Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 13/05/2019 01:13:17
My twist on Einsteins formula shows 1) how massless particles like photons can travel at light speed
2) That the apparent expansion of the universe is speeding up because the actual speed is slowing down
here is a screen shot of my program, , , Note the actual speed of .99999997, or 186243 MPS and the apparent speed at the bottom of 45.62003 MPS
EINY- WORKS.jpg (64.05 kB . 649x329 - viewed 4919 times)Post by: Halc on 13/05/2019 02:54:21
I have been using my relativity program i made in 1997 and have some ideas. Do massless particles travel along with the actual speed of the expansion of the universe close to CMassless particles do indeed travel at c through a vacuum.
The expansion rate of the universe is not a velocity. It has different units.
Quote
, , , , Is the apparent rate of the expanding universe 44.7387 mile per second per mega parsec, and does it work out at an actual rate of 99.999999 CSince it has different units, it does not work out to a speed. Do the algebra. It isn't hard. It works out to the reciprocal of the age of the universe, or at least what the age would be if the rate was not accelerating.
Quote
here is a screen shot of my programThe screen shot is only of the output, not of the program being run.
Quote
Note the actual speed of .99999997, or 186243 MPS186243 miles/sec is about .9998c
If you want .99999997, you need more significant digits for one thing.
I'm not used to doing this in non-metric units.
Quote
and the apparent speed at the bottom of 64.30355 MPSIf an object is going at .9998c in some frame, then it is apparently going .9998c in that frame. It will apparently take 10002 seconds to get to a place 10000 light seconds away, two seconds slower than light. That's 'apparently' .9998c.
Maybe you mean something else by 'apparent speed', but you've not defined it.
Quote
TIME DILATION IS 2896.309The relativistic change factor at .99999997c is about 4082. At .9998 it is about 50. Not sure where the 2896 is coming from.
It is really unclear what you are asking or what you are proposing.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 13/05/2019 17:05:52
i believe i am correct in my observations that there is an actual and apparent effect, and that the expansion rate of the universe has an apparent value
Mick Bartram
Post by: Halc on 13/05/2019 18:36:59
Hi Halc , , , I have checked my time dilation program results and they are correctBeing a software person myself, there is always a possibility of another bug.
Quote
.999 works out at 22.36649 times dilation and .8 is 1.666667, my program works fineAnd yet .99999997c should yield a dilation of 4082. I suspect you are not using sufficient precision on your variables to handle a value of .99999997. A 32 bit float is insufficient. You need at least 64 bits to compute that one.
I have no idea what your program does. You input a time of 50, but 50 what? Seconds? Years? Just 50 units?
Is it time one way, round trip, and as measured back home or as measured on the ship? None of that was clear just by looking at the output.
OK, I suspect seconds because 9312149 is 50 times your stated light speed. Distance and time then are I imagine measured by the non-ship frame, else that distance would not be meaningful.
Quote
i believe i am correct in my observations that there is an actual and apparent effect, and that the expansion rate of the universe has an apparent value.I just don't know what you mean by 'apparent' speed. I cannot comment if you're wrong or right about it if I don't know to what it refers.
From the stationary point of view, the ship goes out to a location 9312149 miles away and returns and comes back, 1 minute 40 seconds (plus a smidge in the 8th digit) elapsed for a trip of 100 light seconds. Sounds like an apparent speed of 'damn near c', much faster than an apparent speed of 64 miles per second which would have resulted in an elapsed time of ~80 hours.
You probably mean something else by 'apparent speed', but I cannot figure out what it is.
Actually, the screen shot says T1 is ship time (units unspecified, but I still suspect seconds).
T2 would then be about 56.7 hours, so distance traveled by the ship in Earth frame is 38 trillion miles, much more than the 9 million the program reports.
Your formula there seems to be correct, but the program doesn't compute it. It reports 144815 'units', but not sure what unit is here. Seconds I think, which would have been correct if the dilation factor had been correctly computed.
If a ship moves almost 56.7 light hours in 56.7 hours, it has an apparent speed of almost c.
Distance traveled in the ship frame is zero. The ship is stationary in its own frame for the 50 second duration of the exercise. OK, the distance traveled by Earth in ship's frame is about 9.3 million miles. Is that what you mean by that figure? Earth has an apparent speed of almost c in that frame.
