-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think I have managed to disprove Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I could do with some more thoughts about where, perhaps, I have made a wrong turn. TZZZZzzzzzz... Have you ever picked up your sandal and tried to swat that annoying little mosquito you are sharing a holiday hotel room with? It will always confound us on just how many times we miss because the tiny swine is just too darned fast. After a time, the mosquito starts to take on the appearance of predicting our every move - it's practically taunting us. With science developing new ideas about the way we look at time, we are starting to understand that the mosquito is not necessarily moving fast, but that it is us whom are percieving things very, very slowly. New proposals about time are about to turn everything that we thought we knew about our Universe on its head. Let's imagine the scene where I am about to try and bring my sandal down on the head of that pesky mosquito. In the room we have set-up two digital cameras (don't worry, nothing sordid's going on). One of the camera's has a shutter speed which opens and closes in seconds, while the other camera's using a shutter speed which is a thousand times faster and operates in milliseconds. By the time I have raised and lowered my hand, the mosquito has made good its' escape. It's as if the little brute saw me coming a mile-off, so let's see if by playing back the two films that were taken, we might catch a better idea of what's happening from the perspective of the mosquito. Each camera has an LCD display which will play-back the film at the rate of one exposure per second. We'll start with the film taken where the shutter speed plodded and took a second to open and close. It shows me with my hand in the air, now it's halfway down and then it's ..SLAM... 4 seconds and it's all over. Next we play the film where the shutter speed was in milliseconds. Okay, so my hands in the air...... still in the air..... I count to 200 and it's barely budged an inch. I've got time to make a cup of tea, pop to the shops, and watch a bit of telly because this film is 1000 times as long as the previous one - it would take over an hour to watch it. What the shutter speed is inferring as it opens and closes, is my rate of perception - or rather the speed at which neurons open and close circuits in the brain. The rate of perception is how long it takes the brain to process the outside world into information the mind can understand. This process in the brain is dictated by signals carried by neurons. If you reduce the distance travelled by these signals by half, you effectively double the speed at which the brain understands the outside world. Try to imagine that our blood-sucking fiend, on account of its very small size and very simple brain, is able to percieve reality much faster than I can - my vengeful sandal would appear like it was moving in slow motion. No wonder it felt like the mosquito was blowing raspberries at me. Okay. Now for the biggy. What does this mean for Einstein's Theory of Relativity? Is it wrong? For his calculations Einstein required a measuring stick which was unchanging and invariable, and one which would remain as a reliable benchmark for any observer regardless of their position in space. It was something which needed to comply with both the macrocosm and the microcosm. Einstein's genius came in choosing the speed of light as that benchmark. Scientists now understand that Einstein fell into the trap of believing the speed of light is constant and independent of an observer, where in-fact, the speed of light is actually a variable that is wholly dependent upon an observer. According to Einstein the speed of light in a vacuum is 300,000 km/s. It takes light travelling from the Sun, 9 minutes to reach our planet. Imagine then that we have two observers watching the night-sky from my backyard. In this experiment we are going to turn on a torch from the position of the Sun, 150 million kilometres away, and then we shall ask both our observers to make their own steady, ticking head-count to imitate a clock (1...2...3...4...) - and to count the time it takes for the light travel to Earth. One of the observers I shall take into my laboratory (think Weird Science), and shrink to a size where the distance travelled by signals in his brain are halved. We are effectively accelerating his brain's shutter speed to being twice as fast as normal, so that the brain is able to communicate with itself at a speed which is twice that of ours, and his mind will produce twice the amount of conscious thoughts. This difference in the rate of perception would become much more apparent once we hear each observers' head-count - the observer we shrank will make a count that is twice the speed of ours. When we add up the seconds counted by this tiny little man, it reaches a figure that is no longer 9 minutes but nearer 18 minutes! Our dwindled chum has experienced the speed of light as 150,000 km/s - half its normal speed. This demonstrates that the speed of light is not a constant, and that the speed of light is dependent upon the rate of experience. Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been proven wrong. There's no such thing as space-time. The Universe has now been deflated from the four-dimensional space that we thought was there, and is now presented in its true nature - zero point energy. The balloon has well and truly burst. Time is thus revealed as this incredible intrapersonal experience. Every living thing on Earth is revealed as its very own clock. The ticking hands of the clock of the Universe no longer exist, and on a very real and fundamental level, all we have is 'now'. In each and every single of one those moments which we so often overlook and discard, there is the potential of infinite possibilities. Will scientists now be able to merge all the forces in the Universe with gravity into a Theory of Everything? Probably. But perhaps this is more of an opportunity for each and every one of us who live on this planet, to finally understand how important our own place is in the grand scheme of the Universe. For if you, as an indivual, were not here to make the simple act of observation - time and space would not even exist.
I don't know what you're talking about. I always swat the little bastard on the first try. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Your miniaturized observer might see the light taking twice as long to reach its destination, but the destination will also seem twice as far away, so the speed of light would still be 300 000km/s to them. Regardless, in general it doesn't matter anyhow even if they still perceived distance the same as we do and only time was changed. Time is a measure of synchronization- we set a clock to tick at regular intervals such that 3600 ticks makes an hour, and 24 hours makes a day, which is in sync with the Earth's daily rotation. Then we synchronize the clock with other things- you could drop a baseball from a height such that the time it takes between two ticks is the time it takes the baseball to fall. Then you could drop the ball from this same height multiple times to make sure it always takes 1 tick to measure the time before it falls to the ground. Then you can test your clock in other ways, like seeing how long it takes for a cup of water to empty through a hole, etc. What you build up is a notion of time as something that moves forward at a constant rate and synchronizes things. 300 ticks on your clock is roughly the number you must hear before an egg has been sufficiently boiled, etc. etc. It just so happens that our perception of time is constant, i.e. we do not notice time slowing down or speeding up by significant amounts in our daily routines. But if it weren't, and clocks and events in general seemed to speed up and slow down because of our changing mental perception, we would still see our clocks ticking a consistent number of times for every passage of a beam of light from point A to B.
