/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2715272]

Explain general and special relativity to a complete retard.

>Thread now with boobs.

[Anonymous No.2715281]

if you go fast time slows n shit

[Anonymous No.2715286]

>>2715272

It's just Kant applied to physics

einstein didn't do anything new...read Kant all day though

[Anonymous No.2715291]

>>2715272
moar

[Anonymous No.2715289]

also space is curved because of gravity

[Anonymous No.2715310]

>>2715281
>>2715289
>>2715286

Can you explain in more detail? Just in laymans terms with a bit of the theory behind it.


>>2715291
k

[Anonymous No.2715316]

youtube it

[Anonymous No.2715327]

>>2715316
I just watched six straight hours of lectures, don't make me watch any more.

[Anonymous No.2715344]

what more do you need lol.
unless you're trying to understand the theory deeply

[Anonymous No.2715347]

>>2715327

and you still don't get it?

[Anonymous No.2715357]

>>2715344
Not deeply, but a reasonable understanding. What it actually says about the Universe, applications, very interested in time dilation, what the speed of light is a constant, etc.

Honestly, I don't even know what 'relativity' in this context is referring too.

[Anonymous No.2715362]

>>2715347
Six straight lectures for chemistry, at my University. Not on this subject at all, I just got home and like to read a bit to unwind.

[Anonymous No.2715368]

>>2715362

wikipedia is your friend then. Or watch Nova or some popsci shit like that.

[Anonymous No.2715386]

>>2715368
I like to ask questions and have it explained in simpler terms, and this is a science board... I thought a topic on one of the most groundbreaking theories in physics is exactly what /sci/ would want instead of another topic about the Earthquake in Japan or a philosophy topic.

[Anonymous No.2715425]

Those are some great boobs.

[Anonymous No.2715457]

Maybe I should try again tomorrow?

>Boobs or no boobs? What do you want?!

[Anonymous No.2715519]

Special Relativity.

All non-accelerating frames of reference are valid.

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant.

The closer to the speed of light you travel the greater other people observe your: length contracting, time moving slower, and mass increasing.

General Relativity:

Space and time are one = Spacetime. Distorting one distorts the other = black holes. Gravity is caused by the curvature of space. Greater curvature the stronger the gravitation field.

[Anonymous No.2715532]

>>2715272
I WONDER WHO LET THEM JSUT TAKE PICTURES OF BEWBS IN A RESTAURANT LIKE THAT.

[Anonymous No.2715545]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30KfPtHec4s

check out all those videos, they explain it pretty well

[Anonymous No.2715548]

>>2715519
>The closer to the speed of light you travel the greater other people observe your: length contracting, time moving slower, and mass increasing.
>time moving slower

This is why I don't like physics. Make shit up that can't be proven, then get called a genius. Derp. inb4 someone calls me a troll.

[Anonymous No.2715562]

Tip: lrn2google ; lrn2wikipedia

[Anonymous No.2715565]

>>2715548
It can and has been demonstrated experimentally.

[Anonymous No.2715566]

MOAR BEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Anonymous No.2715568]

>>2715548
lol math how does it work?

[Anonymous No.2715570]

>>2715548
you's trollan

this is legit, both special and general relativity have been confirmed.

[Anonymous No.2715579]

boobs

[Anonymous No.2715575]

>>2715570
Might not be trol. Could just be hardcore christfag. Or almost as bad: spiritual.

[Anonymous No.2715582]

>>2715570
Confirmed? really? I thought it was just heavily supported.

[Anonymous No.2715586]

>>2715582
from L. confirmare "make firm, strengthen, establish," from com-, intensive prefix (see com-), + firmare "to strengthen,"

Confirm doesn't mean prove.

[Anonymous No.2715587]

>>2715586
>Confirm doesn't mean prove.

My world is crashing down around me.

[Anonymous No.2715591]

Time dilation has been proved many times with clocks in orbit.

[Anonymous No.2715595]

>>2715591
>MFW God is actually just slowing the clocks down to fuck with us

[Anonymous No.2715596]

>>2715591
The best evidence is the increased lifetime of unstable particles at high speeds. Using clocks in orbit as proof is susceptible to the fairly low impact and the fact that clocks have moving parts etc etc

[Anonymous No.2715598]

>>2715595

lol just like dinosaur bones right?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2715599]

Special Relativity: Nothing can go faster than light, and the faster you go, the slower time moves for you.
General Relativity: Planets don't pull you, they bend the fabric of space and stuff falls towards it the same way a ball falls towards a weight placed on trampoline because the weight bends the trampoline surface.

