• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Weirdness

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 473
  • Start date Start date
I never said it did in relativity. It's the perceived order of events that is wrong in classical mechanics. We can calculate back to the real order of events.
No, that's what started this all off. In Newtonian mechanics the speed of light is constant relative to the æther, and causality is maintained. It was only in your postulated system where the speed of light is c+v that it all got weird.

So where is the middle as it passes you? In your scenario, light from the middle will already have passed you when light from the ends arrives.
Does that matter when you are trying to measure the distance between the ends?

Why don't you quote with link-backs?
One doesn't need to when responding directly to the post above. As you see, I do frequently - but for some reason I am trying to find out, EP posts quotes and edits the "quote=" tag qualifier. If a reader wanted to refer back to the quoted post, it could be difficult to find. It's not good for traceability. The only excuse I can think of is that if a reader has decided to "ignore" a specific user, they don't see posts from that user or quotes of their posts either.
 
By the way: relativity (special or general) isn't weird, neither is classical mechanics. Quantum theory is weird.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics" (generally attributed to Feynman)
 
No, that's what started this all off. In Newtonian mechanics the speed of light is constant relative to the æther, and causality is maintained.

But things can exceed the speed of light and then they appear to be travelling backwards in time when you view them. You have to calculate where an object was at each time and then, I agree, the order in which things happen is invariant. That isn't what Captain Kirk will see on the bridge of the USS Enterprise, though.

Causality? Do you believe in that? The mathematics knows nothing about causality, it is a philosopher's idea.
 
I used "causality" to express the correct order of events. The light does not leave the site of a collision until the collision has taken place.

But things can exceed the speed of light and then they appear to be travelling backwards in time when you view them.
I give up! Where do you get your physics from - TV science fiction? Yes, if something was coming towards you faster than light could travel, in classical physics you might see the light it emitted when it was close to you before the light it emitted when it was further away (and therefore earlier in time). That's a big "if" though. Classical physics was constructed when the speed of light was thought of as infinite.

(I really do give up. If somebody is determined to believe something there is nothing one can do to prove otherwise, and that works both ways!)
 
I used "causality" to express the correct order of events. The light does not leave the site of a collision until the collision has taken place.

I give up! Where do you get your physics from - TV science fiction?

(I really do give up. If somebody is determined to believe something there is nothing one can do to prove otherwise.)

So you think you know more about everything than experts in the field? Interesting!

Believing that in classical mechanics we see things in reverse, if something travels past at twice the speed of light, is not a belief, it is a fact. Look at the non-relativistic time diagram. I drew it earlier. I repeat: the order we see is not the order that actually happened in classical mechanics.
 
Perhaps, Black Hole, you should read this web site fully and then you might understand. That is the kindest suggestion I can think of at the moment.

http://www.spacetimetravel.org/

Not believing what the head of a physics institute at a German university writes, and what has been common knowledge for some time, sounds weird.

http://www.uni-hildesheim.de/fb4/institute/institut-fuer-physik/mitglieder/prof-dr-ute-kraus/

Or perhaps even Roger Penrose is not eminent enough to satisfy you?

[Edited to be less confrontational.]
 
I am not taking sides but why don't you join me in taking the following free seven week course on the "The discovery of the Higgs boson"
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/higgs
Find out more about particle physics and understanding the universe. It is only week 2 so there is still time if you go at the speed of light!
 
If you want weird, weird is that if you were able to somehow vanish the Sun instantaneously, Pluto would continue to orbit the non-existent Sun for a good any hours
 
General relativity says a gravitational field is the warping of space by a mass (frequently imagined as a rubber sheet 2D analogy). Ripples in the sheet are gravitational waves, and travel at c. Remove the Sun and the gravitational well it ceases to create will only propagate out at c, to the effect will only reach the orbit of Pluto up to 7 hours later.

On the other hand, quantum gravity would have that the force of gravity is mediated by graviton particles, and they also have a flight time. I have much greater difficulty comprehending quantum forces, at least one can imagine the equivalent of a rubber sheet.

Just as the wave/particle "duality" of photons can be explained as different mathematical simplifications of the same underlying physics not properly understood (the wave version provides useful results in some situations, the particle model serves better in others), I anticipate that gravitational fields and gravitons will similarly eventually resolve as alternative solutions of the same underlying physics.

However, "common sense" would lead one to expect that if the "string" holding a body in orbit were suddenly let go, the body would instantly resume a straight line trajectory in accordance with Newton's First Law.
 
What is the speed of gravity then?


Very precise measurements confirm that the Earth is accelerated towards where the Sun is now and not where it appeared to be when light arrived. The evidence is that the speed of gravity is some ten orders of magnitude more than the speed of light. Non fact! :p

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3232-first-speed-of-gravity-measurement-revealed.html

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gravity/overview.php

You should have asked how long would it take to remove the sun, and how?
 
Does that matter when you are trying to measure the distance between the ends?

It does, if you are trying to decide when it is level with you, but your argument is irrelevant. Only at that point do you see the Lorentz contraction. At all other times you see the object elongated or shrunk even further. Even when the object passes you, it looks distorted and not at all what it looks like in the old textbooks, as its centre is in the wrong place, not appearing equidistant from its ends. (I can't be bothered to work out how long it appears when its middle appears to be opposite you.)

Solid objects appear even more distorted. A car passing you will appear to be turned away from you. But a sphere always looks like a sphere, although its surface will look distorted and you will not see what you would expect of that surface.
 
Classical physics was constructed when the speed of light was thought of as infinite.

1675 Ole Roemer: 200,000 Km/sec


In 1675, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer noticed, while observing Jupiter's moons, that the times of the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter seemed to depend on the relative positions of Jupiter and Earth. If Earth was close to Jupiter, the orbits of its moons appeared to speed up. If Earth was far from Jupiter, they seemed to slow down. Reasoning that the moons orbital velocities should not be affected by their separation, he deduced that the apparent change must be due to the extra time for light to travel when Earth was more distant from Jupiter. Using the commonly accepted value for the diameter of the Earth's orbit, he came to the conclusion that light must have traveled at 200,000 Km/s.
1728 James Bradley: 301,000 Km/s


In 1728 James Bradley, an English physicist, estimated the speed of light in vacuum to be around 301,000 km/s. He used stellar aberration to calculate the speed of light. Stellar aberration causes the apparent position of stars to change due to the motion of Earth around the sun. Stellar aberration is approximately the ratio of the speed that the earth orbits the sun to the speed of light. He knew the speed of Earth around the sun and he could also measure this stellar aberration angle. These two facts enabled him to calculate the speed of light in vacuum.


http://speed-light.info/measurement.htm#Ole_Roemer

Einstein's observations that the speed of light in a vacuum was a cosmic speed limit came as a revalation at the time. Classical physicists had assumed you could continue accelerating past it. They knew it wasn't infinite. It had been measured and was finite.
 
Back
Top