Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am
Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.
Of course if there was a clock attached on Rock 1 and Rock 2 it would have ticked faster, because reasons not explained. Along with all physical processes that would also have been slowed down with exactly the same %. A person travelling with Rock 1 would have had all his bodily function slowed down, yet he would not have observed this, and would not have any problem with it. Slowed down by unkonwn and unexplained forces.This means more time would have been recorded by the clock on the Rock 1 and 2, this means that somehow their speed would not have gone beyond 300000km/s. Cool ,but who cares. This is already magic land.
-
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm
Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.
What? So the answer to long distance space sleep travel is it to just go faster?
What is the fastest a Clock as traveled that we know of empirically.
What is the fastest a Clock as traveled that we know of empirically.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:35 am
Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.
For the purpose of not breaking the speed limit clocks need to slow down at high speeds... This means more "time" has passed, this means less speed! No physical explanation given. And then the aberation grows. Time becomes a phyisical object that can stretch and bend, it's not just our count of a cyclical process. In fact it's not the clock that ticked slower, time itself was "passing slower", slowing all processes on board, keeping people younger (Twins paradox), etc.
All this - just to not break the speed limit, even when we are just adding 2 perfectly legal mainstream speeds.
If clocks should slow down at high speed does that mean less time passes, so distance/time (speed) increases in fact? And if "speed" increases, clocks slow down even more. Confusion forever. Nevermind.
I can't tell a relativist - that I have object X moving at 270000km/s in regards to object Y, he will say I need to add their speeds "relatively". Even if I just said the speed of X in relation to Y. In fact I cannot even be allowed to set this as a given in any mental experiment, I need to use the law of composition of velocities - to obtain another velocity. I just want object X moving at 270000km/s in relation to object Y - but not, cannot have that just like that...
All this - just to not break the speed limit, even when we are just adding 2 perfectly legal mainstream speeds.
If clocks should slow down at high speed does that mean less time passes, so distance/time (speed) increases in fact? And if "speed" increases, clocks slow down even more. Confusion forever. Nevermind.
I can't tell a relativist - that I have object X moving at 270000km/s in regards to object Y, he will say I need to add their speeds "relatively". Even if I just said the speed of X in relation to Y. In fact I cannot even be allowed to set this as a given in any mental experiment, I need to use the law of composition of velocities - to obtain another velocity. I just want object X moving at 270000km/s in relation to object Y - but not, cannot have that just like that...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests