Do you really understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="cee1gee"]i dont know but i have my own theory, that the speed of mind is faster than light, the brain can go faster than light by one thought, "tries it" i just went 4 trillion billion zillion miles away and im sure the speed of light didnt get there yet........thoughts? by the way its a serious theory so anyone here want to try and debunk itcee1gee

I feel bad for anyone who tries, because even though it is serious it can't be taken seriously.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

I know that at lightspeed, everything slows down for you. I know that if you had a train traveling at lightspeed, then time would move much slower in the train and that when it finally stopped, the world outside would be incredibly different and older. Something like that, I love physics, but its hard to remember the exact math behind it when I've just had a few.

magicalclick

The assumption is Light Speed is always constant and Light Speed is NOT relative. The fun part is, Light Speed is so fast and we cannot travel anywhere close to that, we cannot be sure this assumption is accurate.

The assumption is Light Speed is always constant and Light Speed is NOT relative. The fun part is, Light Speed is so fast and we cannot travel anywhere close to that, we cannot be sure this assumption is accurate.

magicalclick

we don't need to be able to travel to the speed of light to know that it is constant and it does not rely on any massive assumptions to the best of my knowledge am i really replying to this indeed i am oh god why

[QUOTE="magicalclick"]

The assumption is Light Speed is always constant and Light Speed is NOT relative. The fun part is, Light Speed is so fast and we cannot travel anywhere close to that, we cannot be sure this assumption is accurate.

coolbeans90

we don't need to be able to travel to the speed of light to know that it is constant and it does not rely on any massive assumptions to the best of my knowledge am i really replying to this indeed i am oh god why

We cannot travel anywhere close to that because it is true. Aum.xaos

I guess if you understand the theory, you might be able to answer this question:

if an object travelling at 60% of the speed of light launched in front of it another object at 60% the speed of light relative to it. What would be the speed of the second object to a stationary observer?

einstein was all fake, he would be a conspirity theorist in these days

[QUOTE="xaos"]

We cannot travel anywhere close to that because it is true. Aum.Mystery_Writer

I guess if you understand the theory, you might be able to answer this question:

if an object travelling at 60% of the speed of light launched another object at 60% the speed of light relative to it. What would be the speed of the second object to a stationary observer?

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]

We cannot travel anywhere close to that because it is true. Aum.xaos

I guess if you understand the theory, you might be able to answer this question:

if an object travelling at 60% of the speed of light launched another object at 60% the speed of light relative to it. What would be the speed of the second object to a stationary observer?

how about if A was at 99.9% and B launched at 99.9% relative to A? at what speed B would be travelling to the stationary observer? and at what speed B would be travelling when observed by a person on board object A?Mystery_Writer

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

I guess if you understand the theory, you might be able to answer this question:

if an object travelling at 60% of the speed of light launched another object at 60% the speed of light relative to it. What would be the speed of the second object to a stationary observer?

Mystery_Writer

Just plug it into the damn formula.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="cee1gee"]i dont know but i have my own theory, that the speed of mind is faster than light, the brain can go faster than light by one thought, "tries it" i just went 4 trillion billion zillion miles away and im sure the speed of light didnt get there yet........thoughts? by the way its a serious theory so anyone here want to try and debunk itcee1gee

I feel bad for anyone who tries, because even though it is serious it can't be taken seriously.

The easiest way to explain it is your in a train that's speeding up and you look out the window. There is a cup sitting on a post and you notice the moment you pass the cup it seems to slow down, almost stop, then speed up the other way.

That in a nutshell is the theory of relativity.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]how about if A was at 99.9% and B launched at 99.9% relative to A? at what speed B would be travelling to the stationary observer? and at what speed B would be travelling when observed by a person on board object A?xaos

man, thanks a lot.. I guess I finally got it when it involves launching object B in the same direction as Object A

i.e. time would slow down so much on Object A that Object B would seem to be moving at 99.9% relative to an observer on Object A.

But how does this time slow down concept work when launching an object in the opposite direction?

i.e. having Object A traveling at 99% and launching B at 99% towards the opposite direction.

According to the formula, B should be travelling at 0% to a stationary observer and would seem to be travelling at 99% away from an observer on board Object A.

