Light speed and relativity question

[LN400]

But there is need for dark matter and dark energy?

Concept of Aether was closer to reality than Einstein relativity concept with some artificial limits and lots of assumptions.

Aether was rejected using Ockham's razor not because it was wrong concept.

You might want to read up on the Michelson-Morley experiment and in particular the conclusion and implication that had on the aether theories.

[Darnok]

That should make "equal mass" of paper falls faster than lead at any scenario in a small space. It'd also cause Earth to comes to you, not you comes to Earth (and what about if everyone jumps ? Would we fall slower, or least are some is going to fall slower ?). I'm intrigued to ask you to draw a scenario where this happens - you don't imagine something you can't make image of.

Between atoms of paper and lead is different space, what causes different pressure around them, so there is different force between objects made from them and the Earth?

Inside your body, between atoms and even between electrons and protons there is "void" filled by Aether. So particles deep inside your body are not free from pressure, but pressure in center of your head is smaller than pressure around of your body. So if everyone jumps they will make tiny change in aether pressure that is around Earth, don't forget inside Earth rocks, dust, water, planet core there is lots of empty space also filled with aether.

Imagine that even in star core there is some void/empty space filled with aether. Only black hole has no empty space between its particles, that is why aether pressure around it is so huge, it can push and crush everything and from crushing single atoms black hole generates energy in form of radiation of different types.

Any other object, than black hole, has "empty space" inside (between atoms), so pressure around it is bit higher than inside this object, this is force that is keeping things in one piece

[BlueCosmology]

Between atoms of paper and lead is different space, what causes different pressure around them, so there is different force between objects made from them and the Earth?

Inside your body, between atoms and even between electrons and protons there is "void" filled by Aether. So particles deep inside your body are not free from pressure, but pressure in center of your head is smaller than pressure around of your body. So if everyone jumps they will make tiny change in aether pressure that is around Earth, don't forget inside Earth rocks, dust, water, planet core there is lots of empty space also filled with aether.

Imagine that even in star core there is some void/empty space filled with aether. Only black hole has no empty space between its particles, that is why aether pressure around it is so huge, it can push and crush everything and from crushing single atoms black hole generates energy in form of radiation of different types.

Any other object, than black hole, has "empty space" inside (between atoms), so pressure around it is bit higher than inside this object, this is force that is keeping things in one piece

Are you just a troll or a massive arrogant idiot?

[YNM]

Between atoms of paper and lead is different space, what causes different pressure around them, so there is different force between objects made from them and the Earth?

Inside your body, between atoms and even between electrons and protons there is "void" filled by Aether. So particles deep inside your body are not free from pressure, but pressure in center of your head is smaller than pressure around of your body. So if everyone jumps they will make tiny change in aether pressure that is around Earth, don't forget inside Earth rocks, dust, water, planet core there is lots of empty space also filled with aether.

Imagine that even in star core there is some void/empty space filled with aether. Only black hole has no empty space between its particles, that is why aether pressure around it is so huge, it can push and crush everything and from crushing single atoms black hole generates energy in form of radiation of different types.

Any other object, than black hole, has "empty space" inside (between atoms), so pressure around it is bit higher than inside this object, this is force that is keeping things in one piece

Okay. haha. empty space. greeat.

(sorry, but i'm truly "impressed" with this fact of you)

Let's get this moving : how do stars forms then, that the universe only provide their matter in very diffuse form, that should be held stationary by the pressure ? What about moving aethers ? What about, if the Earth is slowed down and brought closer every moment to Sun due to these aether ? Or any other movement ? You also haven't answered about whether there'll be differences in the falling motion.

Think of a pressure vessel with small matter ball inside it, simulating an aether - filled universe. You don't see the matter balls move even if everything inside is a pressure vessel itself in turn - the pressure are the same from all sides, even newton will agree with that, far before general relativity. And if you claim that the internal pressure are different, then we all humans are made from Earth matter, Earth matter being made by star matter, and star matter is the same everywhere. Period.

Thank you if you really considers my questions !

Just another thing for you as a gift :

Edited June 3, 2015 by YNM

[Darnok]

Okay. haha. empty space. greeat.

(sorry, but i'm truly "impressed" with this fact of you)

Let's get this moving : how do stars forms then, that the universe only provide their matter in very diffuse form, that should be held stationary by the pressure ? What about moving aethers ? What about, if the Earth is slowed down and brought closer every moment to Sun due to these aether ? Or any other movement ? You also haven't answered about whether there'll be differences in the falling motion.

