Post any thoughts or ideas here.
It would be a similar scenario. Consider that c is constant regardless of relative speed, opps looks like you have.Good question. My thought-experiment explanation of why time distorts as objects approach the spped of light:
Imagine a single particle of light bouncing back and forth between two points on a platform. The point of the viewer is a relatively motionless platform in space. As the platform with the point of light begins to move, the path of the particle of light becomes more and more horizontal. As the pythagorean theorem shows, the distance required to travel that triangular space is now longer than before, when the platform is stationary. And because the speed of light remains the same in all frames of reference, the time that is required for the light to travel that distance is more than before. Thus, the time distortion seen as anything approaches the speed of light.
This explains time distortion, but not space distortion, although I suspect that they are based on a similar thought process.
Be careful with feeling you understand it and how it was derived. I only have a very basic understanding of SR, and it is enough to reply to your questions.Yes. I underdstand the equation and how it is derived, but is there a theoretical or observable reason that it can be explained without an equation?
I'd suggest staying away from GR. It will only muddy the SR concepts jumping back and forth. I have no idea what GR intuition would be but it definitley is not as intuitive as SR.Okay, now Albert also talks about how anything can be refrenced as at absolute rest compared to other things. Such as a cup on a table. Everything moves around this cup. But now lets place the cup in the air 100 meters above the table. We still hold true the fact that the cup is at absolute rest, and we let go. Albert states that instead of saying gravity has effected the cup, he states the earth accelerates at upward at 9.8 m/s.
But then we have an explinaton that anything that has a push or pull cannot be at rest and then is therefore in motion and not in absolute rest. How does he institute this possibility of a explainable counter-effect of gravity?
That is a great way to describe it. I am beginning to piece this together. Thank YouBe careful with feeling you understand it and how it was derived.
I suggest thinking about what speed really means. From there consider how there is a maximum speed, and that all inertial observers measure it to be the same.
distance / time
whether staying at rest relative to me or if you travel at 0.5c relative to me, you will always have the same proper time. your time measurement appears the same to you. To me, your proper time appears dilated (slow). I know that your calculation of the value of c will be the same as me. I have to conclude that in addition to your proper time being dilated, your measurement of distance is effected as well.
An easy way to visualize it is to imagine you are piloting a disco ball ship in space at some speed close to c relative to me.
you emit a "pulse" of light in all directions around you.
Because c is constant, your perspective will be that the light around you is all equal distance away from you (as in your ship is right in the middle of the light pulse circle) despite the fact that you are moving towards the light pulse infornt of you and away from the light pulse behind you.
However because c is constant, my perspective is the light you are traveling towards is less distance to you then the light you are travelling away from.
Sorry I don't.I agree. Also, do you know anything about what is said about the size of the universe? I was reading about how it is tied to the average density in the universe?