What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 59
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
there is speculation that scientists are getting very close to creating a neutrino detector, or rather a neutrino receiver. it may already exist since i read this article two years ago or more. the author of the article revealed the potential of neutrino communication in particular its great advantage in stock trading since it would be faster to send a quote to a receiver using neutrino communication than the internet since neutrinos can be transmitted
;))))
The newspapers have a section called "Jokes" -- funny jokes do crop up. That joke also comes from there.
Good for everything. You have to make measurements in such a way that the accuracy is sufficient. Derevsky explains this effect.
ten minutes after receiving the signal this astronomer sneezes. The special theory of relativity also lets us say without any restrictions that the astronomer sneezed after sending a signal from planet X.
Now suppose that at some point in time during the ten years when the radio signal was on its way to earth (say three years before the signal was received) the astronomer fell from his radio telescope and broke his leg. The special theory does not allow us to say without any restrictions that he broke his leg earlier or later than the signal from planet X was sent.
The proof is as follows. An observer leaving planet X at the time the signal is sent, travelling towards Earth at low speed if measured relative to Earth will find (according to his time measurements) that the astronomer broke his leg after the signal is sent. Of course, he would arrive on Earth long after the signal is received, perhaps centuries later. But when he calculates the date the signal was sent, it will be sooner than the date the astronomer broke his leg.
if the astronaut flies as fast as light travels (of course, this is just an assumption, not really possible) his watch would stop altogether he would think that the flight was instantaneous. from his point of view both the sending and receiving of the signal would be simultaneous. all the events on earth that occurred within ten years would appear to him to have happened before the signal was sent. but according to special theory there is no dedicated frame of reference. there is no reason to prefer the point of view of one observer to that of another.
Here is an excerpt from a textbook on the special theory of relativity for beginners. I really hope that after reading this you will agree that time is relative.
...
Well?
"...but according to the two basic postulates of the special theory of relativity (confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment) we can just as rightly assume that a train is at rest while the earth is rapidly running backwards under its wheels..."
Resting ABOUT WHAT...?
This example does not hold up to any criticism... It is not about the relativity of time, but about the differences in the results of perception of people and readings of devices that are in UNSUCCESSED PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.
At the moment when lightning flashed simultaneously in points A and B, each point of the surrounding space had some concrete value of all its parameters. The totality of states of all these points at that moment represents a kind of "INSTANT SIZE" of space. So, if the "snapshot" of space states at the moments of flashes of both MOLNES coincide, then they have happened simultaneously (and not relatively, but - TOTALLY simultaneously).
So much for your "relativity"...
Suppose someone on planet X in another part of our galaxy tries to communicate with the earth. he sends out a radio signal. this signal is of course an electromagnetic wave which travels through space at the speed of light. suppose that earth and planet X are separated by ten light years. this means that it takes ten years for the signal to reach earth. twelve years before the radio astronomer on earth receives the signal this astronomer is awarded the Nobel prize. special theory allows us to say
ten minutes after receiving the signal this astronomer sneezes. The special theory of relativity also lets us say without any restrictions that the astronomer sneezed after sending a signal from planet X.
Now suppose that at some point in time during the ten years when the radio signal was on its way to earth (say three years before the signal was received) the astronomer fell from his radio telescope and broke his leg. The special theory does not allow us to say without any restrictions that he broke his leg earlier or later than the signal from planet X was sent.
The proof is as follows. An observer leaving planet X at the time the signal is sent, travelling towards Earth at low speed if measured relative to Earth will find (according to his time measurements) that the astronomer broke his leg after the signal is sent. Of course, he would arrive on Earth long after the signal is received, perhaps centuries later. But when he calculates the date the signal was sent, it will be sooner than the date the astronomer broke his leg.
if the astronaut flies as fast as light travels (of course, this is just an assumption, not really possible) his watch would stop altogether he would think that the flight was instantaneous. from his point of view both the sending and receiving of the signal would be simultaneous. all the events on earth that occurred within ten years would appear to him to have happened before the signal was sent. but according to special theory there is no dedicated frame of reference. there is no reason to prefer the point of view of one observer to that of another.
Same story: substitution of the concept of "CLOCK SIGNS" with the concept of "TIME". And mistaking a decrease in the RATE of physical processes in moving systems for a slowing down of "TIME", without even adopting a definition for that term...
;))))
There's a section in the newspaper called "Jokes" - funny jokes come up all the time. That joke also comes from there.
Today's science is all a big joke.
We should create an alternative academic science.
"...but according to the two basic postulates of the special theory of relativity (confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment) we can just as rightly assume that the train is at rest while the earth is rapidly running backwards under its wheels..."
