Recent content by ryuunoseika

ok, i think i get where he's going wrong now... he says that if two objects are moving at different speeds, but not accelerating relative to each other then they are experiencing the same time and that only when one accelerates or decelerates relative to the other does time dilation become a...

i think I've figured out your problem! you're making the fundamental error! the error that sparked relativity in the first place: if you travel east at 1/2 the speed of light and your shine a flashlight pointing east then the light coming out of the flashlight is traveling at 3/2 the speed of...

i still don't completely understand your logic, but i think i should point out now that waves of matter can't travel through a vacuum because of what they are, waves of matter. Matter is not a vacuum. Vacuums are the absence of matter. Waves traveling through matter are not traveling through a...

My friend still refuses to accept that he's wrong. I've been trying to explain it for two hours, maybe you can explain it to him better than i can. He claims the clocks should be the same because they haven't accelerated or decelerated thus they're still in the same inertial reference frame...

Thank you, i just won $10.

Think about the ultimate final result of the two gravitating particles: they would ultimately collide and, provided that they are perfectly ellastic, bounce back to their original starting potential then fall again. They would repeat this pattern forever, and thus, at any point in time they...

According to an observer that perceives B as stationary.

This is all true, even without relativity. Heliocentric models are simply preferred because they are mathematically simpler. I dare you to try at calculating the orbit of jupiters moons in a geocentric model.

Help me settle an argument: Say you have two clocks, one moving at 2/3 the speed of light (for explantory purposes called "A") and another at rest ("B"). Which clocks tics faster?

No, no, i understand that acceleration is a term for change in velocity over change in time, and that velocity is merely the derivative of an acceleration function. All i did was poorly phrase my question; i was very tired when i posted it and, admittedly, not of sound mind. I was think in...

Very good point, so assuming friction only started after they reached the bottom of the slope and the force was equal on both balls, i'd say they'd both travel the same distance.

Nvm, no one understands what I am saying. I didnt really phrase it right.

I realize it would be making a wormhole, but couldn't it be perceived as one? To an outside observer the accelerating object would appear to be increasing in mass due to its energy, which at this point would be infinite.

Neither you nor the teacher are seeing the whole picture: inertia both keeps the ball from rolling when gravity first starts pulling on the heavier object it and keeps it rolling when it reaches the bottom of the hill. Both marbles travel the same distance.

Can the speed of light be broken using vectors? Why not? Where does the Lorentz Transformation come into play? E.g. I accelerate to 3/4 the speed of light North and then to 3/4 the speed of light East. Am I traveling faster than the speed of light at 45 degrees North-East?