Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineOldnameforgotten
Traveler
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/19/19
Posts: 956
Loc: Pilbara Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
General Relativity (lol)
    #26262321 - 10/19/19 03:17 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I've read tons of einstein theory books and quantum physics for post einsteinian theory and yatta yatta. I'm trying to understand things better with just self-taught shit.

My issue is understanding the concept of lights relative speed always being 300k meters per second.

Is it correct in saying... if I was traveling at 150k meters per second and a light coming out of the front of my spaceship would be traveling at 300k meters per second relative to my location even though I am traveling at 150k? And the reason onlookers would see light traveling at 150k faster than me is because of time distortion involved with speed travel?

In effect making time pass by vastly slower for me than onlookers.

Is that the point? I dont understand WHY that is if it is the case?

So if they could see me would they witness a slow aging object? Or if I could see them would I witness decay?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDJ_avocado
SardinoBambino
Male User Gallery


Registered: 11/19/09
Posts: 743
Loc: Hawai'i, USA Flag
Last seen: 10 months, 24 days
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Oldnameforgotten]
    #26262332 - 10/19/19 03:39 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I don't know about how time may be perceived..I'm not fully convinced that it would be perceived differently

Relative to your position, the speed of light would be 300kmeters/second. Observers (if they could) would observe light moving at 450kmeters/sec.

I have a tough question related to the speed of light..

When light enters a new medium, from air to glass (or water), it slows down. Light is slower travelling through glass. When it exits glass it speeds up. How? Where is that energy coming from? The speed of light is more accurately understood rephrased as the rate of induction. This is more appropriate given that light, electromagnetic radiation, is conducted THROUGH space. Not travelling as a particle might.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOldnameforgotten
Traveler
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/19/19
Posts: 956
Loc: Pilbara Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: DJ_avocado]
    #26262337 - 10/19/19 03:45 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DJ_avocado said:
I don't know about how time may be perceived..I'm not fully convinced that it would be perceived differently

Relative to your position, the speed of light would be 300kmeters/second. Observers (if they could) would observe light moving at 450kmeters/sec.

I have a tough question related to the speed of light..

When light enters a new medium, from air to glass (or water), it slows down. Light is slower travelling through glass. When it exits glass it speeds up. How? Where is that energy coming from? The speed of light is more accurately understood rephrased as the rate of induction. This is more appropriate given that light, electromagnetic radiation, is conducted THROUGH space. Not travelling as a particle might.




So the light would travel at 450k? That doesnt seem right.

And I thought its speed was due to oscillating forces?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Psychophysiologist
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 8,011
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Oldnameforgotten]
    #26264562 - 10/20/19 02:25 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I made this post in another thread on relativity:

Person A travels away at light speed from planet X, on which remains person B. He returns after five years to discover that person B has aged 20 years.  But let’s not focus on person A. Let’s shift our attention to B. Is it possible that he, like A, can be said to have “time traveled”? Why yes it is! With respect to the relativity of time, the temporal comparison between A and B is likewise relative... which means that to the same degree A has “time traveled” to the past with respect to B, B has “time traveled” to the FUTURE with respect to A.

If time is our plumbline, and time is relative, then this must be the case; it can't be any other way.

Let’s speak non-relatively for a second. From the point of view of A and B independent of each other, time has passed equally. That is, from their own independent frame of reference nothing has changed…time has passed the same as it always has. They're comfortably ensconced in their “perpetual present”. It's only when the relative comparison is made are there any temporal differences noted. So, this being the case…that is, the fact that time is only RELATIVELY different and not FUNDAMENTALLY different means that if person A has traveled to the future, and the change in time is INEXORABLY attached to the position of B, then person B must have traveled to the past in equal measure. The temporal relationship is proportionally inverse and fundamentally related. As one travels to the future the other travels equally to the past. Person A has gained time relative to person B, and B has lost time relative to A. Thus, despite the fact that A is the one who traveled at the speed of light, BOTH A and B have “time traveled”.

So the only way to “prove” time travel is to make a relative comparison, but as soon as we do that we must accept that both A and B have traveled in equal but inverse degrees, which means that time, on the whole, itself, hasn’t changed at all. Time is absolute. It, of itself, just IS. IT is constant; the change is purely the observer’s perception. Like an hour glass, the sand can shift from one side to the other, but the amount of sand remains constant. Any “change” is purely an abstraction. There is no OBJECTIVE change in how much sand is in the hour glass at any given moment. The sand itself just IS.

Time travel theory doesn’t prove the existence of time, time’s existence being implicit in the assertion that time can be traveled. Time is simply an abstract, mathematical construct spawned from man’s mind, as a function of the mind’s unique and extraordinary powers of conceptualization (I.E. a thread I tried to make in philosophy).