However, since time slowed down on Object A, shouldn't the stationary Object B seem to be travelling faster than 99% to an observer on board Object A?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]how about if A was at 99.9% and B launched at 99.9% relative to A? at what speed B would be travelling to the stationary observer? and at what speed B would be travelling when observed by a person on board object A?Mystery_Writer

man, thanks a lot.. I guess I finally got it when it involves launching object B in the same direction as Object A

i.e. time would slow down so much on Object A that Object B would seem to be moving at 99.9% relative to an observer on Object A.

But how does this time slow down concept work when launching an object in the opposite direction?

i.e. having Object A traveling at 99% and launching B at 99% towards the opposite direction.

According to the formula, B should be travelling at 0% to a stationary observer and would seem to be travelling at 99% away from an observer on board Object A.

However, since time slowed down on Object A, shouldn't the stationary Object B seem to be travelling faster than 99% to an observer on board Object A?

Yes, A and B would each see the other moving away from that at the cumulative speed indicated by the velocity addition formulaxaos

I take it by that you mean each other, right?

The velocity addition formula states if Object A traveling at 99% launches Object B in an opposite direction at 99%, Object B speed would then be 0.

So, at what speed Object B should appear to be moving away from an observer on board Object A? (taking into account the time slow down effect observed on board Object A)

Edit: nevermind. I figured it out,... too long to post the explanation to it (also, just converted my keyboard from qwerty to dvorak layout and its taking me time to adjust) but thanks man, if it weren't for your responses, along with the other guy's link to that really helpful and simplified cartoon explanation, I wouldn't have understood this.

Well, good, since that's not what any reputable instructor of physics would try to teachxaos

of course. Knowing these truth cannot really solve practicle problems. It is better to have imaginary time for convinience.

Never even read the theory since I avoid anything science if I can. >.>

Dude.....I have trouble understanding basic Algebra. Well, Algebra II actually. I get the gist of Einstein's theory when explained in layman's terms (my father's an optical physicist, God knows he's tried), but when it comes down to specific mathematical formulas and their application, I can't even begin to understand it.

Dude.....I have trouble understanding basic Algebra. Well, Algebra II actually. I get the gist of Einstein's theory when explained in layman's terms (my father's an optical physicist, God knows he's tried), but when it comes down to specific mathematical formulas and their application, I can't even begin to understand it.

MirkoS77

Can't break the light barrier, time moves slower when travelling at faster speeds. That's pretty much all I understand, it also means that travelling to the future would be possible.

The more I try to understand it, the more I relize that I don't understand anything.

I always though I was kind of bright until I stumbled onto this thread.

If Gamespot is smarter than I am, then I must be really stupid.

Within the basics of any math, when an error is made in the beginning of the statement, the entire statement becomes void. Before anyone can prove or disprove the theory, 1st they must correct the basic Algebra that everyone know to be incorrect. Also see www.Timecorrections.comDaleEHayes

full frontalxaos

internet crazyxaos

Thinking back on my public school education, it's fairly shocking that Relativity was never explained. I think I recall Einstein being briefly covered as a historical figure.

I feel like this is directly related to how the U.S. has a tiny class of people who are educated in science, and masses of uninformed, incurious people calling to end whatever hocus pocus they're engaging in.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="xaos"] Oh God, blood is shooting forth from my eyesmagicalclick

@Magicalclick: Why even discuss something that you have no real knowledge of, instead of learning about it and THEN discussing it?

And you just assume I didn't take Physics 1D in college?

I don't. Never have, and probably never will. I could never get anything more complicated than Newtonian physics, mainly because I don't care to learn it, but then again, I don't need to; I'm studying music, so I'll never have to worry about Math or Physics ever again.

Not really. :P Though we have not started studying it in our school yet. It feels a bit strange, though.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

I don't. Never have, and probably never will. I could never get anything more complicated than Newtonian physics, mainly because I don't care to learn it, but then again, I don't need to; I'm studying music, so I'll never have to worry about Math or Physics ever again.

magicalclick

Well, it is possible to mathematically figure out what is the best rhythm with given instrument. Although that takes the fun out of creativity.

The only math knowledge required for playing music is basic arithmetic, which everyone has because it's actually useful to common people in the real world.