Hi munty, Time is what clocks measure. If you are have a brain the size of a mosquito, or are hyped up on speed, or are mellowing out on weed, then your perception of time passing may indeed change... but your perception isn't how time is measured. It doesn't affect the subjective reality of a ticking clock. You seem to be confused about what relativity is about.
you are right, Enstein not always correct in his hypothesis. some of his theory is proven wrong in contemporary science. For example, he mentioned that the universe is expanding at decreasing speed. But in fact the universe is expanding at increasing speed. what a wrong guess from Einstein. Next error to look into is perhaps E=mc^2.
Have you tried a similar experiment with your dog?? You are going to snatch its toy which is lying on the ground between equal distance from you and the dog. See how many times dog gets it before you did. Dog moves the second the thought is formed inside your brain. If you are faking it, dog sits and wait.
Wonderful! (Now... does everyone else see exactly what I mean about having a malfunctioning mass between the ears? This particular poster is a PRIME example of that.)
That's true. However, people of that time generally knew little of advanced physics. That's not fully the case today but with the notable exception of some posters here who have studied little basic physics - albertchong being a good example of that - and yet CLAIM to be scientists! What fools they are!
I would definitely appreciate his capabilities of reasoning to that depths even if he gets it wrong. Not many care to think in this current day society. Sometimes formal studies of any subject blinds the individual with scientific prejudice. Many so called scientists are stuck like that. Most times unorthodox way of thinking leads to further developments in the field of science.
Yeah, sure. My whole point is that Einstein's theory and presentation has been proven correct MANY time over since he introduced them. And attempting to claim that they are incorrect is not only an error due to egotism but also a fools errand! It can be compared to attempting to claim the planet Earth is flat despite all the evidence to the contrary.:bugeye:
Well, it feels flat when I jump up and down on it. Hi. Thanks for reading. I'm not implying Einstein was daft - on the contrary. But Einstein has said that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly the same for any observer, any where in the universe. This simple thought experiment shows that that is not true. Einstein was trying to finalise his theory of everything. Something was missing. I think the entire elaborate process of observation is missing from his theory on relativity. The brain has to formalise reality. We often fall into the trap of believing reality is simply 'there', but we forget we need to process it first.
It's suggested that flies perceive movement quicker for a number of reasons. Firstly you have to consider that for you to think about swatting a fly, moving a hand to attempt to squish it, you are using your nerve system to identify movements while also using various senses (in this instance Sight) to adjust the movement enough to stay on course with a target. The speed at which you do this isn't necessarily that fast, it could be 0.8+/- seconds. A fly in size is many thousands of times smaller than yourself. It's nerve system is smaller and closer together, it's brain is smaller but this doesn't mean that a whole brain as complex as a humans has been miniaturized. It's actually a brain that is develop to deal with how a fly has evolved, it doesn't deal with visual imaging like us, where we can focus on a single object or expand to a peripheral range. It doesn't deal with the neural complexities of attempting to identify what exists around it, like how we recognize a friend walking up a high street compared to a total stranger. Instead a flies eyesight is a composite of cells, it's a bit like taking an image and converting the image into giant blocks of colour. Where the colour that exist in each block is a "mean" value of the colours that exist from that perspective. It's also very short sighted. Flies react to movement, as soon as they see something large (which is seen considerably larger through their blocky vision) moving towards them, they shift. When we sweep a hand out to swat them, we move not just our hand but a volume of air which spirals around it because of the absence of design in aerodynamics, this means that a fly can find itself pulled away from a hand by a swirling "eddie", escaping an otherwise nasty outcome. Flies can be caught or swatted easily by either approaching them from more than one direction (using two hands from either side of it) or clasping your fingers to the palm of your hand a bit like a venus flytrap (This causes a different "eddie" effect that can actually draw the fly into your hand). It was suggested in nanotechnology, the smaller you build things the faster they would operate. However there is the point that if you build things so small, they have to become less complex and do "specialized" tasks. As for would light be perceived the same speed? It's a bit of a Matrix "Spoon bender", Light is of course a Constant, it doesn't change. I've seen arguement again and again about the subject, heck I even use to think the opposite myself when younger. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This animated image is to explain the Lightspeed Constant. Simply put the image shows two wavey lines that could represent different Frequencies of Light of course tremendously simplified into two dimensions). The Green box represents an observation of speed, as the box progresses from left to right the speed of the box should be the same (At least when the animation is fully loaded) You will observe that although both wavey lines are of different sizes, it doesn't matter because it's the viewbox and what you observe from within it that generates the lightspeed constant. If you were to create a smaller viewbox and place it into the centre of the one shown, it would be like the perspective of something the size of a fly. However the boxes movement would maintain the same speed, it's just the observation over distance which would be distorted.
No, I never said you were implying that he was daft, but you've begun getting close to it yourself - because you STILL aren't bright enough to realize that your little "thought experiment" is FALSE and proves nothing!! It's incomplete, ignorant and purely childish.
I always do. If you only had done a little research before speaking, you would have found that Einstein has been shown correct thousands of times over. And You would have avoided having looked so silly here.:shrug: There's probably a million references that you would have found that clearly state - and explain why - that the speed of light is totally INDEPENDENT of the observer.
