heh
- Thread starter ruthless
- Start date
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Einstein:
Instead of answering the question, you ask another question. Cute. Unfortuntately for you, being a control system expert, I can tell you exactly why the laser is more accurate. And it relies on mathematics even moreso than a calculated trajectory. Without this math, that laser guided missile would actually have a higher error than a ballistic weapon. Do you really want the answer? (I don't think you will like it, and you will most certainly deny it.)
Please prove this... without using a stitch of mathematics. Go.
RMT
Instead of answering the question, you ask another question. Cute. Unfortuntately for you, being a control system expert, I can tell you exactly why the laser is more accurate. And it relies on mathematics even moreso than a calculated trajectory. Without this math, that laser guided missile would actually have a higher error than a ballistic weapon. Do you really want the answer? (I don't think you will like it, and you will most certainly deny it.)
Please prove this... without using a stitch of mathematics. Go.
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
In SR: Compared to all inertial frames of uniform motion of translation, not spinning and in a vacuum.
In SR the speed of light is not a simple relative scalar (speed) or vector (velocity). Its not relative to anything else. It is a fundamental aspect of how space and time become a unified spacetime.
Actually we're not traveling close to the speed of light. If that were the case we could easily detect it. In the real world where one travels near the speed of light one principle of SR will always be violated. We are not traveling in a vacuum.
Even in intergalactic space the average number of particles, if you include dark matter, is about 70p/m^3. That's an exceedingly thin "atmosphere", virtually a vacuum, when traveling in the low velocity limit. But it's quite dense when traveling near the speed of light. Because it would no longer be anything like a vacuum it would have an Index of Refraction. At some point we'd be traveling faster than the speed of light in that medium and we'd observe Cherenkov Radiation...as well as slamming into highly relativistic mass increased matter. We'd also notice that spacetime was warping, tending to a single dimensionless point containing all the mass-energy of the universe as v ---> c. It would be directly in front of us approaching us at a velocity tending to c.
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Not as meaningless as your question with regard to your assertion about mathematics. In fact, your question is downright uninformed as well as meaningless.
I am sure the people of Illinois will be happy to know that voting on things always results in the right answer. When did you plan to tell them? Before or after Blagojavich is removed from office?
If you cannot back your assertions about mathematics Einstein, just say so. It is not a crime to be ignorant.
RMT
joelos1111
Chrono Cadet
zzzzzzzzzz,boring thread as usual,sorry guys but i found no interesting stuff in anyone's conversation here so far,excuse if i was rude but i feel that way,take care ya`ll /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
ruthless
Rift Surfer
for instance, you can use math to plot out the trajectory and everything else involved in jumping a car over 12 other cars, but only dumb luck can get you to press the button that blows everything up in the middle at just the right time. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
i also hear math cannot achieve perfection, but dumb luck can. :D
i also hear math cannot achieve perfection, but dumb luck can. :D
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Hi Darby
Sorry to get you involved. But Rainman is not interested in my opinion. He's more interested in trashing anyone's opinion that doesn't coincide with his own. A very selfish and disrespectful attitude toward his fellow man in my opinion.
But anyway my original statement "Let's face it RMT, dumb luck will outpace mathematics hands down any old day of the week." was mainly intended as bait for rainman. You may have noticed he and I seem to have a difference of opinion more often than not. I suspected rainman's passion for mathematics might goad him into taking the bait. It worked. It was just a little neighborly game of kick the dog.
So Rainman, I know you are reading this too. GOTCHA!
Sorry to get you involved. But Rainman is not interested in my opinion. He's more interested in trashing anyone's opinion that doesn't coincide with his own. A very selfish and disrespectful attitude toward his fellow man in my opinion.
But anyway my original statement "Let's face it RMT, dumb luck will outpace mathematics hands down any old day of the week." was mainly intended as bait for rainman. You may have noticed he and I seem to have a difference of opinion more often than not. I suspected rainman's passion for mathematics might goad him into taking the bait. It worked. It was just a little neighborly game of kick the dog.
So Rainman, I know you are reading this too. GOTCHA!
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
Correct. I am interested in facts and evidence for wild claims.
Incorrect. It is not merely my opinion that math (the proper math) can effectively model reality. It is a verified fact. Contrarily, it is merely your biased opinion that math is a dead end.
And statements of your own personal judgments against others reveal how much you rely on your own opinions rather than seeking out verifiable facts.
And if someone were to make a personal judgment about this kind of behavior, what do you think it would say about the person acting in such a manner?
<font color="red"> “The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity†- Andre Gide[/COLOR]
RMT
Einstein2087
Chrono Cadet
Would you mind explaining WHY you did such a childish thing?
Einstein2087
Chrono Cadet
Darby, in this specific case Einstein was 100% right, so why are you bashing him? That's not very scientific of you.
Ruthless specifically asked about a vehicle travelling AT the speed of light. And if you try to apply the equations to a reference frame whose v=c, then you'll get Einstein's answer: At the speed of light time stops, and the vehicle would have an infinite mass.
