Theory of Relativity?

[Deleted54170User]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

BRAVO! NeedSomeMCP You've hit the nail right on the head. A+ Nobody will know for sure until someone actually does it.

[Mktavish]

 

Well, since the speed of light is constant

 

I'm certainly not well versed in this. But the fact that light cannot escape a black hole , and get bent around things.

Suggests the speed of light is not constant ... no ???

[HeyYou]

 

 

Well, since the speed of light is constant

 

I'm certainly not well versed in this. But the fact that light cannot escape a black hole , and get bent around things.

Suggests the speed of light is not constant ... no ???

 

It's still going the same speed, just its course is being altered. :)

[Mktavish]

 

 

 

Well, since the speed of light is constant

 

I'm certainly not well versed in this. But the fact that light cannot escape a black hole , and get bent around things.

Suggests the speed of light is not constant ... no ???

 

It's still going the same speed, just its course is being altered. :smile:

 

But if gravity can alter it left / right ... why wouldn't it be altering it forwards / backwards on a trajectory ? Ergo exerting a slowing force from behind , or a speeding force from ahead ?

[NeedSomeMCP]

 

 

Well, since the speed of light is constant

 

I'm certainly not well versed in this. But the fact that light cannot escape a black hole , and get bent around things.

Suggests the speed of light is not constant ... no ???

 

Some care should be taken here.The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Losing energy or gaining energy, instead of making the light move faster or slower, alters the frequency and wavelength of the light.

 

The speed of light can be slowed down by traveling through a medium like an atmosphere or through water, There is even a particular kind of radiation, called Cherenkov radiation, that occurs when something travels faster than the artificially slowed down light.

 

[Mktavish]

By the way , just a curious question I have of late with the light constant statement in science.

 

But to help on the fantasizing pseudo science.

I had this idea with hydraulics and dark matter. Not for travel per'se but information transfer instantaneous no matter the distance.

 

So dark matter being the most prevalent in the universe theoretically. Then possessing many more parts than regular matter.

Some part of it in abundance is usable for creating a 100% compression string. Thereby recording a bump from one end at the same time as its poke at the other end.

But this string is only possible by using one of the other dark matter elements ... much less in supply.

Basically to create a snail trail . Slowly traveling from the earth with a ship to anchor the stream to. But instantaneous communication back to earth ... always no matter the distance.

[Mktavish]

 

 

 

Well, since the speed of light is constant

 

I'm certainly not well versed in this. But the fact that light cannot escape a black hole , and get bent around things.

Suggests the speed of light is not constant ... no ???

 

Some care should be taken here.The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. Losing energy or gaining energy, instead of making the light move faster or slower, alters the frequency and wavelength of the light.

 

The speed of light can be slowed down by traveling through a medium like an atmosphere or through water, There is even a particular kind of radiation, called Cherenkov radiation, that occurs when something travels faster than the artificially slowed down light.

 

 

Ahh sorry ya ninja'ed me.

 

A gravity field would be an atmosphere right ? But yes light would be considered fired out of its barrel at a constant. But if it can be pulled in any direction ... that means all ... right ?

[NeedSomeMCP]

By atmosphere I mean gas, so gravity fields would not be an atmosphere.

Relativity was derived from observing first that the speed of light was a constant (discovered in a failed attempt to prove the aether theories of the time) regardless of who is observing it. It can get pulled, but the pulling doesn't effect the speed, rather, it stretches or contracts the observed wavelength of the light instead.

[Mktavish]

I'm not aware of light speed discovery ... but wasn't a proof of it ... able with checking the difference in a Jupiter moon dark side time? So when Jupiter was farther away in our orbits. A particular moon shadow of it was longer ?

 

I see what you mean with stretching not slowing .... but could still be with our limited measurement capability. just slowing / not stretching.

And for what is happening to the actual light particle ... stretching is no different than slowing / speeding . Because the side angle observation if was possible. Would still be a stretched line. At least assuming only 1 trajectory per light particle.

[NeedSomeMCP]

I am unaware with a proof involving Jupiter. This is the experiment I was talking about: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment (This is a briefer version). The experiment has been repeated many times with the same result.

If an experiment demonstrates with a strong confidence that the speed of light in a vacuum is not a constant, then that will be revolutionary in the physics world, and many great brains will go back to the drawing board to attempt to figure out a model that explains that behavior.

This talks about metrics, experiments, and the constancy of the speed of light http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

Edit: The section under general relativity talks something about the speed of light and measurement, but quite frankly, that entire section is above my head.