Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Another]

Actually what all those particle accelerators do is accelerating stuff to very close to speed of light. Electrons were brought to 0.999999999988 c with relativistic effects of about 200000 times the electron mass. Accelerating farther proves to be exactly as difficult as predicted by Special Relativity. (And GPS system working with current precision proves General Relativity equations are correct at least to some initial degree. There are specialized experiments of course but "science at work" is hard to argue against.)

[TSTwizby]

Easy to argue against, just hard to be correct against.

[10ebbor10]

Actually what all those particle accelerators do is accelerating stuff to very close to speed of light. Electrons were brought to 0.999999999988 c with relativistic effects of about 200000 times the electron mass. Accelerating farther proves to be exactly as difficult as predicted by Special Relativity. (And GPS system working with current precision proves General Relativity equations are correct at least to some initial degree. There are specialized experiments of course but "science at work" is hard to argue against.)

It's interesting to note that all older GPS sattelites are equiped with a switch to turn off said compensation. Apparently not everyone was sure if Eistein was right.

[Another]

...Apparently not everyone was sure if Eistein was right.

Thank you for underlining just what is great about the GPS argument.

[LARD]

How fast would a falling object accelerate in a vacuum?

[kaijyuu]

How fast would a falling object accelerate in a vacuum?

Depends on the gravitational force being applied to it. Which depends on the mass of the object that's drawing it in, the distance between them...

[Grek]

Specifically:

Acceleration due to gravity equals the Gravitational Constant G (6.674 * 10⁻¹¹) times the Mass of the attracting object in kilograms divided by the square of the distance between you and the center of that object's mass in meters.

[Eagle_eye]

A slightly related question that I feel probably fits in best here: If velocity is all relative, how do we define C? If you have two objects moving away from each other at .8 c, how do we say that's different from one stationary object and one going 1.6 c? What's the frame of reference for relativistic effects of near light speed, in other words?

[Karlito]

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames. If you see me traveling past you at .9c to the right and I turn on a flashlight and shine it to the right, you see the light traveling at c to the right (.1c faster than I'm going). From my point of view, the light from the flashlight is also traveling at c away from me. That's why the symbol for the speed of light is c, it's constant in all reference frames.

Let's look at your example. From your frame of reference, you observe yourself standing still, me traveling to the left at .8c, and my brother traveling to the right at .8c. However, in my frame of reference, I observe myself standing still, you traveling to the right at .8c, and my brother traveling to the right at .976c (not 1.6c). This is because relativisic velocities don't add together in the same way as lower speeds.

[10ebbor10]

Specifically:

Acceleration due to gravity equals the Gravitational Constant G (6.674 * 10⁻¹¹) times the Mass of the attracting object in kilograms divided by the square of the distance between you and the center of that object's mass in meters.

Which might or might not be correct. There are some who say that at extremely low gravity strength, you only divide by the distance, instead of distance squared.

Link.

It's another explanation after Dark matter was found not to be where it was supposed to be.

[MonkeyHead]

Herp Derp, didnt read the post above and made the same statement about MOND.