--------------------



"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOldnameforgotten
Traveler
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/19/19
Posts: 956
Loc: Pilbara Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #26264580 - 10/20/19 02:57 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

So it really is that simple then. And it is that way because it is that way. Cuz einstein said so lol.


I've been pondering a lot about "what is time" where does the force come from that creates time and things of the nature specifically about time. I've never been able to wrap my mind around what even the question is.... let alone the answer.

What are your thoughts there?




Also was looking into quantum physics and found it fascinating that the whole theory is in direct defiance of einstein. The concept of matter having equal antimatter and that there are infinite pairs which means there is infinite mass in the universe which means it should collapse in on itself but it doesnt. Which would disprove E=MCsquared. And then the concept of an infinite curve being used as a forumla to prove the original forumla that wasn't working.

I am just recently dipping my toe into quantum physics. And from what I see theres a lot that seems sketchy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Oldnameforgotten]
    #26265489 - 10/20/19 01:48 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Quantum physics doesn't defy relativity.  Relativity is a geometrical theory of the motions of bodies and quantum mechanics is basically a more general version of statistical mechanics.  I think that LC had a hint of time as it can sort of be related to thermodynamics in the other general relativity thread.  Basically, how likely is it that every single particle in the universe will spontaneously rearrange itself to some past state, given an unimaginably vast number of alternatives which are (energetically) more favorable?  And as a fun bit, how would you even sense that since your memories are defined by the way that things like cytoskeletal proteins are arranged in your brain?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26269854 - 10/22/19 01:57 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

This site has some decent textbooks, but you won't learn a damned thing if you don't actually follow along with the work in the text.  The entire point of those things is to help you develop the theory, but you actually need to put the work in to develop it.  If you're just going to read it like a popular nonfiction book about history and hope that you get turned onto some cool stuff then you'll just walk away figuring that it's all beyond your comprehension.  Math isn't a spectator sport.  If you aren't actually doing math then you'll never learn it any more than staring at sheet music without ever touching an instrument will make you a better musician.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOldnameforgotten
Traveler
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/19/19
Posts: 956
Loc: Pilbara Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26270109 - 10/22/19 04:09 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
This site has some decent textbooks, but you won't learn a damned thing if you don't actually follow along with the work in the text.  The entire point of those things is to help you develop the theory, but you actually need to put the work in to develop it.  If you're just going to read it like a popular nonfiction book about history and hope that you get turned onto some cool stuff then you'll just walk away figuring that it's all beyond your comprehension.  Math isn't a spectator sport.  If you aren't actually doing math then you'll never learn it any more than staring at sheet music without ever touching an instrument will make you a better musician.




What killer advice. Thank you for that. I feel exactly the way you describe. I can recite it.... but I dont grasp it. Lol.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBonny Matango
Stranger
Male


Registered: 10/22/19
Posts: 58
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Oldnameforgotten]
    #26270864 - 10/23/19 12:02 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I won't claim to grasp it entirely either, and I know the math and have studied general relativity at University.  I found the discussions of special relativity to be nonsense the entire time.  It starts to make sense a little sense when you start looking at the atomic and subatomic realm.  The math of the particles, their masses and energies, are calculated and predicted by relativity. 

Noone knows what light comming out of a spaceship going near the speed of light looks like.  But the idea of relativity is that there are temporal and spacial distortions that happen when an object goes close to light speed in order to maintain certain constants and relationships.  It happens because we no longer treat time like a parameter, we treat it as another spacial dimension.  By assuming time is a spacial dimension, you require that Pythagoras theorem holds for the temporal and spacial dimensions.  That some radius(squared) = spacelength(squared) + timelength(squared).  And all the weird stuff is because of that.

Edited by Bonny Matango (10/23/19 12:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Bonny Matango]
    #26271830 - 10/23/19 01:36 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

The square of proper length is given by σ² = x² + y² + z² - t² = x'² + y'² + z'² - t'² (for c = 1) on account of the fact that it uses a more general, hyperbolic geometry.  I think that you're thinking of the distance function for a vector in a Euclidean spacetime, which I'm pretty sure would give a result that the speed of light is not constant (which goes against observation).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBonny Matango
Stranger
Male


Registered: 10/22/19
Posts: 58
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26272194 - 10/23/19 04:52 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

chibiabos said:
The square of proper length is given by σ² = x² + y² + z² - t² = x'² + y'² + z'² - t'² (for c = 1) on account of the fact that it uses a more general, hyperbolic geometry.  I think that you're thinking of the distance function for a vector in a Euclidean spacetime, which I'm pretty sure would give a result that the speed of light is not constant (which goes against observation).