Of-course, these absurd conclusions are precisely the reason the light-speed travel is impossible within the context of relativity. The Lorentz Transformation breaks down when you put v=c in it.
So basically, we have two possibilities:
1. Relativity is a 100% accurate description of reality. In this case, the correct answer to ruthless' question would be: "Travelling at the speed-of-light is a logical absurdity. Asking what a person travelling at the speed of light would see, is like asking what an even prime number greater than 2 looks like... It's a logical impossibility."
2. Relativity breaks down at some point. In this case, it is obvious that a vehicle travelling at v=c would be one of the situations in which relativity breaks down. So the answer to ruthless' question would simply be "nobody knows".
Either way, there's little point of using the relativistic speed-addition formula as you did. That equation is based on the Lorentz Transformation, and you simply can't use the LT when v=c (because gamma becomes infinite)
Darby
Epochal Historian
2087,
But on the serious side...
He wasn't 100% correct in his reply.
"But since it is traveling at the speed of light. Time on board the vehicle is standing still."
That's incorrect. Time "on board the vehicle" would proceed WRT the passenger normally. The LR is given WRT the relatively accelerated frame, not from the perspective of the at rest observer's frame (on board the vehicle in this case).
"And the vehicle has to have infinite mass."
That's only correct from the perspective of an at rest observer who attempts to measure the mass of the accelerated vehicle. Inside the vehicle there is no detectable change.
"So turning on the headlights at the speed of light would take an infinite amount of time WRT the rest frame it originated from."
That's incorrect. WRT the frame where the light originated (the vehicle) the proper time to turn on the lights would be no different than any other at rest frame. *Click* The lights are on. It would take an infinite amount of time as viewed from the at rest outside observer's frame.
All this game playing aside, Ruthless' original question was appropriate. In fact, Einstein (the real Dr. Albert Einstein) asked himself the same question while he was in high school. Pondering the answer led to his PhD and SR.
But on the serious side...
He wasn't 100% correct in his reply.
"But since it is traveling at the speed of light. Time on board the vehicle is standing still."
That's incorrect. Time "on board the vehicle" would proceed WRT the passenger normally. The LR is given WRT the relatively accelerated frame, not from the perspective of the at rest observer's frame (on board the vehicle in this case).
"And the vehicle has to have infinite mass."
That's only correct from the perspective of an at rest observer who attempts to measure the mass of the accelerated vehicle. Inside the vehicle there is no detectable change.
"So turning on the headlights at the speed of light would take an infinite amount of time WRT the rest frame it originated from."
That's incorrect. WRT the frame where the light originated (the vehicle) the proper time to turn on the lights would be no different than any other at rest frame. *Click* The lights are on. It would take an infinite amount of time as viewed from the at rest outside observer's frame.
All this game playing aside, Ruthless' original question was appropriate. In fact, Einstein (the real Dr. Albert Einstein) asked himself the same question while he was in high school. Pondering the answer led to his PhD and SR.
mr. ruthless when Einstein was developing his theory of special relativity he asked his friend Besso a question seemlier to yours. his was what if he was riding a light wave traveling the speed of light holding a mirror, what would he see? and like your question from his came the special theory relativity .
here's the definiton:
2. Physics. a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts: it consists of two principal parts. The theory dealing with uniform motion (special theory of relativity or special relativity) is based on the two postulates that physical laws have the same mathematical form when expressed in any inertial system, and the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source and will have the same value when measured by observers moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. Derivable from these postulates are the conclusions that there can be no motion at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum, mass increases as velocity increases, mass and energy are equivalent, and time is dependent on the relative motion of an observer measuring the time.
enjoy the pic
Now stand up and take several steps back, roughly 15 feet away
here's the definiton:
2. Physics. a theory, formulated essentially by Albert Einstein, that all motion must be defined relative to a frame of reference and that space and time are relative, rather than absolute concepts: it consists of two principal parts. The theory dealing with uniform motion (special theory of relativity or special relativity) is based on the two postulates that physical laws have the same mathematical form when expressed in any inertial system, and the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source and will have the same value when measured by observers moving with constant velocity with respect to each other. Derivable from these postulates are the conclusions that there can be no motion at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum, mass increases as velocity increases, mass and energy are equivalent, and time is dependent on the relative motion of an observer measuring the time.
enjoy the pic
Now stand up and take several steps back, roughly 15 feet away
Einstein2087
Chrono Cadet
Niether were you. So I guess you guys are even /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
The only correct reply to Ruthless' question, in the context of relativity, is:
"In the mathematical context fo relativity, travelling at the speed of light is a logical impossibility"
Einstein's reply, while inaccurate, at least captured the absurd nature of the situation. The time on board the vehicle would stop, relative to the outside universe. The mass of the vehicle, as measured from the outside universe, would be infinite.
Very true. Which is why he deserves a clear and accurate answer.
BTW if you want to answer Ruthless' question with the Lorentz Transformation, the speed-transformation formula is the last thing you should look for.
