Theory of Relativity?

[Deleted54170User]

 

 

From the perspective of each observer, time is still passing normally; it wouldn't make someone live longer in the sense of their own perception. So, in that sense, it wouldn't extend human longevity. However, if I wanted to jump to the future, I could leave Earth, travel for a while at very fast speed, and then return. From the perspective of people on Earth, I would have aged slower, because I appear younger than I should be. From my perspective, I would have aged normally.

So, in the sense that someone who was alive in the year 2200 could still be alive in the year 3200, it could appear as if he lived longer, but from his perspective, his lifespan is still 80 years or so. I hope that makes sense.

 

I don't know if the Earth's rotation is slowing down, but it would follow that if it was, we would need to compensate for that. Such changes if they are occurring would be very small.

 

I am not familiar with that quote from Einstein.

 

 

Nope, still don't get it. I understand the relativity sort of, but I'm just not seeing the overall formula.

 

 

Do you have the formula in some parts?

 

Would you mind posting the formula you have on your chalk boards, so far?

 

I'd like to see if any supposition may be causing the break down of your comprehending what you have poised to consider and see if anyone can help you find a conclusion with your mathematical formula so far.

 

While I wait for you to post the entire formula summation entwined to clear your confusion maybe HeyYou and I could share the original movie, The Planet of the Apes. with you?

[NeedSomeMCP]

Nope, still don't get it. I understand the relativity sort of, but I'm just not seeing the overall formula.

 

 

 

 

 

Which formula are you looking for? Trying to solve the time difference caused by a difference in relative velocity?

[Fkemman11]

 

Nope, still don't get it. I understand the relativity sort of, but I'm just not seeing the overall formula.

Which formula are you looking for? Trying to solve the time difference caused by a difference in relative velocity?

 

Kind of what they discussed here as a "God" formula or the formula for absolutely everything in the Universe. It's something, like said in the vid, that Einstein and other physicists have always wanted to solve. What is mentioned is that time is malleable in two ways (I think), one is relativity based on position and velocity, the other based on gravitational influences. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Something interesting that he said is that time must flow in a chronological order according to mathematical models. For instance, you may go back in time, but not be able to interact with anything. Also, he says that there may be no alternative timeline and that you going back in time was already recorded (or something like that, lol).

 

[Deleted54170User]

I was going to leave the math symbols of the Theory of Relativity for you to muse over. Then it occurred to me, you probably don't understand the language. You'd see numbers, symbols, and swirling thingies, with spaces and rows with little pictures.

 

I might as well be writing using the Rosetta Stone to translate Einsteins math summations via a translation Tibetan hieroglyphs.

 

Namaste!

 

Oops! Sorry, that's Nepalese

[Fkemman11]

I was going to leave the math symbols of the Theory of Relativity for you to muse over. Then it occurred to me, you probably don't understand the language. You'd see numbers, symbols, and swirling thingies, with spaces and rows with little pictures.

 

I might as well be writing using the Rosetta Stone to translate Einsteins math summations via a translation Tibetan hieroglyphs.

 

Namaste!

 

Oops! Sorry, that's Nepalese

If your point is that I'm ignorant, then yes- I am. That's why I'm trying to learn. :happy:

[Deleted54170User]

I'm pointing out we both are on the subject you have decided to focus on.

 

I'm pointing out that what another member declared as bunk just proves that they expect we are better educated.

 

You've stepped into a open field where even some of the most prominent scientist have only a blade of grass figured out.

 

All of this is new territory you chose to adventure into. Old to some, and often the old never see what a new person notices they've just never figured out.

 

Open your eyes like an adventurer seeking the artifact that will help us all see more than just the blade of grass each of us has found and studied up to this point.

 

It's your thread, your lead, your the boss on the search.

 

Now put on your Indiana Jones cap on and start hunting for something that will add another bit of solid evidence to your kit and journal.

 

Share with your colleges anything that you find of interest, (that would be me and whoever else is interested). Don't believe what one says is fiction while another thing they claim as fact is absolute fact, because they're likely guessing about some part, and holding their diploma up like a shield to fend off any intelligent return shots at them to prove it, beyond a shadow of doubt, that gravity is just the way they say it is and no one dare challenge their opinion of it because they believe it.

 

Newbies always seem to upset the apple cart and the elders just want the young who are inspired to leave it alone.

 

You will, always be better off being a member of the Doubting Thomas's. And then we will find out what has been waiting for us to find in the field that will amaze us. We will find stuff someone else may be holding in their hand and not even know what they have. The museums are full of artifacts they don't even have a clue about.

 

That's a fact already.

 

I may know more, and yet, when I think I know it all I find another door and whole new room full of stuff I never dreamed of.

 

If you truly choose to stay the course, one day you'll have traveled to so many places you didn't even know existed. After I am gone you'll be the elder, young and brave with a lot of years ahead of you to challenge people who think they know too well what lays ahead.

 

Beat the drum slowly and take a moment to look around before you continue on your journey

 

Fkemman11

 

If you don't read the first chapter in a book you will not likely know what the ending is about. If you don't read Thomas Findlays book to get some perspective on a subject known too well everything you do know isn't going to help you much because you don't have anything to compare or refute what people think is correct and should not be tested any further.

 

After all you're writing a book that is entertaining. Correct?! You not writing a technical manual for spacers are you?

 

Sometimes adults need to refresh their memory and restore their curiosity. Findlay's book will stir some basic thinking enough at least to give your imagination a start to wonder about both sides of the fencers opinions and then you can wander on a path you build of your own.

[BlackRampage]

If you don't read the first chapter in a book you will not likely know what the ending is about. If you don't read Thomas Findlays book to get some perspective on a subject known too well everything you do know isn't going to help you much because you don't have anything to compare or refute what people think is correct and should not be tested any further.

 

I'm sorry for interjecting like this, but that's quite a bold statement considering the whole electric universe hypothesis is just that; A hypothesis. Based on pseudoscience, at that. Findlay didn't exactly provide a lot proof to substantiate his bold claims. Neither have any other proponents of the "electric universe" hypothesis ever provided any evidence for their claims.

 

Yeah, I've read his book. To many hypotheticals, theoreticals and pseudoscience.

Also, too much "mainstream science" bashing and questioning well established theories without providing much in the way of proof or alternatives. And how come no studies on the "electric universe" (a.k.a. plasma cosmology) ever passed peer reviews or were ever published in scientific journals? Pseudoscience. That's why. How's that for some perspective?

 

Shame on you for recommending a book filled with pseudoscience to the scientifically illiterate. Not just once, but 4 times in a single thread.

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited June 12, 2019 by BlackRampage

[Deleted54170User]

 

If you don't read the first chapter in a book you will not likely know what the ending is about. If you don't read Thomas Findlays book to get some perspective on a subject known too well everything you do know isn't going to help you much because you don't have anything to compare or refute what people think is correct and should not be tested any further.

 

I'm sorry for intejecting like this, but that's quite a bold statement considering the whole electric universe hypothesis is just that; A hypothesis. Based on pseudoscience, at that. Findlay didn't exactly provide a lot proof to substantiate his bold claims. Neither have any other proponents of the "electric universe" hypothesis ever provided any evidence for their claims.

 

Yeah, I've read his book. To many hypotheticals, theoreticals and pseudoscience.

Also, too much "mainstream science" bashing and questioning well established theories without providing much in the way of proof or alternatives. And how come no studies on the "electric universe" (a.k.a. plasma cosmology) ever passed peer reviews or were ever published in scientific journals? Pseudoscience. That's why. How's that for some perspective?

 

Shame on you for recommending a book filled with pseudoscience to the scientifically illiterate. Not just once, but 4 times in a single thread.

 

 

Yeah! Why did you read it???

 

And without knowing, knowing is not gotten. Having no alternative views on topics leaves us as blind to the truth when it's right in front of us.

 

Imo it is better to read and judge for our selves then let the critics make it easy for us. By reading stuff we become like you, smarter for knowing.

 

Oh! And don't forget, he's not writing a journal for University. Or at least that's what his original post to the thread suggests. So Findlay's book, in your opinion, was not a journal for University studies, was it?!

 

:geek:

[BlackRampage]

Imo it is better to read and judge for our selves then let the critics make it easy for us. By reading stuff we become like you, smarter for knowing.

 

Point taken. Always good to explore different perspectives. Not sure whether this necessarily applies to pseudoscience though.

 

Still, I dare say I might know just enough about all this stuff to be able to seperate the pseudo from the science. Others might not be so fortunate.

 

Yeah! Why did you read it???

 

Did a bit of a study on electromagnetism, electromagnetic waves etc.. (Don't ask, I still get headaches from having to memorize all those damn formulae) Stumbled across the electric universe stuff while doing said study.

 

So Findlay's book, in your opinion, was not a journal for University studies, was it?!

 

Not sure I fully understand the question, but it would never pass peer review, that's for sure.

[NeedSomeMCP]

 

 

Nope, still don't get it. I understand the relativity sort of, but I'm just not seeing the overall formula.

Which formula are you looking for? Trying to solve the time difference caused by a difference in relative velocity?

 

Kind of what they discussed here as a "God" formula or the formula for absolutely everything in the Universe. It's something, like said in the vid, that Einstein and other physicists have always wanted to solve. What is mentioned is that time is malleable in two ways (I think), one is relativity based on position and velocity, the other based on gravitational influences. Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

Something interesting that he said is that time must flow in a chronological order according to mathematical models. For instance, you may go back in time, but not be able to interact with anything. Also, he says that there may be no alternative timeline and that you going back in time was already recorded (or something like that, lol).

 

 

I've done calculations for velocity differences, but I haven't personally dabbled with the time dilation resulting from a high gravity. But yes, you are fundamentally correct. If you google "Relativity time dilation calculator" or "gravitatonal time dilation calculator" you can get access to tools where you can plug in some numbers and play around a bit.

 

Theories of everything are top level theoretical physics, but most lack the backing of predictive power. In a broad sense, physics theories are mathematical models of how the universe works. When someone talks about using mathematical models to represent how time travel would work, take it with a grain of salt. While it could make sense mathematically, the only way to know for sure how time travel would work would be to actually do it. Demonstrable facts take precedence over mathematical models. For time travel, this means that anyone can theorize anything they want, but until its actually done, we won't know for sure.

 

So here is a fun idea since you are looking at relativity and space travel. You can find an equation for something called the "relativistic rocket." Basically, for someone in a rocket that is travelling at a constant acceleration of 1g to someplace, and then accelerates 1g in the opposite direction halfway to that location, could reach anywhere in the observable universe within his or her lifespan (not taking into account the expansion of the universe). For instance, a trip to the Andromeda galaxy at a constant acceleration of 1g would take about 28 years from the standpoint of someone in the rocket. Now, designing a rocket and fuel to be able to do that would be a real challenge, but it is fully in line with relativity.