Resting ABOUT WHAT...?
This example does not hold up to any criticism... It is not about the relativity of time, but about the differences in the results of perception of people and readings of devices that are in UNIQUE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS.
At the moment when lightning flashed simultaneously in points A and B, each point of the surrounding space had some concrete value of all its parameters. The totality of states of all these points at that moment represents a kind of "INSTANT SIZE" of space. So, if the "snapshot" of space states at the moments of flashes of both MOLNES coincide, then they have happened simultaneously (and not relatively, but - TOTALLY simultaneously).
So much for your "relativity"...
The sum of the states of all these points at that moment represents a kind of "INSTANT SIZE" of space. So, if the "snapshot" of a condition of space at the moments of flashes of both MOLNES coincide, they have happened simultaneously (and, not relatively, but - TOTALLY simultaneously). I absolutely agree if to consider a picture or a picture from position of the third observer M2 or if to observe concerning the third system of readout and it is not important it is at rest concerning the earth or a train. but i think we were talking about two observers M0 and M1. if you try to exclude the third observer M2 and start taking measurements from the position of observer M0 or M1 you will discover the very effects i mentioned. in this example there are only two reference frames, namely the moving train M1 and the ground with lightning M0.
I'll answer your question about a resting train. In the second case, the train is resting relative to the earth.
let's imagine two spaceships A and B. let there be nothing in space but these two ships. they move towards each other with constant speed. is there any way for the astronauts on either of these ships to decide which of the following three cases is true or absolute:
1) ship A is at rest. ship B is moving.
2) ship B is at rest. ship A is moving
3) both ships are moving.
Einstein gives the following answer. there is no such way. the astronaut on either ship may if he chooses ship A as the stationary reference frame. there are no experiments including experiments with light or any other electrical or magnetic phenomena that would prove this choice wrong. the same is true if he chooses ship B as the stationary reference frame. If he prefers to consider both ships moving he simply chooses a stationary reference frame outside the ships, the point relative to which both ships are in motion. it is not necessary to question which of these choices is correct and which is not. to speak of absolute motion of either ship is to speak of something that does not make sense. the only real thing is relative motion resulting in the ships approaching at a constant speed.
The totality of states of all these points at that moment represents a kind of "IMMEDIATE snapshot" of space. So, if the "snapshot" of the state of space at the moments of flashes of both MOLNES coincide, then they have happened simultaneously (and not relatively, but absolutely simultaneously). I absolutely agree if to consider a picture or a picture from the position of the third observer M2 or if to observe relative to the third reference frame and it does not matter if it rests relative to the ground or a train...
"...from the position of the third observer M2..." - all the problems with this approach to the question are BECAUSE of the observers.
And I am talking about SPACE.
" Amomentary snapshot" of space is to be understood as the ACTUAL STATUS OF POINT PARAMETERS,INDEPENDENT OF THE VISITORS' PERception. I think you admit that SPACE could REALLY not care about all observers put together.
imagine two spaceships A and B. let there is nothing in space but these two ships. they move towards each other at a constant speed. is there any way the astronauts on either ship can decide which of the following three cases is true or absolute
1) ship A is at rest. ship B is moving.
2) ship B is at rest. ship A is moving
3) both ships are moving.
Einstein gives the following answer. no there is no such way. the astronaut on either ship can if he wants choose ship A as the stationary frame of reference. there are no experiments including experiments with light or any other electrical or magnetic phenomena that would prove this choice wrong. the same is true if he chooses ship B as the stationary frame of reference. If he prefers to consider both ships moving he simply chooses a stationary reference frame outside the ships point of reference relative to which both ships are in motion.
Now - about the ships.
Take your two ships. Put them at the same point. Synchronize their clocks... ...and send them off in opposing directions in a huge circle.
After N years... the two ships meet at one point on this circular trajectory... and the astronauts - put their watches on the table.
Question, is it possible to determine from the readings of this clock whether the speeds of the ships were the same, or one of them was moving faster than the other?
If it doesn't make sense to talk about absolute motion, it doesn't make sense to talk about absolute time either. it's that simple to understand.
If it doesn't make sense to talk about absolute motion, it doesn't make sense to talk about absolute time. it's so easy to understand.
Just in case - duplicate:
"Now, about the ships.
Take your two ships. Put them at the same point. Synchronize their clocks... ...and send them in opposite directions in a huge circle.
After N years... the two ships meet at one point on this circular path... and the astronauts - put their watches on the table.
The question is, can you tell from these clocks whether the speeds of the ships were the same, or whether one of them was moving faster than the other? "