Your 'apparent speed' seems to be computed by dividing c by the relativistic factor, which makes no sense. There is nothing in the example that is apparently going that speed in any meaningful frame.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 13/05/2019 19:34:34
ha ha , , ,im sorry but what im saying seems so obvious to me, im more of a philosopher than a trained physicist so maybe this will help
Einstein 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 relative to me your speed slows down, till at C you stop "ALL PROCESSES" that change with time "INCLUDING SPEED" 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 remembered this from a BBC OU episode on physics in 1985, , , BOOM !!
if you were a stationary observer on earth, and i got in a space ship on a round trip to the moon and back at a speed of 87% the speed of light there would be a 2x time dilation, it would take me 3 seconds, but when i returned to earth you would say ive been gone 6 seconds. FROM EARTHS VIEW APPARENTLY THE TRIP TOOK 6 SECONDS WHEN IN FACT FROM THE SHIPS VIEW IT ACTUALY TOOK 3 SECONDS, DIFFERENT TIMES and
SPEEDS - QED, the apparent time would have to be inserted into the S=D\T to give the apparent speed
Post by: Halc on 13/05/2019 20:30:38
Hi Halc, , Like I said, my program is accurate and works out the same on paper, I suggest you try it with .999 and .8Did you try it on paper with .99999997?
I agree, the thing works with the small figures, but you performed no limit test on your program.
Quote
if you were a stationary observer on earth, and i got in a space ship on a round trip to the moon and back at a speed of 87% the speed of light there would be a 2x time dilation, it would take me 3 seconds, but when i returned to earth you would say ive been gone 6 seconds.2x dilation indeed. It takes light 2.6 seconds to make the round trip so a thing going at .87c would take about 3 seconds. That's what .87c means.
3 seconds round trip as measured on earth and 1.5 seconds elapsed on the ship clock. From Earth frame, the ship is going .87c. From the ship's point of view, the ship is stationary and the moon and the Earth move at .87c. There is no 'apparent speed' that is something else.
If I watch the ship clock from Earth, it will run at an 'apparent' rate of much slower than half pace, and it will appear to run faster than mine as I see the ship return. But that apparent difference is due to redshift/Doppler effect, not due to dilation. The final time will still be 3 seconds (me) and 1.5 seconds (ship).
Quote
FROM EARTHS VIEW APPARENTLY THE TRIP TOOK 6 SECONDS WHEN IN FACT FROM THE SHIPS VIEW IT ACTUALY TOOK 3 SECONDS, DIFFERENT TIMESPutting it in caps doesn't make it right. If it takes 6 seconds and it takes light only 2.6 seconds, it's going only about .43c.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 13/05/2019 21:41:14
Your getting the idea but this is wrong "The final time will still be 3 seconds (me) and 1.5 seconds (ship)".it should be 6 and 3
I can understand that it all seems counter intuitive, but its just a basic Special Relativity concept
and Yes, the input T1 should be in seconds and the elapsed time on earth is 144815 units x 50 seconds or whatever you use for T1
I shall post you my QBASIC program TXT
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2019 21:55:00
I can understand that it all seems counter intuitive, but its just a basic Special Relativity conceptI'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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2019 21:55:34
I shall post you my QBASIC program TXTIt can't make things less clear...
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 13/05/2019 22:15:35
.99999997
.99999994
.00000006
.000244948
1 / 000244948 = 4082.499 not my 2896.309
Arghhhhhhhhhhh, , , i will have to debug it , , ,Eeeeek !! it could be my calculator tho, im gona try .99999
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2019 22:17:45
Computers get maths wrong.
Post by: Halc on 13/05/2019 23:15:48
Yes, spot on the apparent speed is .435 and the actual speed is .87, 2 x dilationSo if I have two ships, one faster than the other, the faster one gets back to Earth after the slow one because it has a lower apparent speed? That's what your math implies.
Quote
Your getting the idea but this is wrong "The final time will still be 3 seconds (me) and 1.5 seconds (ship)".it should be 6 and 3I'm not 'getting the idea'. I've been doing relativity a long time. I'm surprised you've had a relativity program for 22 years and only now are finding out it is doing this 'apparent speed' thing which is incorrect. Speed is not a process and the ship isn't taking its speed along with it. Speed is a relation and the relation is .87c in this latest example and not anything else.