You are correct.  I could go into that depth, but it is not useful for illustration.  I don't expect many would have a background in differential geometry, and I myself am rusty. The gist is the same though.  I wonder what happens if we let the time dimension be imaginary and treat the metric as euclidean.

Edited by Bonny Matango (10/23/19 04:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Bonny Matango]
    #26272459 - 10/23/19 06:36 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I'm pretty sure that you end up with the requirement that Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBonny Matango
Stranger
Male


Registered: 10/22/19
Posts: 58
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26272536 - 10/23/19 07:06 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Why?  It's a genuine question. I just note that you would recover the minkowski metric and the form of the proper length as you present it if ct were imaginary.  Why would it require I.R be in the set reals, unless that is not that symbol, or a subset of reals.  We are almost always interested in the square of a value in relativity.  But also it isn't imaginary, it's the temporal part of the 4 vector.  It was always something i wondered if it could be treated as an imaginary part. I struggled to keep up with the work, My formal math ended at PDEs, the differental geometry came from context of physics work.

Edited by Bonny Matango (10/23/19 07:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Bonny Matango]
    #26272838 - 10/23/19 09:51 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Because (thinking about a little more carefully) it requires the entire complex plane to be properly contained in the real numbers.

Formula: 0

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBonny Matango
Stranger
Male


Registered: 10/22/19
Posts: 58
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26272876 - 10/23/19 10:26 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I wish I had gone that far, to be able to think about it like that.  Never too late, just going to have to be later.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Bonny Matango]
    #26272928 - 10/23/19 11:00 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

You shouldn't take my word for it.  The point of writing all of that is to let somebody check my math.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBonny Matango
Stranger
Male


Registered: 10/22/19
Posts: 58
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26272976 - 10/23/19 11:35 PM (4 years, 6 months ago)

I do see you treat Beta as a complex number, where I am thinking that ct be treated as a purely imaginary part of a complex vector.  Isn't delta still real in that case and the form of the proper length preserved if we assume the euclidean metric, extended to 4 dimensions of course.

On second thought it would not.  The dot product would require the complex conjugate.  That was my hasty inner justification for writing the length as I did, that it would work out the same but it will not.  Very rusty.

Edited by Bonny Matango (10/24/19 12:22 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Bonny Matango]
    #26273095 - 10/24/19 01:28 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Bonny Matango said:
I do see you treat Beta as a complex number, where I am thinking that ct be treated as a purely imaginary part of a complex vector.  Isn't delta still real in that case and the form of the proper length preserved if we assume the euclidean metric, extended to 4 dimensions of course.



If you do that then either c or t has to the product of some real number with i.  We know that c is a real number, so if ct = bi Ls for some real number b then t = (b/c)⋅i s.  And then you run into that contradiction I wrote earlier.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOldnameforgotten
Traveler
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/19/19
Posts: 956
Loc: Pilbara Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: chibiabos]
    #26273132 - 10/24/19 02:10 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

Whats the forumla for how much forward time travel if traveling at half the speed of light?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOldnameforgotten
Traveler
Male User Gallery
Registered: 10/19/19
Posts: 956
Loc: Pilbara Australia Flag
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: General Relativity (lol) [Re: Oldnameforgotten]
    #26273151 - 10/24/19 02:25 AM (4 years, 6 months ago)

And what happens to the equation if you reach the speed of light?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The effect of complex star gravities upon the development of human brains . Mirth 1,201 7 05/04/05 11:51 AM
by ChuangTzu
* Satellite Launch to Test Theory of Relativity
( 1 2 3 all )
Madtowntripper 4,390 42 12/16/05 06:14 PM
by zappaisgod
* Koran proves relativity DieCommie 1,265 18 06/20/05 08:59 PM
by DieCommie
* another simple(?) PC question lol ChromeCrow 1,053 7 11/12/03 11:33 PM
by mntlfngrs
* My theory on the speed of light.
( 1 2 all )
poke smot! 3,527 21 06/20/06 01:53 PM
by pod3
* Global Warming???
( 1 2 all )
crazyman 3,237 24 02/01/05 09:35 PM
by crazyman
* linux question, ntfs windows xp doesn't want to be booted in the grub
( 1 2 all )
imachavel 4,197 30 08/27/11 11:59 AM
by imachavel
* Memantine -dissociative entheogenic pharm [Alzheimer's] Asante 6,206 11 08/23/04 04:55 AM
by Asante

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
1,058 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.