[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 85 KB, 800x600, Fields.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309015 No.3309015 [Reply] [Original]

If spacetime is warped around heavy objects, does this mean that the speed of light is different since time ticks differently? Or is it the meter that changes length. Either way, c is not constant in the intuitive sense.

>> No.3309018

>>3309015
>does this mean that the speed of light is different since time ticks differently
Yes.

>> No.3309019

wait what?

time ticks differently because the speed of light is constant

>> No.3309020

Is there any way to describe this in simple terms or make it seem inuitive?

>> No.3309021

As measured by local clocks and rulers, light in a vacuum always moves at c.

>> No.3309025

>>3309019
c is variable, in a sense, dependent on the warp of spacetime through which it passes

>> No.3309027

>>3309021

This seems natural. Is the meter directly tied to the speed of light?

>> No.3309028

>>3309021
this

>> No.3309031

>>3309027
we redefined it somewhat recently to be yes.

>> No.3309032

Inorite?
Op is onto summat.
Assuming a singularity, where mass is supposedly attracted to it, there is an apparent warp in space-time (correct if wrong). So this binds gravity to space-time...?

Relativity doesn't work entirely. That's why its a theory. I can't wait for someone on /sci/ to find the G.U.T. before the researchfags at the Hadron. Then I will Lmfao.

>> No.3309033

>>3309015
> Either way, c is not constant in the intuitive sense.
It is constant in the sense that distance and time are both warped proportionally to make c the same no matter where you are.

>> No.3309034

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames. If you were within the gravity well the speed of light within the gravity well would appear the same as the speed of light outside the gravity well when you're outside of the gravity well. However from the inside looking out or the outside looking in you will see apparent changes.

>> No.3309037

>>3309025
no, the fact that c has to be constant makes us have to consider that space-time must change some way

>> No.3309039

And another comment: There's no absolute background spacetime relative to which the spacetime we know is stretched or shrunk. When we say that clocks tick slower near a black hole, that's relative to an artificial coordinate system that we have imposed for our convenience.

>> No.3309040

C is a constant; it's time and space that are not.

>> No.3309047

>>3309032
What are the main problems with relativity? Any large ones?

>> No.3309065

>>3309040

This is correct. The speed of light never changes. Though through various experiments we humans have found that light travels differently depending on where in space it is, this is not a property of the light itself, it is merely a product of its passing through warped space (AKA traveling past a large mass, like a black hole).

If you were, say, somehow timing the light's passage from point A to point B past a large mass, traveling alongside it at the same constant speed, you would get a shorter travel time than, say, an observer at point A calculating the same time, because time itself would have been slowed in the space near the massive object that the light had traveled through.

>> No.3309088

>>3309032
>That's why its a theory.

NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEORY MEANS. PLATE TECTONICS, GRAVITY, MOLECULAR COLLISION, STAR FORMATION AND EVERY OTHER OVERARCHING EXPLANATION IS CALLED A 'THEORY.' IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WITH RIGOR AND STRENGTH OF A SCIENTIFIC IDEA. A 'LAW' IS A MATHEMATICALLY DEFINED MODEL. THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY IS NEWTON'S M1*M1/R^2, BUT THE THEORY, THE EXPLANATION THAT MASSES ATTRACT EACH OTHER, IS CALLED THAT BECAUSE IT'S AN EXPLANATION AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE, WHILE THE MATHEMATICAL LAWS ARE STATIC.

WHERE YOU GOT THE WORD 'THEORY' IS FROM LAYMANS SAYING 'OH, I HAVE A THEORY ON...." WHEN WHAT THEY MEAN IS HYPOTHESIS, BECAUSE A HYPOTHESIS IS AN IDEA THAT HAS NOT BEEN TESTED YET. THEORIES HAVE BEEN RIGOROUSLY TESTED.