Think of a pressure vessel with small matter ball inside it, simulating an aether - filled universe. You don't see the matter balls move even if everything inside is a pressure vessel itself in turn - the pressure are the same from all sides, even newton will agree with that, far before general relativity. And if you claim that the internal pressure are different, then we all humans are made from Earth matter, Earth matter being made by star matter, and star matter is the same everywhere. Period.

Thank you if you really considers my questions !

Just another thing for you as a gift :

http://controversy.amorphia-apparel.com/img450/elements.png

You should reread my post, because you didn't understood anything and I answered your question.

[pincushionman]

I'd like to point out that "speed of light in a medium such as water" is not related to the actual speed of the photons. It's due to the photons' interactions with the matter of the medium - they will be absorbed and re-emitted, which takes time, or other such shennanigans. Individual photons still travel very much at the speed of light between these interactions.

[YNM]

You should reread my post, because you didn't understood anything and I answered your question.

If it's true that aether provide pressure by getting to the next matter : why it have to be that way ? Nothing prevents a plane to still "sends" it's weight on the ground (and that's truly is), while the thing below them is just air ; same should apply for aether. Tell me, again, you believe in subatomic particles, and you also believe in aethers ? Weird story.

And please tell me about star formation in terms of aether. Why we don't see "aether balls", why are they uniformly distributed ?

Edited June 3, 2015 by YNM

[Darnok]

If it's true that aether provide pressure by getting to the next matter : why it have to be that way ? Nothing prevents a plane to still "sends" it's weight on the ground (and that's truly is), while the thing below them is just air ; same should apply for aether. Tell me, again, you believe in subatomic particles, and you also believe in aethers ? Weird story.

And please tell me about star formation in terms of aether. Why we don't see "aether balls", why are they uniformly distributed ?

You confused definitions, all the time I was repeating dark matter/dark energy/aether/space pressure call it as you like. And you picked aether definition from 100 years ago when people had no idea about subatomic particles.

I am talking about SPACE PRESSURE, but I like the name "aether"

I am not sure if space pressure particles/aether can be moved or not. Maybe they are creating grid with nodes

and if you put atom in that space, you move few of those nodes/particles/aether just because atoms have volume.

Then those particles/aether/nodes are pushed or pulled by each other along grid lines (depends how they work) to make grid perfect again.

But this grid deformation creates pressure and the force that is pushing atoms and any other particle, of course with single atom it is not very interesting.

But if you put two or more atoms nearby then you will deform grid in way that grid particles/aether/nodes will push atoms to the center of your "construction" and you would be able to notice there is force between those atoms... some people (not seeing this grid with nodes) would scream atoms are pulling each other it is gravity, so they have to have mass!

While other interpretation is also possible... they may be pushed towards because of pressure of space particle/aether/grid nodes deformation.

Photon may look like particle surrounded by wave because it will deform grid while moving and space grid must be very elastic. Of course the more you stretch it the larger force/pressure is created between grid nodes.

[Aanker]

Anyway, my main question was more related to the whole 'diminishing returns' concept of accelerating towards the speed of light - shouldn't that affect whatever is moving on the ship?

(Clarification needed as it seems the discussion veered more into why not 0.9c + 0.2c = 1.1c, but I'm aware that at relativistic velocities you don't just add them together that way)

Edited June 3, 2015 by Aanker

[Kryten]

Velocity is relative. To the people on the ship, it might as well not be moving at all, and there'll be no noticeable effects.

[Dodgey]

Anyway, my main question was more related to the whole 'diminishing returns' concept of accelerating towards the speed of light - shouldn't that affect whatever is moving on the ship?

(Clarification needed as it seems the discussion veered more into why not 0.9c + 0.2c = 1.1c, but I'm aware that at relativistic velocities you don't just add them together that way)

I posted this on the second page but I'll post it here again incase you missed it, again I'm no expert.

To answer your question yes it does affect everything on the ship. My understanding of what would happen if you were impossibly close to the speed of light, say 1m/s slower, and moved or sneezed or whatever is nonexistent though I'm guessing if you were going that fast the universe might die from heart death before you can do anything.

In anycase here is my non-professional explanation of the impossibility of going faster than light.

