View Full Version : 100 Years Ago Today
Napoleon
09-27-05, 08:39 PM
E = MC(squared)
That is what this article actually says if you simplify the math. Amazing that this could be contained in an article so short.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
oddlycalm
09-27-05, 10:44 PM
Amazing stuff. Can you imagine how badly he bent the minds of the scientific community of the day? He got off easy, being that far ahead of your time is often been rewarded by persecution or worse. ;)
oc
heh, Al was a ladies man too :D
Lizzerd
09-28-05, 01:07 AM
I've likely forgotten some stuff since I had a professor showing me that stuff 25+ years ago, but I believe that explains Al's theory of General Relativity rather than Special Relativity.
Like I said, the mind has deteriorated since that time, but the General theory says that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light, and that time slows on a moving object. The latter being proven with many experiments in the labs and in nature.
Special relativity, E=mc**2 was proven with atom bombs.
I repeat, I've slept since The Dead Man (as we called him), Dr. Meeks, was scrawling the same stuff on a chalkboard.
Interesting stuff for geeks, though. Thanks, Nappy!
eiregosod
09-28-05, 04:57 AM
that is an amazing result , the special theory of relativity. to consider the change in energy and hbecause of the speed of light being equal for all observers that he Einstein was able to conclude that E=mc^2 . nits not exactly mc^2 because he makes an assumption that simplifies the K0-K1 equation
that is an amazing result , the special theory of relativity. to consider the change in energy and hbecause of the speed of light being equal for all observers that he Einstein was able to conclude that E=mc^2 . nits not exactly mc^2 because he makes an assumption that simplifies the K0-K1 equation
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD!
devilmaster
09-28-05, 10:39 AM
So to simplify, if it takes an ever increasing amount of energy to accelerate an object closer to the speed of light, how do warp bubbles fit into all of this? ;)
:runs:
RacinM3
09-28-05, 12:46 PM
How can I use this to drive faster?
devilmaster
09-28-05, 02:17 PM
well, first you have to get your hands on a flux capacitor......
RacinM3
09-28-05, 03:45 PM
I said drive faster. Not go back to yesterday.
devilmaster
09-28-05, 04:31 PM
Aha! But one of the realizations of his theory is that time and length are relative....
A simple[hopefully] analogy. Imagine your M3 is sitting on the surface of the sun. In an instant, you drive away from the sun at the speed of light. since you are going at the speed of light, and you look back at the sun, what would you see?
You would either see the sun at the last moment in time before you drove away, the view frozen as it was at that moment, or everything would be dark. (if you travel the same speed as light, new pictures cannot reach your eyes, as you are travelling the same speed as the outside light entering your eye.)
Now say you drive to earth in 7.5 minutes or whatever it takes for light to reach earth. Once you stop, you will now see the light that couldn't pass you on your trip. In essence, you have time traveled. For 7.5 minutes, you drove from the sun to the earth at the speed of light. When you stop, for the next 7.5 minutes, the light that couldn't reach you in your travel, now lights you. You have gained 7.5 minutes on the universe.
Simply speaking, if the sun were to go supernova right now.... it would take us 7.5 minutes before we'd know it.
someone please hurt him...
RacinM3
09-28-05, 07:28 PM
I get it Steve. I'm sure the speed of light would be sure to enable me to set some new track records, as well! :thumbup:
eiregosod
09-28-05, 08:04 PM
NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD!
an unaccredited nerd :(
Soooo.........
If I am in the above car with my girlfriend, do I get 7.5 minutes of peace and quiet, too??
bj's at lightspeed tend to get a bit sloppy...
Now say you drive to earth in 7.5 minutes or whatever it takes for light to reach earth. Once you stop, you will now see the light that couldn't pass you on your trip. In essence, you have time traveled. For 7.5 minutes, you drove from the sun to the earth at the speed of light. When you stop, for the next 7.5 minutes, the light that couldn't reach you in your travel, now lights you. You have gained 7.5 minutes on the universe.we'd know it.
Very cool.
Now about that warp bubble...is that the same theory described as a bubble gum bubble? You blow the bubble (shup, Ank :p ), then suck the bubble backwards (shup!) so it's the same in reverse, the same distance from the center point but on the opposite side?
devilmaster
09-28-05, 11:10 PM
someone please hurt him...
Hey rocket boy, I expect you should be leading this conversation.... seeing how you sorta worked for NASA and all..... :p
F that, my head hurts enough listening to Aggy at work :p besides, orbital space flight's all about Reimann Physics :gomer:
Lizzerd
09-30-05, 01:51 AM
Aha! But one of the realizations of his theory is that time and length are relative....
A simple[hopefully] analogy. Imagine your M3 is sitting on the surface of the sun. In an instant, you drive away from the sun at the speed of light. since you are going at the speed of light, and you look back at the sun, what would you see?
You would either see the sun at the last moment in time before you drove away, the view frozen as it was at that moment, or everything would be dark. (if you travel the same speed as light, new pictures cannot reach your eyes, as you are travelling the same speed as the outside light entering your eye.)
Now say you drive to earth in 7.5 minutes or whatever it takes for light to reach earth. Once you stop, you will now see the light that couldn't pass you on your trip. In essence, you have time traveled. For 7.5 minutes, you drove from the sun to the earth at the speed of light. When you stop, for the next 7.5 minutes, the light that couldn't reach you in your travel, now lights you. You have gained 7.5 minutes on the universe.
Simply speaking, if the sun were to go supernova right now.... it would take us 7.5 minutes before we'd know it.
Something else to consider...
If, at the moment you drove away from the sun instantly at the speed of light (which, this theory proves impossibe) you turned on your headlights, which are powerful enough to be seen on Earth. The light emitted from your high beams is running away from you from your frame of reference at the speed of light as well. So, the beam from your headlights then should be able to be seen on Earth at the time your are halfway there right? Nope. When you land on earth, nobody will have seen your headlights beaming for those 7.5 minutes. You would just be "there" with your headlights on.
^^^ Cool!! Sneak attack! :thumbup:
Something else to consider...
If, at the moment you drove away from the sun instantly at the speed of light (which, this theory proves impossibe) you turned on your headlights, which are powerful enough to be seen on Earth. The light emitted from your high beams is running away from you from your frame of reference at the speed of light as well. So, the beam from your headlights then should be able to be seen on Earth at the time your are halfway there right? Nope. When you land on earth, nobody will have seen your headlights beaming for those 7.5 minutes. You would just be "there" with your headlights on.
vo+v1 != vt ? vo=v1=vt=c :saywhat: my head hurts again :(
Something else to consider...
If, at the moment you drove away from the sun instantly at the speed of light (which, this theory proves impossibe) you turned on your headlights, which are powerful enough to be seen on Earth. The light emitted from your high beams is running away from you from your frame of reference at the speed of light as well. So, the beam from your headlights then should be able to be seen on Earth at the time your are halfway there right? Nope. When you land on earth, nobody will have seen your headlights beaming for those 7.5 minutes. You would just be "there" with your headlights on.
What if you drive away from the sun at half the speed of light with your left turn signal on?
devilmaster
09-30-05, 11:16 AM
What if you drive away from the sun at half the speed of light with your left turn signal on?
You'd be the universe equivalent of the old man that's driving around the world to the left..... And the one I usually try to drive off the road...... :D
devilmaster
09-30-05, 11:24 AM
Something else to consider...
If, at the moment you drove away from the sun instantly at the speed of light (which, this theory proves impossibe) you turned on your headlights, which are powerful enough to be seen on Earth. The light emitted from your high beams is running away from you from your frame of reference at the speed of light as well. So, the beam from your headlights then should be able to be seen on Earth at the time your are halfway there right? Nope. When you land on earth, nobody will have seen your headlights beaming for those 7.5 minutes. You would just be "there" with your headlights on.
I first read this last night after driving to toronto for a house concert and then driving back. nothing like an 8 hour drive for a two hour concert, but hey, the singer is an old friend - but i was waaaaay too tired to think along these lines.....
Anyways, here's something else to consider. Einstein figures that the speed of light is an absolute. Nothing can go faster than it. So for example, if you were driving at or near the speed of light, and you fired a gun, the bullet can't go faster than the speed of light. That's where Newton's laws failed. Newton always said that you can sum the two speeds of objects and get a higher speed from them. Einstein believes this isn't so.
I first read this last night after driving to toronto for a house concert and then driving back. nothing like an 8 hour drive for a two hour concert, but hey, the singer is an old friend - but i was waaaaay too tired to think along these lines.....
Anyways, here's something else to consider. Einstein figures that the speed of light is an absolute. Nothing can go faster than it. So for example, if you were driving at or near the speed of light, and you fired a gun, the bullet can't go faster than the speed of light. That's where Newton's laws failed. Newton always said that you can sum the two speeds of objects and get a higher speed from them. Einstein believes this isn't so.
OK, I am not up on my Einsteinian Physics (or Newtonian) for that matter, but would it be possible that at those speeds, space really isn't a vacuum as the photons flying around and plasma would act like an atmosphere and offer resistance. Therefore, the bullet coming out of the gun would be acted upon by the friction (opposing force) of space and immediately slow the bullet. Thereby keeping Newtons laws in effect. :confused:
eiregosod
09-30-05, 06:39 PM
OK, I am not up on my Einsteinian Physics (or Newtonian) for that matter, but would it be possible that at those speeds, space really isn't a vacuum as the photons flying around and plasma would act like an atmosphere and offer resistance. Therefore, the bullet coming out of the gun would be acted upon by the friction (opposing force) of space and immediately slow the bullet. Thereby keeping Newtons laws in effect. :confused:
Einstein's theory kicks in only when one is travelling at speeds very close to 3x10^8 m/s. Even when atomic clocks are sent into space that they lag behind 'stationary' clocks when they return to earth. Moving clocks run slow, nice excuse to give to the boss if you're late ;)
newton's laws describe motion pretty well. But when
Lizzerd
10-01-05, 04:13 AM
OK, I am not up on my Einsteinian Physics (or Newtonian) for that matter, but would it be possible that at those speeds, space really isn't a vacuum as the photons flying around and plasma would act like an atmosphere and offer resistance. Therefore, the bullet coming out of the gun would be acted upon by the friction (opposing force) of space and immediately slow the bullet. Thereby keeping Newtons laws in effect. :confused:
Friction isn't a variable here.
It's true that if you fire a bullet from a moving gun that the velocity of the bullet, with respect to a stationary observer, will be the velocity of the gun plus the velocity of the bullet from the gun. That's why fighter planes have guns. It is true, too, that the friction from the atmosphere would be relative to the velocity of the bullet relative to the stationary observer (in this case, the atmosphere).
Light, whether you consider it as particles (photons) or electomagnetic waves, both of which theorys have been proven, does not experience friction. The theory says that the speed of light is an absolute. Nothing can exceed it
Granted, if and object had sufficient energy to accelerate itself to the speed of light (also impossible), it would indeed have to overcome the friction of the occasional hydrogen atom in deep space, though.
Al sez it just ain't gonna happen. He was perty schmart. :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.