WHEN SOMEONE SAYS 'EVOLUTION OR THE BIG BANG IS JUUUUST A THEORY' THEY'RE FUCKING UNEDUCATED AND HAVEN'T HEARD THE CORRECT FACTS AND DEFINITIONS. JUST LIKE YOU. FAGGOT.

SO
STOP
SAYING
"IT'S JUST A THEORY"

10/10
WOULD FUCKING RAGE AGAIN

>> No.3309093

>>3309088
How many times a day on average, would you say you fall for this troll?

It's pretty much posted constantly on /sci/, I just wonder how you go on like this.

>> No.3309094
File: 32 KB, 400x541, wats going on aww shit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309094

>>3309088

>> No.3309098
File: 81 KB, 562x453, FUUU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309098

>>3309088

>yfw

>> No.3309123
File: 16 KB, 249x251, 1288231557535.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309123

>>3309088

>> No.3309147

>>3309088
I thought theory meant it was just a geuss?

>> No.3309148

UMAD? = theory
OP is a fag = Law

>> No.3309149
File: 46 KB, 320x240, 4836808383_44b50de9b2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309149

>>3309088

>> No.3309153

>>3309147
Let me guess, I guess you were just guessing and dont really know. Well you guessed wrong on a 50% guess, try again.

>> No.3309154
File: 54 KB, 780x553, 1233292712061.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309154

>>3309147

>> No.3309155 [DELETED] 

ITT: Niggers who forgot about magnets

>> No.3309156

>what is time dilation?
>what is length contraction?

>> No.3309157
File: 6 KB, 379x311, 1250580679702.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309157

>>3309088

>> No.3309160
File: 98 KB, 720x639, 1256166065627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309160

>>3309088
 

>> No.3309158

>>3309156
>Time appearing to move slower or faster based on an object's velocity relative to an observer.
>Lengths appearing to contract based on an object's velocity relative to an observer.

>> No.3309161
File: 335 KB, 1024x771, 1256036057902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309161

>>3309088
  

>> No.3309162
File: 219 KB, 639x639, 1255863978101.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309162

>>3309088
   

>> No.3309163
File: 50 KB, 700x525, 1253828133564.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309163

>>3309088
     

>> No.3309164
File: 7 KB, 640x480, 1253828133565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309164

>>3309088
    
 

>> No.3309166
File: 271 KB, 1024x768, 1253828133566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309166

>>3309088
  
   

>> No.3309167
File: 74 KB, 560x420, 1253828133567.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309167

>>3309088
 
    

>> No.3309168
File: 126 KB, 452x308, 1289501006874.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309168

>>3309166
C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!

>> No.3309171
File: 33 KB, 604x453, 1281377750972.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309171

>>3309015
I believe you'll find that this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uH35gc1_u8&feature=related
Explains everything.

>> No.3309177

>>3309147
Theory
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

Hypothesis
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

This just proves how much Tony motherfucking Perkins has ruined this fucking country.

Anyone here still want to "teach the controversy?"

>> No.3309178

>>3309177
But fucking magnets, how do they work?

>> No.3309181

>>3309178
Take a bottle of pine sol, A gallon of Clorox and mix it with a cup of table salt and pour them all into a large bowl place a piece of iron in the bowl and you will have an industrial strength magnet.

>> No.3309185

seems like this thread is full of trolls so i'll just post the correct answer and move along.

light always moves at the speed of light no matter how you look at it.
time dilation is the cause of this, it doesn't nullify it, the faster you move, the more time "stretches" for you so you will see light moving at you moving at the speed of light despite the fact that it's supposed to move faster.
think of time dilation as a way for light to always be constant.

fun fact: light is only constant in it's speed, not it's vector.
if a light moves directly at you you will always see it moving at c, however if it moves at an angle from you each part of it's speed (on your y and x axis) moves in less then c, so the total speed of the light will stay the same, but the angle of the light will change because each directional component of it's speed will change.

