[Janus]

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, , ,

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.

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,

Your information is out of date.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.

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

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. 

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

Coool halc, , ,

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

Galileo's Principle of Relativity = All steady motion is relative, and cannot be detected, without reference to an ouside point ,

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

[Kryptid]

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.

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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 [nofollow]

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

Not another one saying my program is wrong, and in doing so, saying Einstein is wrong

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

[Halc]

one minute you say 1.5, now you say 3, make your mind up, , , I said it would be 3

3 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.

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

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.

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

OK, I get it

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

[Janus]

OK, I get it

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

It 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. 
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.

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

ha ha, good to see you again, I didn't get a chance to explain myself properly, ive used this for years, and ive changed it a little bit

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

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

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

Ive had enough of puzzling about relativity for a week , , ,ha ha

im going back to making music

[Colin2B]

im going back to making music

As long as you get the timing right 

[AtoMick-u235 (OP)]

From the info from janus, I have corrected my program


EIENSTEIN.jpg (61.44 kB . 653x327 - viewed 3240 times)