle rebuffs, and admit I was wrong, for the Lady Khalee and Sir Rodri have set me straight, with their posts...

Just to point out that you are incorrectly quoting the theory. Einstein theorised that nothing could travel through a vaccuum faster than the speed of light.

As an attempt to explain E=mc2 however.... does it help to review the formula as:
c = sqrt(E/m)

You're mixing up a formula, with a practice.

E = MC2 is a calculation of energy potential, not speed, so C2 is not an actual speed but just a numerical value for the purpose of calculation of potential energy.

the formula is for mass at rest. I was wrong, and stand corrected. great job guys, thankyou. =),

I also posted this ...

Let's now say that there was a tiny lego astronaut inside the tennis/bob ball. It is my contention that the tiny little lego astronaut would also only age six years, have a concusion, slightly affixiated, but healthy none the less, if not disoriented.

Sir Rodri inobtrusively corrected my atrocious rendition of "leggo" . I knew better, and was to lazy to google.

Your leggo astronaut is inside the ball and that defines his relativity within that area. In much the same way as a fly can buzz around the back of a truck moving at high speed, while it remains in the stable environment surrounding the truck it can 'keep up' and 'go faster' than the truck but if it flies too far out of the stable area it is quickly left behind because it wasn't flying any where near as fast as the truck was travelling in the first place. So leggo-man can move around inside the ball because he is in a relatively stable environment.

Again, I was set straight. which is a good thing, and I appreciate it.

Notwithstanding, because the Lady Khalee showed her work, I was able to go on a little google hunt, jaunting over hill and website discovering, what I was supposedly thinking could happen, happen.

First I must ask: Does this relativistic space craft make my butt look too dense? o.0

and secondly:

The nutrino exception to the speed limit rule.

Which if correct could lend to answer your, Rodri's, question about time being a constant.

The Italians checked their readings, five ways from sunday, and arrived at the same answer. Nutrinos arrived faster than the posted speed limit.

and if that is correct, and still after many a various experiment holds it to be correct, then those mathmaticians at the University of Adelaide, Australia; James Hill and Barry Cox, will have worked out the math for what could potentially be faster than light characteristics.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_1951272.html

[Rodri]

http://myscienceacademy.org/2012/10/...of-relativity/

Just to add to the confusion, I have posted this link to the easy, animated explanation of Einstein's theory of relativity and King A your butt only looks denser to stationary observers but their butts look denser to you, so it all evens out in the end.