[Anonymous No.2715602]

>>2715598
Exactly.

>MFW God reveals dinosaurs didn't really exist.

[Anonymous No.2715607]

>>2715599
>and the faster you go, the slower time moves for you.

EXPLAIN!

[Brayden Dennings !!jIcPNMSVBL3 No.2715622]

Special Relativity:
The faster you go, the quicker things pass you by.

General relativity:
The universe is a trampoline. Things with mass depress that trampoline. Therefore, the universe is bumpy, and everything tends to the valleys.

[Anonymous No.2715625]

>>2715607

It's a direct consequence of light having a constant speed in a vacuum. Like if you're traveling almost light speed and then you shine a flashlight, that light won't be traveling faster than light speed because the transformation isn't just addition of velocities at such high speeds. With a little tampering with the rate at which time passes and the length of distances in space, light speed stays constant.

[Anonymous No.2715624]

>>2715607
Because Einstein's Light Clock

[Anonymous No.2715631]

>>2715622
Adding onto general relativity: gravity used to be much stronger, but the universe started seeing a shrink and so is must less depressed than before. Therefore, the bumps in the universe are significantly smaller than before. This is why gravity is the weakest of the four forces.

[Brayden Dennings !!jIcPNMSVBL3 No.2715649]

>>2715631
Let me fix it:

Gravity is weak because the size of the balls on it are the same, but the trampoline is a ridiculous amount bigger than it was in the beginning. A basketball would depress a normal-sized trampoline a lot - but would that same basketball have the same effect on a trampoline the size of the USA?

[Anonymous No.2715654]

>>2715649
>balls

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.2715667]

>>2715607
The thing about relativity is that it makes the universe around you seem exactly how it seems anywhere else no matter where you are or how fast you are going.

So, if you are going 99% the speed of light, and if launch a particle 99% the speed of light it should seem like it is going 99% the speed of light to you because that is how much energy you gave it. To an outside observer, the particle will be going 99.99% the speed of light. You and the outside observer can only see these two different speeds for the same particle if time is moving at a different rate for the two of you. Thus time moves slower for you than the outside observer.

[Anonymous No.2715670]

>>2715649
Um, what are you talking about? Gravity is weaker because the universe is less depressed. Word is, it's starting to talk to girls and go outside a lot more often. Your idea that the size of the universe at large can impact the relationship two massive objects have is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.2715684]

>>2715631
>gravity used to be much stronger

is gravity getting weaker as the universe expands? does anyone have any infos on this, i'd like to learn me some general relativity plox

[Anonymous No.2715686]

>>2715684
>i'd like to learn me some general relativity plox
Begin by learning differential geometry.

[Brayden Dennings !!jIcPNMSVBL3 No.2715700]

wat

F = Gm1m2/r2

If r2 is 45 billion light years, then it doesn't matter how massive things are.

The only reason that the universe is less depressed is because it's bigger. Would Mars and Earth attract each other more if the universe was the size of the sun and they were therefore right next to each other?

Bigger universe = gravity is weaker.

[Brayden Dennings !!jIcPNMSVBL3 No.2715704]

>>2715684
Yes.

Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light.

How big is the universe? How long would it take gravity to affect something on the other side?

The bigger the universe, the weaker gravity gets.

[Anonymous No.2715722]

>>2715704
>gravitational waves propogate at the speed of light
>gravitational waves
>waves
wtf? I'm no physics expert, but if I recall correctly gravity wasn't a "wave".

[Anonymous No.2715732]

>>2715722
Only indirect evidence so far. But yes its a wave. If the sun suddenly vanished, the earth would still go about merrily in its orbit for ~8 minutes until the 'less distorted' space time 'wave' reached us and we were no longer bound by gravity.

[Anonymous No.2715752]

>>2715272

well, if the whole graviton thing pans out, particles are waves

I read physics books written for laypeople

[Anonymous No.2715805]

>>2715700
You are a fucking moron. The size of the universe impacting gravitation is a merely residual and unnecessary followup from spreading out. However, you're fucking stupid, because solar systems don't become more spread out as the universe grows. Therefore, the gravity between any two objects in a solar system stays the same as the universe grows. Therefore, you are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.2715866]

>>2715722
Go back to the trampoline example.