>> No.3309188

>>3309177
you sir, have been trolled

>> No.3309195

>>3309185
>if it moves at an angle from you each part of it's speed (on your y and x axis) moves in less then c, so the total speed of the light will stay the same, but the angle of the light will change because each directional component of it's speed will change.

This bit isn't really relevant because you can't detect any light that hasn't run right into you.

>> No.3309197

>>3309167
lol what is that from? the original pic, that is.

>> No.3309201

>>3309019
>>3309033
>>3309037
>>3309185
That is special relativity; OP is asking about general relativity (gravitation).

>> No.3309206

>>3309201
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation

>> No.3309235

>>3309201

that is even easier to explain.
if you stood on the event horizon of a black hole (and didn't let the tortures gravity and suffocating vacuum distract you) the time dilation from gravity will have the same effect on you as it would any light around you.
this means the relative speed will remain equal as no other factor is present.

you could ask: but is the light going into the black hole faster then c?
and the obvious answer is: "who knows?"
anything beyond the event horizon is beyond our current understanding and perhaps no longer obeys the laws of physics.
outside of it however anyone will always see light as moving at the speed of c.

you could also ask: who will an outside observer see the light entering the black hole?
the obvious answer will be: "he wouldn't as light cannot escape a black hole, that's the entire point."

>>3309195

i said it was a fun fact, not a relevant one.

>> No.3309236

>>3309235
>perhaps no longer obeys the laws of physics.

thats quite some speculation you've got there.

>> No.3309248
File: 21 KB, 301x165, troll-feild.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309248

>and perhaps no longer obeys the laws of physics.

haha no.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle

If you assume that going "into a black hole" would accelerate you faster than light, then you must also assume via GR that you are now in a Closed Timelike Curve. Novikov shows taht CTCs must also obey the GR Lorentz invariant laws of physics. Ergo, still assuming the FTL scenario, you would be tachyon-annihilated and spit out of the hole as gamma rays.

Which is what happens to shit that falls into black holes.

crapcha = lisigh completely

>> No.3309254

>>3309248

well i'll be.
thanks dude, i learned something new today.

>> No.3309270

>>3309248
>If you assume that going "into a black hole" would accelerate you faster than light, then you must also assume via GR that you are now in a Closed Timelike Curve.

Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?

>> No.3309279

Just because you're accelerating faster than light doesn't mean the space or medium you're traveling through doesn't exsist, even in the case of a black hole, should you find yourself "traveling" through one.

>> No.3309281
File: 7 KB, 275x297, 1435768432343.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3309281

>>3309147

You didnt just troll me asshole.Shitty troll 0/10 i aint even mad.

>> No.3309282

>>3309235
Stuff beyond the event horizon isn't observable, but it isn't as if our understanding of general relativity comes from observations of black holes.

According to general relativity, the event horizon is a perfectly ordinary piece of spacetime. You don't even get strong gravity ripping you apart if the black hole is sufficiently large.

The singularity within the black hole, on the other hand, is a place where general relativity must break down. But the event horizon is not a real singularity.

>> No.3309303

We live in a giant black hole. You know how a second might seem like a year in a blackhole? Since space and time is one, that means that a lightsecond is now stretched to a lightyear.

You know it's true.

>> No.3309312

>>3309270

It's a simple consequence of GR.

Any FTL machine is also a time machine. Any time machine is also a tachyon condenser machine.

>> No.3309343

i wonder if theres a limit at which condensed space can travel within normal space. maybe you can just increase the size of space around you giving time a bigger value and make second have the same worth as an hour. IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES!

>> No.3309397

>>3309312
>Any FTL machine is also a time machine.
This is true, also true in SR. You need to change frames of course.

>Any time machine is also a tachyon condenser machine.
Some of us actually know this subject, so don't think you can just make up bullshit.

>> No.3309410

>>3309303
Wouldn't this be a perfectly fine explanation of why the universe expands? If this black hole we live in feeds on stars or whatever, the value of a second keeps on increasing.