It's much more instructive to look at the spacetime transformations:
x'=gamma*(x-vt)
t'=gamma*(t-vx/c²)
Plug in v=c, and you get gamma = infinity, and so you get:
x'=infinity
t'=infinity
Which is all one needs to demonstrate the logical impossibility of the entire scenario, at least in the context of standard relativity. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Packerbacker
Quantum Scribe
My own slant on things:
1. There is no common dimension of time.
Every object has its own time path. Objects at rest relative to one another are traveling on parallel time paths which makes it seem as if there is a common dimension. The time path is a direction through hyperspace(or subspace).
2. While Minkowski's 3+1, x, y, z +t co-ordinate system was introduced three years after the STR, it appears that Einstein the Albert used it.
3. When applied to cosmology, Minkowski's system is an example of what has been called "the God's-eye viewpoint." It creates a big,
rectilinear "box". Cosmologists invariably use this view, for without it, how can they describe the universe as a whole?
4. The captain of a spaceship can continue to accelerate, as long as fuel allows, to and beyond the speed of light. But the catch is that an on board light speed measuring device will always show light speed to be 3x10^8 m/s faster than the ship (which can be considered to be at rest for the measurement). The ship can never reach light speed, as a cat cannot catch its' tail.
5. A distant observer, watching the spaceship through a telescope is limited, in information to electromagnetic energy emitted by the spaceship (practically). He sees the light from the ship progressively spread out in wavelength, that is, shift red ward. As the speed of the ship increases, the distant observer will see the frequency diminish through the infrared to invisibility. If an image of a clock were transmitted, the seconds would become longer and longer.
6. Relying on the Special Theory, he interprets this to mean that time on board the ship is slowing down, and it seems as if the mass is becoming larger and larger. But this is an inference because he actually has no knowledge about the mass nor any way of actually measuring it.
7. His conclusion is that the ship will never pass light speed. It does (relative to him) but he can't see it.
8. A hyperspatial diagram shows relative speeds as radial diversions of distinct time paths. At the speed of light (relative to the observer) the emitted light of the spaceship (always emitted at a 45 degree angle) will travel on a path parallel to the time path of the observer. Hence, he cannot see it. The time path of the spaceship has rotated 45 degrees.
9. Relying on the Special Theory, the observer concludes the results rotation correspond to a dimensional rotation of the spaceship. Unknown to him, it is the time path (or individual time dimension) which has rotated.
10. There is no common dimension of time, but for certain conditions, such as measurements of the distant stars which seem to have very little perceptible motion, the Minkowski coordinate system is useful.
11. The problem lies not in the math, but the assumption that the observer's frame of reference can be projected onto the moving spaceship.
In its' own way, a very subtle misinterpretation has occurred due to the limitations of the 3+1 classical perspective.
12. Warp speed, Scotty!
1. There is no common dimension of time.
Every object has its own time path. Objects at rest relative to one another are traveling on parallel time paths which makes it seem as if there is a common dimension. The time path is a direction through hyperspace(or subspace).
2. While Minkowski's 3+1, x, y, z +t co-ordinate system was introduced three years after the STR, it appears that Einstein the Albert used it.
3. When applied to cosmology, Minkowski's system is an example of what has been called "the God's-eye viewpoint." It creates a big,
rectilinear "box". Cosmologists invariably use this view, for without it, how can they describe the universe as a whole?
4. The captain of a spaceship can continue to accelerate, as long as fuel allows, to and beyond the speed of light. But the catch is that an on board light speed measuring device will always show light speed to be 3x10^8 m/s faster than the ship (which can be considered to be at rest for the measurement). The ship can never reach light speed, as a cat cannot catch its' tail.
5. A distant observer, watching the spaceship through a telescope is limited, in information to electromagnetic energy emitted by the spaceship (practically). He sees the light from the ship progressively spread out in wavelength, that is, shift red ward. As the speed of the ship increases, the distant observer will see the frequency diminish through the infrared to invisibility. If an image of a clock were transmitted, the seconds would become longer and longer.
6. Relying on the Special Theory, he interprets this to mean that time on board the ship is slowing down, and it seems as if the mass is becoming larger and larger. But this is an inference because he actually has no knowledge about the mass nor any way of actually measuring it.
7. His conclusion is that the ship will never pass light speed. It does (relative to him) but he can't see it.
8. A hyperspatial diagram shows relative speeds as radial diversions of distinct time paths. At the speed of light (relative to the observer) the emitted light of the spaceship (always emitted at a 45 degree angle) will travel on a path parallel to the time path of the observer. Hence, he cannot see it. The time path of the spaceship has rotated 45 degrees.
9. Relying on the Special Theory, the observer concludes the results rotation correspond to a dimensional rotation of the spaceship. Unknown to him, it is the time path (or individual time dimension) which has rotated.
10. There is no common dimension of time, but for certain conditions, such as measurements of the distant stars which seem to have very little perceptible motion, the Minkowski coordinate system is useful.
11. The problem lies not in the math, but the assumption that the observer's frame of reference can be projected onto the moving spaceship.
In its' own way, a very subtle misinterpretation has occurred due to the limitations of the 3+1 classical perspective.
12. Warp speed, Scotty!