There is a bowling ball on the trampoline causing a depression. If you removed the ball, does the depression vanish simultaneously? No, it disappears in the center first and 'undepresses' outwards.

[Anonymous No.2715904]

>>2715866
...it disappears instantly you cock

[Anonymous No.2715908]

>>2715904
No, the removal of the bowling ball must be communicated through the medium. In the case of trampoline, this goes at the speed of sound. In the case of gravity and space, this goes at the speed of light.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2715928]

>>2715908
Except the bowling ball analogy for gravity is just that, an analogy.

No "speed of gravity" has ever been measured or observed, and all claims made at an observation or measurement of the speed have proved inconclusive and unverifiable. Gravity still holds as a property of mass, and if you can make mass instantaneously disappear, then why not it's associated gravity as well? All signs point to them being inextricably linked. So yes, where one goes, so does the other at the same speed it left.

[Anonymous No.2715940]

>>2715928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

[Anonymous No.2715948]

>>2715928
We should expect immediate gravitational shifts in the state of the universe if gravity could shift instantaneously. If this were the case, information could travel faster than the speed of light. This is flawed for a number of reasons, which can be demonstrated through a few contradictions. Consider the case of tides: if gravity traveled instantly, we should expect tides to be around one second ahead the position it looks like the moon is in. Of course, this isn't the case.

Additionally, consider the implications instantaneous gravity would have for the standard cosmological model of the development of the universe. Were all objects capable of instantaneously delivering gravity to objects arbitrarily far away, we should expect this to drag all objects toward a coalescent center. This would have vast implications for the period of inflation which exceeded the speed of light, e.g. objects not actually expanding away from each other.

It's true that the speed of gravity hasn't been measured, but pretending that it is instantaneous violates a great deal of modern physics and is vastly unfounded.

[Anonymous No.2715959]

I don't think it was mentioned, but Arthur Eddington helped confirm General Relativity by observing light bending during an eclipse. Time dilation etc is only confirming Special Relativity.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2716008]

>>2715940
A link that backs up my statement in the intro. thank you.

>>2715948
You make the assumption that gravity propagates infinitely getting ever increasingly smaller. You assume gravity from other sources does not interfere with gravity. You assume much about present theories of the origin of the universe, you should probably read a few since several competing theories have no problem with gravity being "instantaneous". And the moon thing was just all kinds of silly.

[Anonymous No.2716050]

k

[Anonymous No.2716067]

>>2716008
We can test how tides should be given any particular position of the moon. Were gravity instant, we should expect a one-second disparity between visual position and "tidal" position. Theories that have no problem with it have a bigger, more important problem: a complete lack of evidence.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2716085]

>>2716067
That statement doesn't just involve ignorance on how tides work, I am pretty sure you're not quoting something you have read and are in fact making it up yourself.

[Anonymous No.2716089]

Does it occasionally bother anyone else that this
>Explain general and special relativity to a complete retard
seems to the among the most prevalent threads on /sci/ at any given time?

[Anonymous No.2716099]

>>2716089
There are better and worse threads. There are better and worse posts than yours too, but most are better.

[Anonymous No.2716101]

>>2716089
There are better and worse threads.

There are better and worse posts than yours too, although most are better.

[Anonymous No.2716103]

>>2716085
Yes, that's what I'm doing. How does it not follow?

[Anonymous No.2716796]

>>2716085

You're starting to annoy me, buddy. If nothing travels faster than light, then explain how gravity is instantaneous. That's right, you can't.

[Anonymous No.2716803]

>>2716796
But gravity isn't instantaneous. It's a delayed reaction. Gravity propagates at the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.2716808]

BEWBS

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2716814]

>>2716796
Gravity is as "instantaneous" as the matter it comes from.

>>2716803
>>2716796
>>2716103
And all of this taken together makes me sure it is a troll. Sage for disappointment at trolling.

[Anonymous No.2716820]

>>2716814
No u, you insufferable tripfag.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
>In the context of classical theories of gravitation, the speed of gravity is the speed at which changes in a gravitational field propagate. This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum of matter results in subsequent alteration, at a distance, of the gravitational field which it produces. In a more physically correct sense, the "speed of gravity" refers to the speed of a gravitational wave.
>The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuo, c.[1] Within the theory of special relativity, the constant c is not exclusively about light; instead it is the highest possible speed for any physical interaction in nature. Formally, c is a conversion factor for changing the unit of time to the unit of space.[2] This makes it the only speed which does not depend either on the motion of an observer or a source of light and/or gravity. Thus, the speed of "light" is also the speed of gravitational waves and any massless particle. So far, the only candidates for massless particles in physics are the photons that light waves consist of, and also the theoretical gravitons which make up the associated field particles of gravity, if a quantum mechanical theory for gravity is ever successfully constructed.

