Posted: October 19, 2012 in Physics
And why wouldn’t it be? If distance is relative and time is relative than the idea of combining distance over time into a universal constant seems as Biden would put it as malarkey. Eventually the scientific community will realize there are other frames of reference than the one they are performing measurements from. Even if the traveler never could measure that they are traveling faster than the speed of light why couldn’t someone performing measurements for a completely different frame of reference understand that they are traveling faster than the speed of light? Eventually we will move forward and away from the flat planet ideas we seem so adamant about holding onto.
Posted: August 29, 2012 in Physics
Einstein changed the world in the 1900’s. What will anything that is currently being studied in Physics do to truly change our lives in the 2000’s? Does the fact we have found Higgs Bosom change anything? Maybe if all these amazingly smart people spent their energy seeking clean energy we would be far better off.
Maybe someone could explain to me if space and time are both relative and only truly measurable from with one’s own frame of reference why we use a velocity which is entirely based on space and time as a universal constant. I am told and I can believe that the speed of light is a limit as it relates to our frame of reference. But how can that same observation be true for all other possible frames of references. Our measurement of both space and time is only true for us. We spend so much time and money thinking that if we understand the smallest of things we can apply that to everything. I think we observe strange things at the particle level simply because we can not grasp that both our measurements of space and time is not relative at that frame of reference.
Posted: June 2, 2012 in Physics
This may be out there a little but I want to put forth the idea that since I believe relativity states that space and time are relative and Einstein is correct to state nothing can travel further than light can in a second within the observer’s space-time. That it is actually this limit on the high side that defines our dimensional upper limit. So if some object at a much higher inertial constant velocity were actually able to send something no faster than the speed of light for their time line but that actually did exceed the velocity of light in our world line it would no longer exist within our observable dimension. I am not sure but I bet some of the “spookyness” that particle physicists observe are just observations of objects entering and leaving our own dimension at the lowest limit of our dimension. And since we take for granite that other dimensions exist this seems like the most clear understanding of what they are. And if this is true could the dark matter just be traveling outside our observable dimension?
Posted: June 1, 2012 in Physics
Going back to an earlier example of a sprinter running a 100 yard sprint on a long train car. Say the fastest this sprinter could ever run is 100 yards in 10 seconds. That is a his universal limit. The train is passing an observer standing at the train station going 100 yards per second at a constant velocity. The sprinter starts the race right as he passes the observer. In 10 seconds he has traveled 100 yards on the train car. The observer notes that the Sprinter covered 1100 yards in 10 seconds. Now we know that the sprinter can only cover 100 yards in 10 seconds. So giving that time is close enough to the same for both the sprinter and the observer the only relative difference is distance. So within one observer’s frame or World Line all laws of physics must hold true. This is not the case going from one to the other. As a traveler reaches new constant velocities distance must be re-calibrated to the inertial frames. So given that CERN is only measuring an observation occurring from one frame in a very short period of time Einstein’s truth that nothing can go faster than the speed of light holds true. The distance and time never had to be re-calibrated. All Physical Laws must hold true for an inertial frame.
Posted: May 3, 2012 in Physics
I came across a good post on a site that would never even allow me to ask questions on. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=151814 Even though it is managed by snobs I do find out some interesting info on it. From Jorrie about halfway down the page
“You obviously realize that speed and velocity are relative things. The closest we can come to determining our velocity relative to the universe at large, is to measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (cmb) radiation in all directions.
An observer that measures the average temperature to be the same in all directions can be considered as at rest relative to the cmb. As determined by COBE and WMAP, we are moving in the order of 0.1% of the speed of light relative to the cmb. This is due to the vector-summation of the velocities that you mentioned.”
So if from CERN’s own site http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html They state that the ““The ICARUS experiment has provided an important cross check of the anomalous result reports from OPERA last year,” said Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize winner and spokesperson of the ICARUS experiment. “ICARUS measures the neutrino’s velocity to be no faster than the speed of light… ” If this means that they are as fast and if the earth was moving away from the previous mentioned observer could it be measured as going faster than the speed of light? Or if some other observer was on a planet moving away from us would they observe the neutrinos moving even faster?
I still can’t get over the fact that even Jorrie states that speed and velocity are relative yet we have made a universal speed limit of a velocity regardless of the observer’s frame.
Posted: April 20, 2012 in UFO
I know this is off base but I just watched another UFO show on cable and it looks more and more like they are using magnetic drives to achieve their propulsion. The latest show I watched was about the Belgium occurrences and in one picture it was determined that there was a magnetic disturbance. The triangle form is even better than the sphere to manage the speed of the internal mass. With three external electromagnetic devices it would be easy to mange the force you would need to pull/push the internal armature to achieve the desired lift and thrust. Who knows maybe some MIT bound youth could even reproduce this. Just a thought.
Posted: April 3, 2012 in Physics
A new reply to an old post on space .com
- Ralph Huntington · Top Commenter · Principal at Huntington Research Inc
” After 2 seconds Object A would be almost 4 times the distance light travels in one second away from object B”
Even so, that doesn’t mean either object has traveled faster than light because each object would have traveled only half the total distance.
Ralph Huntington Thanks Ralph I am giving in. But my point was that velocity is relative to the observer. To say they only traveled half the distance is to say that you are observing from the center location. I have had a couple really great physicists explain to me the warping of space time very well in respect to two objects traveling at each other. Or in respect to their forward projection. I am waiting for a particular Professor Matt to explain to me about the warping of space-time as it relates to space in the opposite direction the objects are traveling. Icarus has gone a long way to taking this out of the debate zone as my friend Prof Matt has explained to me. I just really enjoyed the idea of a universe without limits. But it looks like that isn’t the case and Einstein was right to say we really have one universal limit regardless of the observers frame of reference. Kind of counter intuitive to relativity but hey it is what it is.
I really appreciate Prof Matt S taking the time to reply to my comments but I still can not get out of my mind that physical laws are restricted to an observer’s frame of reference. Even when Icarus and Opera totally agree that the neutrinos never went faster than the speed of light, that just proves that from within our frame of reference Einstein nailed it. But does that therefore mean that all events are limited by our frame of reference? Can relativity and this co-exist? Is the size of the universe calculated from E=MC2 based on our frame of reference? Or the center of the Bang or any of the billions upon billions of solar systems moving in outwardly directions at speeds up to 99.999 the speed of light from the center’s frame of reference? Particle Physicists love the spookiness of their field but do they ever look at any frame other than their own? I will continue to hold out hope that our Universe is truly more relative and as a result a place that can truly be explored. But now that this is not even really going to be allowed to be debated I will step back and look for fun exploring other paths of thought.
Best to all 🙂