0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Helo the incredible halc, explain to me how neutrinos can arrive here at Earth sooner than the photons from the same event - they must have a lower rest mass than photons, , ,
They go so fast that they should have an apparent speed slower than a walking pace - Massless particles do not behave like matter, as with protons and neutrons, and are immune to the higgs fieldLike photons, neutrinos are thought to have a rest mass of zero,
Wow, , , I put in 10 9s .9999999999 and got a TD of 70710.67 and an APP of just 2.633874 MPS, , ,, SPOOKY Remember, , , im getting there, relative to a stationary observer, matter that moves at C appears to stop
if my image disappeard in the mirror, i would'nt have to look outside my ship to know im moving at C, which would violate glalileo's principle
No. what you are doing is misinterpreting Relativity. Time dilation only effects how we would measure the tick rate for a moving clock, not how fast we would measure it as moving relative to ourselves.
If photons don't behave like matter in the sense of having a reduced 'apparent speed', then light would not apparently slow near a black hole as observed from a distance, but it does, just like the matter there. You're the one that brought up behavior in a deep gravity well as observed from well outside it.
I just started a new thread, and did that precisely because I don't know the answer. I'm trying to learn.
one minute you say 1.5, now you say 3, make your mind up, , , I said it would be 3
for a time dilation factor of 2, it is closer to 86.6%
Janus said = As measured by the Earth, the Earth-Moon distance is 384,000 km, and at ~87%, this takes ~ 1.5 sec per leg or ~3 sec per round trip.look what janus is saying, As measured by the Earth, If it took 3 seconds there would be no time\speed dilation for the earth observer. so he is talking nonsense - QED
I'm backing Halc's track record on this.Incidentally, another "counter intuitive" thing is that computers get the maths wrong.But they do.Do you actually know what precision you are calculating to?
Yippeee, ha ha, at least you got one thing right halc
OK, I get itEinstein said - If you are moving with respect to me, we shall not agree upon the rate of flow of time, your clock runs slower than mine when you move and all processes that change with time change at a slower rate when observed in motion, one clock does not beat out time for the whole universe, a separate clock is needed for each state of motion, , , , I assumed the speed of an object is in motion, and its a process that changes with time, as in S=D\T, so must have a slower rate when observed in motion, , , a simple mistake
if B threw the ball in the same direction as its motion relative to A, then A would measure the ball as having a speed of 0.91738c relative to himself and 0.0514c relative to B. And if he threw it in the opposite direction, A would measure the ball as moving at 0.7862c relative to himself and 0.07978c with respect to B.
You don't appear to have even the rudiments of understanding of the theory
you got your figure of 0.0514 wrong
sound moves away from its source, so those on board an aircraft do not hear the shock wave of the passage of the aircraft. Most of what is heard from the inside is not outside sound at all, but mostly the vibration of the craft itself disturbing the cabin air. There is no sonic boom to that.
im going back to making music