[Anonymous No.2716823]

>>2716803
_-

[Anonymous No.2716831]

>>2716803

that's what i implied, dude. that it wasn't instantaneous. that should have been obvious from my post.

[Anonymous No.2716835]

Shit can't go faster than speed of light, acceleration, velocity and gravity make time run slower.

[Anonymous No.2716841]

>>2716823
>>2716831
orly?
>>2716796
> If nothing travels faster than light, then explain how gravity is instantaneous. That's right, you can't.

[Anonymous No.2716848]

>>2716831
Your sentence structure was backwards, if that is what you were implying.

[Boomer !!bcdVCSUmpgT No.2716851]

>>2716820
>if a quantum mechanical theory for gravity is ever successfully constructed.

Everything leading up to that statement... it's all based on an if. It's a maybe. Maybe gravity will have a speed, if we can ever agree on a theory that gives it one.

[Anonymous No.2716856]

>>2716841

wow, the reading comprehension on your part is not good. read the last part of what i wrote. here, i will repeat that last part of the challenge i posited to you...

>that's right. you can't (explain how gravity is instantaneous b/c it is, in fact, not).

[Anonymous No.2716875]

>>2716848

Nothing backwards about. I was issuing you a rhetorical challenge to explain how gravity could ever be instantaneous. But then i went ahead and revealed that I was merely being rhetorical in the next sentence.

God, this thread has derailed into shit.

[Anonymous No.2716877]

Why do I want to squeeze them so badly?

I mean, they're just two big slabs of fat, but I feel sad that I'll never get to smack them against my face and suck on her nipples.

[Anonymous No.2716881]

>>2716856
You know what you meant. But you failed at expressing it clearly. In fact, you used a sentence structure that strongly implies the exact opposite of your intended meaning.

Here's a parallel argument to what you wrote:
If the Earth is flat, then explain the videos we have from the space shuttle in orbit. That's right, you can't.

It's a weak form of reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction). You start with the opponent's premise, then show it contradicts things which are known to be true. The stronger form is when you show that the premise's implications contradict themselves internally.

[Anonymous No.2716888]

>>2716881
>use latin
>Put English in brackets anyway

Pick one and stick with it, if you use both then what's the point? Oh right, to show you know some obscure Latin phrase you stuck up fuck.

[Anonymous No.2716908]

>>2716888
>implying I'm showing off
I don't need to impress anyone, least of all on an anonymous message board. I was just trying to be clear. I gave the English because I didn't want to force you to look it up. The latin name came to mind first.

Though in retrospect, you're right, the latin was unnecessary. It's just how I remembered it.

[Anonymous No.2716941]

>>2716881

Sorry, would it have been better if I had posited my rhetorical question in the following way?

If nothing travels faster than the speed of light, then explain how gravity travels faster than the speed of light.

I guess you are right. This would have been a more clear rhetorical device.
>>2716881

[Anonymous No.2716952]

>>2716941
I think I've made a mistake too. Did he ever assert that gravity is instantaneous? I read the post you were replying too, and it wasn't there.

If he had previously asserted that gravity was instantaneous, then what you meant is more clear. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.2716960]

>>2716952
Yep, there it is:
>>2715928
Sorry. It seems I assumed too quickly that I understood the context of your statment.

[Anonymous No.2717117]

General Rel: Near large amounts of gravity, time slows down
Special Rel: Move really fast, time slows down.

[Anonymous No.2717248]

to quote Einstein "A minute with your hand on a stove feels like an hour, and an hour with the girl of your dreams feels like a minute"

[Anonymous No.2717398]

>>2715272
Sauce on milkshake girl. For /sci/ence. Please.

[Anonymous No.2717502]

>>2717398
Generic Whore, model 1980

[Anonymous No.2717509]

Moar of girl in OP

[Anonymous No.2717521]

>>2717509
moar, yes

[Anonymous No.2717556]

>>2717502
Thank you, kind Sir.