I can understand that it all seems counter intuitive, but its just a basic Special Relativity concept
The trip takes 3 seconds on and Earth clock and 1.5 on ship clock. Using that math, the faster ship does the trip in less time, just like a faster ship should.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 13/05/2019 23:52:14
Yes it may be the PC maths processor, its to late to debug my program now, ill try tmora
Ive got MS DOS QBASIC, and running Win XP on one of my laptops
And halc, in your last post I think your wrong, so apparently we will have to agree to disagree, , ,
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 14/05/2019 00:02:42
20 COLOR 15: PRINT "AN ASTRONAUT GOES OFF IN A ROCKET AT .X THE SPEED OFF LIGHT RELATIVE TO THE EARTH, HOW MUCH TIME HAS ELAPSED ON EARTH."
40 PRINT : PRINT " BY USING EINSTEIN'S FOLLOWING EQUATION WE CAN WORK IT OUT."
42 PRINT : PRINT " T1 ": PRINT " ========="
44 PRINT " / V2 ": PRINT " T2= \/ 1- ------ OR SP=SP*SP:SP=1-SP:SP=SQR(SP):TD=T1/SP": PRINT " C2"
70 PRINT : PRINT " T1 = TIME ELAPSED ON THE ROCKET, IE. 30 YEARS."
80 PRINT " V = SPEED OF ROCKET, IE. .8 C, OR 148994 MPS."
85 PRINT " T2 = TIME ELAPSED ON EARTH. ": PRINT
90 INPUT "ENTER T1 "; T1: INPUT "ENTER V"; SP: PER = SP
95 IF SP = 1 THEN 500
100 SP = SP * SP: SP = 1 - SP: SP = SQR(SP): TD = T1 / SP
105 MPS = 186243 * PER: MPH = MPS * 60 * 60: LOCATE 18, 20: PRINT "ACTUAL SPEED ="; MPS; "MPS. OR "; MPH; " MPH"
108 DIST = MPS * T1: PRINT : PRINT "DISTANCE OF SHIP = "; DIST; "MILES"
110 FOR T = 1 TO 5000: NEXT T
120 tms = TD / T1: PRINT "TIME DILATION IS "; tms; " TIMES T1 /"; " ELAPSED TIME ON EARTH ="; TD; "UNITS"
200 APP = DIST / TD: PRINT "VIEWED FROM EARTH, THE APPARENT SPEED OF ROCKET DUE TO TIME DILATION = "; APP; "MPS"
210 INPUT "Another go (Y\N)"; go$
220 IF go$ = "y" THEN GOTO 10 ELSE END
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 14/05/2019 00:29:01
Yes halc this is correct, if the faster ship is going fast enough, it would loose every time , ,it obviously depends on how fast and far the slow ship is moving, and how long the round trip took for it, ,
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 14/05/2019 17:56:04
OK halc, what if I travelled near a black hole and came home, the twin paradox, , , ,it would be the same effect, my ideas explain that too
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket or travels close to a black hole, then returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more.
Look what it means, the 2 observers see 2 different times and speeds, , , QED - BOOM !!, , , ha ha, i give up explaining to you, my post was meant to verify my ideas, so i'll wait for someone who can, , , ,
OK thanks, , ,I will try to define SP# as a double, and look at the DIM function and let you know
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 14/05/2019 18:43:58
Does it look familiar - the apparent rate of the expanding universe is 44.7387 mile per second per mega parsec,
which works out at an actual rate of 99.999997 C
Yippeee, ha ha, at least you got one thing right halc, , thank you
# EINY-YES.jpg (65.98 kB . 651x330 - viewed 4601 times)Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2019 06:08:59
Post by: Halc on 16/05/2019 12:50:30
OK halc, what if I travelled near a black hole and came home, the twin paradox, , , ,it would be the same effect, my ideas explain that tooI didn't deny that. My clock going to the moon and back aged half as much as its twin that stayed home.
In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket or travels close to a black hole, then returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more.
Quote
ha ha, i give up explaining to you, my post was meant to verify my ideas, so i'll wait for someone who can, , , ,I'm sorry that you're in that funny state of 'knowing' that you're correct and thus not at all open to being corrected. There is no such thing as 'apparent speed' in special relativity (the high-speed round trip example). I suppose there is in general relativity (the black hole case you mention) since speeds there are not meaningfully relative to an external inertial frame. From the point of view of a distant observer, the 'fast' guy near the gravity well moves slower and slower, stopping at the event horizon, just as light does. The difference in what you're calling 'apparent' vs actual speed is related to the difference between measuring distances in Cartesian vs Schwarzschild coordinates, or just expressing distances in proper terms.
But light going to the moon and back has no 'apparent' slowdown. It makes its way back at light speed. You'd not be able to see your own reflection in the mirror if that apparent speed could be applied to the dilation-by-speed case.
