Earth is non-inertial, but is approximately inertial in a small enough region (e.g. your living room, for many purposes, can be considered to be a good approximation to an inertial frame).
Okay,so what you mean is that during our regular lab experiments,eg with bob of pendulams etc,we can approximate earth to be an inertial frame of reference.cool. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks. bye!
Hey, (Q), please dont bacsh my head in if i'm wrong, but i think it was einstein who took a pic of the night sky and one again during an eclipse, and, by comparing the two, showed that the sun's gravity bent the light from the stars... also, i have this cool glass thingy that has a lil cross that spins when you put it in the sun... now, i know very little about physics and atomic physics and astro physics compared to what there is to know, so dont kill me if im wrong... peace out, luv u all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Gross I know that in 1911 he made preliminary predictions about how a ray of light from a distant star, passing near the Sun, would appear to be bent slightly, in the direction of the Sun. However, I had not heard about his pictures. Have you got a link? http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/qso2237.html http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001010.html http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/
Oops! Sorry James, I didn't immediately understood what you were saying and then I forgot about it. appreciate you took the time! -> without using any relativity principles there must be loads of them this is what I don't get "He says that observers in both frames would see one of the frames' clocks slowed down with respect to the other frame." "Einstein, on the other hand, says that <i>both</i> observers will see the other's clock slowed down." i don't see the difference between these two?? in the first one you do say that BOTH will see the other one's clock slow down --> the difference is I believe that Marmet wants a universal time used as an absolute reference I think this part is not interesting at all what was so crucial in our discussion was the number 1 here: 1. Marmet explained length contraction and timedilation mechanically (see two different papers on that) --> if this doesn't make sense, then you've got a big devastating objection against him 2. Marmet explains and calculates the orbit of Mercurius without any notion of relativity --> and this was at the time seen as a major blow against Netwon physics and a great victory for relativity it easier of these two things to see if they make sense or not, easier than discussing frames of reference and switching between these frames and stuff like that i don't even agree with marmet on these reference things
PS. Also, black hole theory is also greatly based on bending of light due to gravity, no? Black hole theory is postulated by General Relativity. Matter causes spacetime to curve. The curvature of spacetime IS gravity.
c'est moi: Marmet may be able to derive certain results of relativity using different assumptions. However, his theory must match experimental results <i>in full</i>. It is not enough that it predicts <i>some</i> experimental results and not others. Relativity is compatible with <i>all</i> the observations (at least, so far). I pointed out one example where Marmet is in conflict with observation. That is enough to sink his theory, just as Einstein's theory would have to be thrown out if it disagreed with an observation. To clarify my previous point: Take two observers A and B. A is at rest, B is moving with constant speed. According to Einstein, A would see B's clocks as running slower than his. and B would see A's clocks running slower that his. According to Marmet, both A and B would see B's clock running slower than A's. Experiments support Einstein.
Seems to me they would only see each other's clocks slower because of the decreasing frequency of light between them due to moving away. The clocks are still running the same speed for both of them, they are still sharing the same time, there is no "time travelling". Same as sound waves if two are moving apart, you get decreasing frequency. The frequency is the same as always of course, but the point where we interact with it decreases in frequency.
Adam, The Newtonian and relativistic Doppler shift formulae are different. Experiment supports the relativistic formula. The apparent frequency change cannot be explained solely by the relative motion (i.e. the "normal" Doppler effect), but needs relativity.
Oh well, this is just mroe stuff I have to study. I'm not sure if my current degree will cover these things.
okay, now you're being more clear Question: you talk about experiment, but I have no idea about which experiment you are talking here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All of our experiments on Earth are done in a reference frame moving with respect to the sun, the centre of the galaxy and so on. Yet the Lorentz transformations make the correct predictions for time dilation as observed on Earth, <i>without taking into account the Earth's motion with respect to the sun</i>. Thus, for example, we see the lifetimes of muons hitting the upper atmosphere as being longer than when the muons are at rest, but precisely the amount that they would be longer if we did the experiment in a reference frame at rest with respect to the sun. This means that Einstein was correct when he postulated that there is no absolute rest frame. Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment confirm that, too. Marmet is going back to the days when we had an "ether", which was supposed to provide an absolute rest frame. Unfortunately (for Marmet), the ether doesn't exist.
"All of our experiments on Earth are done in a reference frame moving with respect to the sun, the centre of the galaxy and so on. Yet the Lorentz transformations make the correct predictions for time dilation as observed on Earth, without taking into account the Earth's motion with respect to the sun." hum, I see no reason why they should? but again, what experiment does exactly give the results that you talk about with A at rest and B moving as far as I get it, when A is at rest and B is moving near speed of light and both have clocks they both will see each other's clock run slower, because of the relativity principle you can ask "who's really moving? Both can say that they are moving near the speed of light in respect to each other", hence for relativity it is vital that both see this slowing down I don't see how those muons a little further explain this ... "Thus, for example, we see the lifetimes of muons hitting the upper atmosphere as being longer than when the muons are at rest, but precisely the amount that they would be longer if we did the experiment in a reference frame at rest with respect to the sun." Don't you mean mesons here? (sorry, I'm not into physics like you!) "This means that Einstein was correct when he postulated that there is no absolute rest frame. Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment confirm that, too." I find myself not in the position to talk about whether I find an absolute frame of reference possible or not, want to read more about that first in order to understand this issue better. Marmet and Haspden and others, on the other hand seem not to agree on the interpretation of the results: http://www.energyscience.co.uk/tu/tu18.htm http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/Michelson-Morley.html "Marmet is going back to the days when we had an "ether", which was supposed to provide an absolute rest frame." Fact is that vacuum is not empty and is filled with activity of virtual particles. Whether it has those properties that Harold claims it has or not, I don't know.
what experiment does exactly give the results that you talk about "During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flyng clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)
I don't see how those muons a little further explain this ... In the muons frame of reference, it's *rest* lifetime on its clock is 2 nanoseconds (2x10^-6 seconds). Light travels about 600 meters in this timeframe. An observer in this frame views the muons clock as running slow. An Earth observer views muons traveling a shorter distance in a laboratory than light could travel in the muons rest lifetime and reckons the muons clock is running fast compared to the Earth observers clock. The traveling muons lifetime as measured by the Earth observer is longer than when the muon is at rest and as we all know, moving clocks run slower compared to stationary clocks. In the muons frame, the distance traveled through the atmosphere is less than the Earth observer measures it to be in their own frame. Therefore, the muon travels farther than 600 meters in the Earth observers laboratory because the muons lifetime is dilated.
I don't get it Q, this is not we need here we need something where one clocks passes by another one near the speed of light both oberver will have to see each other's clock slow down i don't think the pilots saw the clock of the US Naval O. slowing down
C'est Moi But that is what the Muon experiment shows. A muon exists for such a short time that those created in the upper atmosphere should not reach the Earth. Yet we do. This is explained by the fact that to a muon travelling at near light speed only a fraction of a second occurs, short enough it does not decay. To us, at rest a much longre time period elapses and it does not decay.
