First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang (page 8)

Viviane

I think that "all the evidence points to" that I have finally made my point to you on that.
That is all that I mean by that.

I've no idea what your point is, so, no... not really...

I presume that you are trying to suggest that I don't know the meaning of the word documented, however, I was responding to the use in your initial post of the words documenting and reporting. The use of these words is intended to give the reader of your post the impression that the bible writers were unbiased reporters. The facts are that the bible writers were not reporters hence the widely dissimilar writing styles throughout the book. You are also ignoring the vast amount of time that the stories presented were passed on verbally and the length of time between the events happening and the time of writing.

I assume your difficulty in comprehending this is perhaps understandable given the poor writing, woeful grammar and incomprehensible sentence structure in the second part of your response to me.

There are a number of differences in the way that Newtonian physics and relativity work. Newtonian physics works very well for physics as we experience them here on earth, so much so that they are still used by engineers and physicists the world over. However they start to break down when you look at the application in scenarios that involve large gravitational speeds and velocities approaching the speed of light, hence planetary orbital calculations using purely Newtonian physics are not as accurate as calculations that take account of relativity.

The best example of relativity in the modern life is the fact that Newtonian physics would not predict any difference between a clock here on earth and one in orbit. Relativity predicts that the clock nearer to a large gravitational field would run more slowly. In order for GPS satellites to work the on-board clocks have to take this difference into account.

Newtonian physics also does not take into account the fact that all motion is relative and that the speed of light is constant no matter what the observer is doing. If for example you were in a spacecraft travelling at the speed of light and shone a torch out of the front window then Newtonian physics would say that you would see a beam of light out of the window. Relativity states that the beam of light would travel at the speed of light, the same as your spacecraft and hence never leave the torch.

I hope that is a sufficiently simple explanation of the differences, I have assumed that is the question you were trying to ask when you referred to the tangencies between the two. I ought to point out that tangencies actually implies the common points between the two theories but I tried not to read too much into your use of the word!

Since you so very kindly allowed me to believe what I like about your posts I will also assume that I am free to state that you are very badly in need of a remedial class in English comprehension and a good dictionary.

bohm

EdenOne:

Newtonian physics also does not take into account the fact that all motion is relative and that the speed of light is constant no matter what the observer is doing. If for example you were in a spacecraft travelling at the speed of light and shone a torch out of the front window then Newtonian physics would say that you would see a beam of light out of the window. Relativity states that the beam of light would travel at the speed of light, the same as your spacecraft and hence never leave the torch.

In Newtonian physics the answer would depend on ones view of light.

If one assume light travels trough a medium like the eather, then one would expect an observer could break the "light barrier" in which photons would not leave the torch. In this view the torch would be blue-shifted 2x when pointing backwards and not shining when pointing forwards.

If however one assumes light just consists of particles (as was also believed for a long time) the light would according to good old gallilean relativity just behave like it was standing still -- notice this is 100% consistent with the predictions of relativity. Newtonian physics is in this view consistent with relativity.

If however we consider an outside observer (or what the spaceman sees of the outside world) things become more tricky and one must keep in mind that the same explanation must go for both observers since, by relativity, one will see the universe hurling towards him and the other will see the spaceship travelling towards him near the speed of light, and both will see time travelling much slower for the other person (think about that for a moment!).

Long story short, the spaceman looking out of the window will see everything behind him very red-shifted, and things in the front of him very blue-shifted. He will also think (or rather, this will be true for him) that everything at the front or behind him is very near to his spaceship, i.e. that alpha-centauri is only a few kilometers away due to length contraction. When he shine his light, he will see the light leave the torch just as it should and travel a very short distance towards the star he is approaching. The person on the outside will see the spaceman turn on his terribly blue/red-shifted torch (depending on where he is) in slow-mo.

(updated)

Caedes

Bohm,

Eden one is my non-evil twin with another picture of Hobbes for an avatar! Easy mistake to make though.

As a lowly engineer I will bow to your superior knowledge of physics, Hopefully the rest of my explanation is sound though?!

cappytan

Space-time conforms to the speed of light.

Take this example. Turn on your headlights of your car. Then, hypothetically accelerate your car close to the speed of light. The photons would leave the headlights. However to an outside observer of the car passing by, the vehicle would appear squished. However, the behavior of the light would appear undisturbed.

From the perspective of a passenger inside the car, the world around them would appear stretched.

Space-time conforms. It is relative to your perspective. Light remains constant.

I'm not a physicist, so I may be oversimplifying things, but this is the current understanding.

They're hard concepts to grasp, but they are mathematically sound and have been proven. (Gravity Probe B, synchronized atomic clocks not matching up after one travels through space, etc.)

bohm

Caedes: oh, sorry i got your name wrong! Yes all else is 100% sound, your post just made me spend half an hour thinking about relativity and I had to write something :-).

Here is something to ponder to show how strange this is: Suppose I fly from earth to alpha-centauri in a spaceship very close to the speed of light. Suppose the travel takes 10 minutes for me -- so i pass the earth now, and I pass alpha-centaruri what feels like 10 minutes later. For an outside observer though it seems like about 4 years (there are four light-years to alpha-centauri) from me passing earth to i pass alpha-centauri. From my perspective, I am just travelling 10 minutes, so the distance between earth and alpha-centauri is about 10 light minutes (and not 4 light years). However if i am also seeing a broadcast from alpha-centauri on my spaceship, i will be recieving 4 years worth of broadcast from when i pass earth to i arrive at alpha-centauri in just 10 minutes. But at the same time relativity tells me I should see time progress far slower on alpha-centauri than on my spaceship -- after all, from my perspective I am standing still but alpha-centauri is moving. How is this possible?

bohm

cappytan:

From the perspective of a passenger inside the car, the world around them would appear stretched

Just to clarify, for a person in the car, everything outside the car would be compressed in the direction he is moving.(sorry English is not my native language so "stretched" and "compressed" might mean the same thing).

cappytan

bohm:

Just to clarify, for a person in the car, everything outside the car would be compressed in the direction he is moving.(sorry English is not my native language so "stretched" and "compressed" might mean the same thing).

Perhaps "stretched" was the wrong word to use. Distorted?

Caedes

Bohm,

I read the other day that if you think about it when you look up at the stars you are dangling over a bottomless pit of nothing and the only thing that stops you falling into it is the incredibly weak gravity field of Earth.

Hopefully that makes up for you trying to scramble my brain with your trip to Alpha Centauri!

bohm

cappytan: A person in the car would say: I don't get why the sign says there are 10 miles from my house to the supermarket when there is plainly only about 100 meters.

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

Share this