I agree that close enough to a black hole, one would not be able to see one's self in a mirror.
You ignore my posts showing how your assertion lead to different behavior than the ones we observe (like neutrinos outrunning light). You ignore those counterexamples.
Quote
OK thanks, , ,I will try to define SP# as a double, and look at the DIM function and let you knowGlad that worked and you didn't need to do it to other variables.
The output is still has the ship moving at near light speed in Earth frame for more than an hour and going only 186243 miles. No special relativity exercise describes such a thing. Please link to one if you disagree.
What moves 186243 miles is Earth in the ship frame, but if your assertion is correct, it should also have an 'apparent' 45 Mps speed and Earth would only move 45 miles during the exercise.
Since when are 45 miles per second and 45 miles per second per megaparsec the same? Those are different units signifying different things.
The expansion rate of the universe is not a velocity. It has different units.That was a quote from reply 1. I also pointed this out, but have not again brought it up since the OP clearly has a misunderstanding of special relativity. Usually it's the other way around where some SR property is mistakenly dragged into a GR case, but here the mistake is being done in the opposite direction.
So yes, the expansion rate of the universe is not a speed, since speed is expressed in different units. Comparing then as is done in the OP is thus meaningless. The whole argument from the OP seems to hinge on this 'apparent speed' thing, plus that meaningless comparison of two figures in different units.
Yippeee, ha ha, at least you got one thing right halc, , thank youI pointed out that problem in reply 3, long before I saw the code or even knew it was written in QBASIC:
I suspect you are not using sufficient precision on your variables to handle a value of .99999997.And yet you ignored that comment because you 'knew' your program was correct. I'm just pointing this out to demonstrate that your certainty in things blinds you to being corrected. Consider for a moment that this site has a few people who know their stuff (and very many who don't). You don't know which category I'm in, so instead of taking my word for it, explain to me how neutrinos can arrive here at Earth sooner than the photons from the same event. They go so fast that they should have an apparent speed slower than a walking pace, by your assertions.
If you can't explain that, then consider the possibility that I might be right about faster things getting there sooner than slower things.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 16/05/2019 17:08:36
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 field
Like photons, neutrinos are thought to have a rest mass of zero, and with keeping with my ideas I think massless particles move along in all directions with the actual expansion rate of the universe close to C
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
I agree that close enough to a black hole, one would not be able to see one's self in a mirror.- I think you are wrong, the laws of physics must hold true in all reference frames, and Einstein used a mirror in a space ship analogy and asked the same question for around 10 years, he used galileo's Principle Of Relativity to prove that all observers would see their image as normal in this moving mirror, proving C is constant and time is variable, and formulating all his work on the STR
Post by: Janus on 16/05/2019 17:37:25
Helo the incredible halc,Neutrinos produced by a supernova are able to escape the core and begin their trip to Earth before the shockwave can propagate through the star to produce the light flash. Even photons produced at the core are have to work their way through along a meandering path while the neutrinos pass through it as if it is not there. The neutrinos arrive first, not because they traveled faster, but because they got a head start.
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, , ,
Quote
Your information is out of date. While it was once thought that neutrinos had zero rest mass, more recent experiments have shown that this is not the case and that they do have a small rest mass.
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 field
Like photons, neutrinos are thought to have a rest mass of zero,
Quote
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.
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
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 16/05/2019 18:54:15
Did you see this bit I added to my last post :-
I agree that close enough to a black hole, one would not be able to see one's self in a mirror.- I think you are wrong, the laws of physics must hold true in all reference frames, and Einstein used a mirror in a space ship analogy and asked the same question for around 10 years, he used galileo's Principle Of Relativity to prove that all observers would see their image as normal in this moving mirror, proving C is constant and time is variable, and formulating most if not all of his work on the STR on this one idea
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 16/05/2019 21:36:05
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
ha ha , ,thats why you dont hear the sonic boom when on board concorde
You see, I do know a bit about STR, and its not just guess work, , , ,lol
Post by: Kryptid on 16/05/2019 21:53:53
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
Well, you can't move at c. At any constant speed below c, you'd be able to see your image in the mirror without distortion anyway, since the speed of light always looks unchanged in your own reference frame.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 17/05/2019 17:54:04
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 you were a stationary observer on earth, and i got in a space ship on a round trip to the moon and back at a speed of 87% the speed of light there would be a 2x time dilation, it would take me 3 seconds, but when i returned to earth you would say ive been gone 6
hmmmmm Hi janus, i dont get it, maybe im just dumb, , ,, If there are two different times, you can insert them into S=D\T to give two different speeds
ha ha, , , apparently, we are chatting in 2 different forums, , ,SPOOKY
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 17/05/2019 18:50:08
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.