The reason why going faster than the speed of light is considered impossible is due to time dilation. Time dilation is the affect of time slowing down due to either being in a gravetational field, such as the earth, or by traveling at a velocity relative to something else. So as you travel faster or deeper into a gravity well time appears to slow down for you, or another way of putting it is that the rest of the universe appears to speed up. So lets say that you are traveling along at 100m/s below the speed of light to an outside observer. Due to this immense speed time dilation makes it so that every second that passes for you a year passes for the outside observer (made up numbers, I think the discrepency would be larger but I'm no expert). Let's say that when you startred your journey your acceleration was 1m/s/s, now if you started thrusting with the same acceleration while traveling at 100m/s below the speed of light to you it would only take one second of thrusting to achieve 99m/s below the speed of light, however to the outside observer you have been thrusting for one year not one second. And as you travel faster the effects of time dilation become pronounced, so one second for you becomes two years for the observer. And we know that time dilation is a thing due to experiments done with identical clocks, one on the ground with another in an aircraft, the experiment showed that the one in the aircraft did run slower due to time dilation.

[Mr Shifty]

Anyway, my main question was more related to the whole 'diminishing returns' concept of accelerating towards the speed of light - shouldn't that affect whatever is moving on the ship?

To someone on the ship, there's no relative motion. Throwing a baseball in the "direction of travel" would be exactly like throwing a baseball on Earth. The relative speed between you and the baseball is, say 150 m/s. To an observer who sees your vessel hurtling by at 0.999999c, the baseball would actually take longer (because of time dilation) to travel a shorter distance (because of length contraction), so that its observed velocity, while slightly greater than the vessel's, would still be less than c.

- - - Updated - - -

So as you travel faster . . . time appears to slow down for you, or another way of putting it is that the rest of the universe appears to speed up.

This is actually incorrect. If person A is travelling 0.99c relative to stationary person B, and both could see the other's clocks, then person B would notice that person A's clock only ticks 14 seconds off while person A's clock ticks 100 seconds. BUT, it's perfectly valid to consider person A as stationary, so that person B is the one travelling at 0.99c. So person A would also see person B's clock tick 14 seconds for every 100 seconds on person A's clock. They each see the other's clock tick more slowly. This is what is meant by the paradox of time dilation. So, to someone on a vessel travelling near light speed relative to most of the matter in the universe, they'd actually see the rest of the universe evolve more slowly, not more quickly.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Mr Shifty

[LN400]

One problem here is that you say "dark matter/dark energy/aether/space pressure call it as you like". It is a lot like saying "car, walking, yellow, ghost, call it as you like".

Dark matter =\= dark energy.

Aether plays no part in any science.

Space pressure is not a scientific term.

In short, it's a potpourri of terms, half of them scientific, the other half not scientific and none of first 3 refer to the same thing. The 4th I'm not sure has any meaning at all.

As for the photon, it's neither strictly a particle nor strictly a wave. It is both, at the same time.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150302/ncomms7407/full/ncomms7407.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

And what's this idea about a grid? Any link to a scientific theory that describes such a grid?

[Darnok]

Anyway, my main question was more related to the whole 'diminishing returns' concept of accelerating towards the speed of light - shouldn't that affect whatever is moving on the ship?

(Clarification needed as it seems the discussion veered more into why not 0.9c + 0.2c = 1.1c, but I'm aware that at relativistic velocities you don't just add them together that way)

You are aware it was never tested?

I wonder what if we have two ships, one is travelling inside galaxy with 0.99c and other is outside of galaxy with zero speed relative to galaxy and galaxy is getting further away from him.

So if you would try to shoot laser beams between those ships then guy on 0.99c ship would never see it, while guy on ship that is not moving would be able to see it?

[Dodgey]

Mr Shifty I don't want to leave you in the dark but it's like 4:25 in the morning so I need to get to sleep, I'll reply once I have had a bit of a kip.

[ZetaX]

with zero speed relative to galaxy and galaxy is getting further away from him.

Apart from you ignoring a lot of established facts about relativity: how the heck is that quote supposed to work.

[Kryten]

You are aware it was never tested?

Time dilation has been tested dozens of times, see here for the most famous example.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kryten

[Darnok]

Space pressure is not a scientific term.

As for the photon, it's neither strictly a particle nor strictly a wave. It is both, at the same time.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150302/ncomms7407/full/ncomms7407.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=tumblr

And what's this idea about a grid? Any link to a scientific theory that describes such a grid?

Space pressure is not scientific term because science is focused around gravity and mass? But they are trying to make graceful transition towards space pressure using dark matter and dark energy and adding some magical dimension where both of them are stored.

As for photon look at my posts in this thread two of them should give you hint why photon maybe particle looking like wave because of errors in our tools we are using to measure it.

You can't think on your own without authority of others? How do you think new theories are created?

