Original Post
🔒 Locked
Einstein is wrong
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by dcgeek
Einstein said that nothing can go faster than c but if I''m in a
rocket going at 1/2 c and I shine a laser out of the nose of my
rocket then the laser beam is going 1 1/2 c (in respect of the observer) so Einstein is wrong.
Go read some information about relativity. The most basic of relativistic formulas deal with how speeds relate at rates approaching c.
Free Physics Textbooks
Educate yourself before you prove your ignorance again.
Who watches the watchers? I do.
quote:
Original post by dcgeek
Okay, lets say we have the end of the laser beam, that''s far away from the rocket. If I''m wrong here, then the observer should only be able to see the end of the beam closer to the rocket, but from the pilot in the rocket, the end would be c away from him.
You have proven that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics.
Free Physics Textbooks
** Educate yourself before you prove your ignorance again **
quote:Did you miss the word "PHYSICS", the phrase "The Light and Matter series of online introductory physics textbooks" under it, and and the word "download" under the phrase on the top left of the page?
Original post by dcgeek
I hate when people just refer to the mainpage of something. Give me a DEEPLINK to where it is.
[edited by - Extrarius on May 26, 2004 4:01:46 AM]
Close this thread for god''s sake
quote:I concur. It''s just a troll.
Original post by voodoo_john
Close this thread for god''s sake
Actually, it is worth to think about. I personally also hold the believe that Einstein could be wrong.
I''m basing this on the fact that, information can only travel at a certain speed. That speed being the speed of light; light is the fastest thing, and information can only go as fast as the fastest medium.
Now, a popular thingy is two spaceships departing from a planet. One goes with speed C in one direction. The other goes with speed C in the other direction. From the planet, both are moving away with speed C. But from ship 1, the relative speed between the ships is only C. Thus, everything is relative, yadda yadda.
All very nice. But consider this. Light can only travel at speed C... and so can information. So. When ship 1 ''looks'' at ship 2, it can, at best, recieve its information from light. Light that arrives at speed C. And even when the other ship moves away faster than C, you wouldn''t see it. You would just, really slowly, start to recieve information from right before, until the moment where the speed difference is C... and then, because we are reaching a limit, only recieve information from when its *just about* to move away from you with speed C.
You can never measure it going any faster, because the fastest the information can reach you, is with C.
But why can''t the ship in actuality not go faster? It can certainly go faster. You would just never spot it. Its like with a black hole... An object falling into a black hole, should remain visible for a long time. Because right before it passes the horizon, the light *can* still escape the black hole... but the closer the ship gets, the longer it takes. Could take a century for the light to escape. So after a century, you still see the ship there. But the ship already fell in...
Ponder this.
I''m basing this on the fact that, information can only travel at a certain speed. That speed being the speed of light; light is the fastest thing, and information can only go as fast as the fastest medium.
Now, a popular thingy is two spaceships departing from a planet. One goes with speed C in one direction. The other goes with speed C in the other direction. From the planet, both are moving away with speed C. But from ship 1, the relative speed between the ships is only C. Thus, everything is relative, yadda yadda.
All very nice. But consider this. Light can only travel at speed C... and so can information. So. When ship 1 ''looks'' at ship 2, it can, at best, recieve its information from light. Light that arrives at speed C. And even when the other ship moves away faster than C, you wouldn''t see it. You would just, really slowly, start to recieve information from right before, until the moment where the speed difference is C... and then, because we are reaching a limit, only recieve information from when its *just about* to move away from you with speed C.
You can never measure it going any faster, because the fastest the information can reach you, is with C.
But why can''t the ship in actuality not go faster? It can certainly go faster. You would just never spot it. Its like with a black hole... An object falling into a black hole, should remain visible for a long time. Because right before it passes the horizon, the light *can* still escape the black hole... but the closer the ship gets, the longer it takes. Could take a century for the light to escape. So after a century, you still see the ship there. But the ship already fell in...
Ponder this.
quote:
Original post by TiffanyCat
Now, a popular thingy is two spaceships departing from a planet. One goes with speed C in one direction. The other goes with speed C in the other direction. From the planet, both are moving away with speed C. But from ship 1, the relative speed between the ships is only C. Thus, everything is relative, yadda yadda.
Newton''s laws of motion are only approximations, and as you start dealing with objects closer to the speed of light, those approximations become less accurate.
Simply adding or subtracting velocities like this only works at lower speeds. At higher speeds, you need to use the relativistic formula.
Quantum entanglement appears to break the theory of relativity somewhat, since entangled particles seem to instantaneously know when their counterpart enters a defined state, regardless of distance. (This is what Superpig is referring to)
I think its somthing called special relativity.
If you have a car traveling at the side of a train where the train is traveling at a speed of 100kph and the car at 99kph, you would expect the train to speed off at 1kph, which it does.
In the case of a car against light, no matter how fast the car went it the train would always speed off at 100kph, and you could accellerate up to 99.99999 but never reach the train...
Ie: this is what einstien called special relativity... I think
If you have a car traveling at the side of a train where the train is traveling at a speed of 100kph and the car at 99kph, you would expect the train to speed off at 1kph, which it does.
In the case of a car against light, no matter how fast the car went it the train would always speed off at 100kph, and you could accellerate up to 99.99999 but never reach the train...
Ie: this is what einstien called special relativity... I think
This thread is pointless.
Questioning the basis of relativity is either stupidity or ignorance.
Relativity is an inevitable consequence of two things:
These rules require relativity of some form. They have been empirically tested time and time again. They have not yet failed.
Einstein''s relativity is further supported by the fact that half of modern technology wouldn''t work if Einstein''s variant of relativity wasn''t a very accurate description of the behaviour of the universe; the other half being dependant upon quantum mechanics.
Questioning the basis of relativity is either stupidity or ignorance.
Relativity is an inevitable consequence of two things:
- All frames of reference are equivalent, and
- The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all frames of reference.
These rules require relativity of some form. They have been empirically tested time and time again. They have not yet failed.
Einstein''s relativity is further supported by the fact that half of modern technology wouldn''t work if Einstein''s variant of relativity wasn''t a very accurate description of the behaviour of the universe; the other half being dependant upon quantum mechanics.
quote:
Original post by Senses777
Where is the proof that quantum entangled particles'' states are not determined until they are measured? That''s what I want to know.
this explains the whole concept of nonlocality, and has a brief discussion on how it has been proven - although to fully understand it I think you have to jump into lots of horrible maths.
quote:
Original post by Senses777
Where is the proof that quantum entangled particles'' states are not determined until they are measured? That''s what I want to know.
This is such an exciting topic!
Anyway him wondering if light wouldnt actually travel at the speed of light sounds right to me, I did that too when I was my first few physics lessons, but the teacher managed to explain it to me pretty fast.
My guess is that he just didn''t think of it in school or doesn''t have physics so instead he posted a topic here stating that einstein was wrong(Which is wrong, since you should always post things like these in a question form
Topic Locked
This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.
Sign in to reply to this topic.
Advertisement