Hi halc, , ,I don't know, maybe photons behave more like matter in extreme gravity
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 18/05/2019 00:55:46
I just started a new thread, and did that precisely because I don't know the answer. I'm trying to learn.
Me too , ,.Cooooooor, , , that janus is a tough cookie to crack, , ,go up 5 posts
https://thescienceforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2777&p=36560#p36560
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 18/05/2019 02:24:50
you have my program, if you know it all, see if you can correct it and impress me, but I don't think you can
halc said - My interpretation of 'apparent speed' is more like how you're using it: Actual time it takes for the object to go a certain distance like to the moon and back, which at .877c is about 3 seconds, not 6.
one minute you say 1.5, now you say 3, make your mind up, , , I said it would be 3
Post by: Halc on 18/05/2019 16:32:20
one minute you say 1.5, now you say 3, make your mind up, , , I said it would be 33 as measured at Earth, 1.5 seconds as measured by the 'ship'.
for a time dilation factor of 2, it is closer to 86.6%Yes. My mistake.
Quote
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.The clock on Earth that measures that 3 seconds is stationary in that Earth frame, so it should not be dilated in that frame. That makes Janus (and Einstein) exactly correct.
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
Total trip distance in Earth frame is 768800 km, and at .866c (259620 km/s), it would take 2.96 (very close to 3) seconds. That's what .866c means. It doesn't mean actually 129810 km/s.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2019 16:39:06
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
Looks like I backed the right runner.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 18/05/2019 21:27:41
Einstein 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, relative to a stationary observer its clock is running slower, the observer would have to put the longer Time into S=D\T and get a slower speed, , , a simple mistake
Post by: Janus on 18/05/2019 22:53:23
OK, I get itIt depends on what S is. For example. Observer A is watching B, which is traveling at 0.866 c relative to A. If B were to throw a ball a in a direction perpendicular to the relative line of motion between A and B, at a speed of 0.25c as measured by B, then A would measure the ball as moving at 0.125c( 1/2 of 0.25c) with respect to B.
Einstein 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
However, 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.
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 18/05/2019 23:50:04
I assumed, an object is in motion at .866 relative to a stationary observer, if the clock is running slower, they would have to put the longer Time into S=D\T and get a slower speed of .43, , , is it a simple mistake
ha ha , , give me chance get my head around the A B idea, im glad there aint a C, , , , A would measure the ball as having a speed of 0.91738c - sounds interesting
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 19/05/2019 17:36:26
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.
Simple
you got your figure of 0.0514 wrong
0.05138 +.866 = .91738
.866 - .07978 = .78622
.866 - .78622 = .07978
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 19/05/2019 20:28:03
You don't appear to have even the rudiments of understanding of the theory
so I got it wrong and made a mistake. i now understand, to a stationary observer moving clocks run slow, but the moving clocks speed does not slow down, , happy now
OK, If you know so much, tell me why you don't hear the sonic boom when on board concorde, as it passes through 760 mph, using TSR
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 19/05/2019 20:50:47
you got your figure of 0.0514 wrong
Ok halc if you know the answer, do the maths and show me why 0.05138 is wrong, , , ,at least I had a go and I forgot 1 relativistic value, I noticed you didn't attempt to break it down
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 20/05/2019 18:11:30
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.
Hey halc. I mentioned something like this earlier, but this makes it clearer
Galileo's Principle of Relativity = All steady motion is relative, and cannot be detected, without reference to an outside point ,
Einstein had this thought experiment for around 10 years from the age of 14, and found the answer here , , , Einstein is in a space ship and he is holding a mirror at arms length, when his speed hits the speed of light, will his image in the mirror disappear, if his image disappeared in the mirror, he wouldn't have to look outside his ship to know he's moving at speed C, which would violate glalileo's principle - ha ha, ,and yes we know you cant move at the speed C
that's why you don't hear the sonic boom when on board concorde, as it passes through 760 mph - this is what I thought up as an example
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 21/05/2019 22:33:25
im going back to making music
Post by: Colin2B on 21/05/2019 22:50:59
im going back to making musicAs long as you get the timing right ;D
Post by: AtoMick-u235 on 23/05/2019 20:17:04
[ Invalid Attachment ]