Someone had to think that things described by others are wrong

[Kryten]

You can't think on your own without authority of others? How do you think new theories are created?

Someone had to think that things described by others are wrong

You can't do that without having an understanding current theories, and a good idea what observations and experimental results you have. With all due respect, you blatantly aren't anywhere near to either.

[LN400]

To whoever think time dilation is purely theoretical or not true. The experiment linked to above and many others is a major reason why the theories of relativity are accepted by science.

The theories not only explain, they allow us to predict future events. When a theory predicts a future event and that event, when it finally happens, agrees with the prediction, then that's evidence in favour of the said theory. That's how theories are accepted. Are these theories flawless? Not a chance. We know for a fact they are not flawless but: They are the best we've got so far, alongside quantum theories. They have shown themselves to be the most reliable, most useful theories we have come up with. Physicists are still looking for even better theories. In fact, that's a job that is not likely to end. Confirmation is evidence but not proof. Only kind of proof that is accepted by science is counter proof, proof a theory is flat out wrong, that it completely fails to explain, utterly fails to predict, that the observation can not possibly be if the theory is right. That's when the theory is thrown out the window for good.

Again, the theories of relativity are not perfect, they have their shortcomings but they have still given us predictions of events that were indeed observed as described by the theories, with an accuracy no other theory has done better. So until a better theory comes along, they're the ones we go with.

They are still looking for a G.U.T. which would unite the most groundbreaking and important theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. If they find it, you bet the old theories are gone and no physicist will shed a tear.

[Darnok]

Apart from you ignoring a lot of established facts about relativity: how the heck is that quote supposed to work.

Just wrong use of words I was thinking about ship that is outside of galaxy and it is not moving at all ( I know in relation to what? ), but galaxy is running away from him.

[LN400]

You can't think on your own without authority of others? How do you think new theories are created?

Someone had to think that things described by others are wrong

You can not simply _think_ science is wrong. If you want to prove established science wrong then you absolutely need to prove it. Through experiments done in such a way that it is reproducable, meaning anyone with access to the same equipment can do the exact same experiment and get the same result as you got.

Edited June 3, 2015 by LN400
too late in the evening, wrong quote

[Darnok]

You can't do that without having an understanding current theories, and a good idea what observations and experimental results you have. With all due respect, you blatantly aren't anywhere near to either.

I know, I do understand them (not all, but most of them)... but if I want to simplify few things I have to start from scratch, I can't go further with fundamentally broken hypothesis (theory is something that was proven not only on paper, right?). And simplest thing I can think about is basic structure of universe, before we can say what is universe we should think about "what values can be stored in universe in plain/raw form".

Just like I was saying few posts before speed/velocity for me is construct (calculated from positions and vector of object in some imaginary time span) not a raw value stored by universe.

Same is mass and gravity, space pressure can replace it, from human perspective it works same between two objects we can measure force.

But grid with nodes is simpler than magical and not yet discovered force pulling object towards each other, I know about Higgs Boson, but its existence doesn't prove it does what Higgs claimed in his calculations.

And methodology of science saddens me because most of people is looking for answer for single question.

But they are forgetting that making experiment for example with Higgs Boson they are looking for things to confirm calculations from hypothesis, but you may at same time misinterpret results of experiment. At same time you can miss the real image of universe.

Also @LN400 saying that some hypothesis are faulty should lead you to conclusion that they may be fundamentally wrong.

It is like with basic math in school, if you get exercise a very clever one and few students is going to interpret them same exercise in very different way.

For example one of given values is 4 and you have to create right equation to solve it and you know that solution is 2:

√4 = 2

4 / 2 = 2

4 - 2 = 2

Who is right? We can't be sure, unless there is second part of exercise with different given value like 8 and correct answer is 4:

√8 = 2,82

8 / 2 = 4

8 - 2 = 6

so now you are sure who done it correct

But science in that kind of situation is doing something very wrong, some people are saying ok but

8 - 2*2 = 4

because it is special case just for this range of given values. Well in school you would fail that exam, but in science with right authority you may even get awarded

They don't even try to think that they made fundamentally wrong equation, they are shuffling ranges, values to create special case/exception for their hypothesis.

You can not simply _think_ science is wrong. If you want to prove established science wrong then you absolutely need to prove it. Through experiments done in such a way that it is reproducable, meaning anyone with access to the same equipment can do the exact same experiment and get the same result as you got.

I know, but first I need to imagine the right way?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Darnok

[SargeRho]

Explain why these "fundamentally wrong equations" work perfectly then.

[Kryten]

I'm just going to leave this here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect