Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
M
mstCrone
Unregistered
mstCrone
Unregistered
M
I don't know about you, but science had 100 years to disprove Einstein, and it didn't happen

So I like this:

Faster than Light (http://toph.synthasite.com)

Srdjan introduces a postulate that 'Change in clock speed of a moving object is ... proportional to probability that time can be measured equally in all frames of reference...'

I like the analogy with Heisenberg (see link above)

To make the long story short, everything near Earth (or very large masses for that matter) experiences relativistic effects. Also anything that's really small does too. Light can't go faster either.

This is why all experiments we ever did WORKED!! But theory says if we move away from earth, it should not be so!

But more massive objects far from large bodies can go faster than light, and all they need is to have more thrust.
Far away galaxies may not just APPEAR to move faster than light, they may ACTUALLY move faster than light, and this is very neatly explained...

There is much info on web site, I looked at some classic relativistic issues such as spaceship passing by, time travel paradox, doppler effect, magnetism...

Not only that, but relativistic effect is not symmetrical: smaller masses are affected more, while larger masses are affected less.

I am excited about this, because this is the VERY first theory I saw that doesn't try to find a flaw in Einstein equations, which have been tested for 100 or so years.

Rather it gives a postulate, which just makes velocity v in famous (1-v^2/c^2)^-1/2 smaller - because it says that two frames of reference are only equal if MEASURING TIME IN BOTH FRAMES HAS EQUAL PROBABILITY

I like this a lot

.
S
srdjan
Unregistered
srdjan
Unregistered
S
Thanks, I guess I just started putting my theory out
Didn't expect you to make a post a day after I showed it to you!

I believe changes in time are not the same to everyone. If something that happens doesn't stand a theoretical chance of having its exact moment measured in time, then we have a problem.

If one observer can measure time of such event to 1/10000th of a second and the other can measure time of the same event only to a 1/10th of a second, then these the observers are not the SAME!

The frames of reference can be equal only if they can measure time equally.

And measuring time has its limits, theoretical ones, this is not about building a better clock.





Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5