Do You Believe In Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
The ClubHouse: The Game II - Mysterious Puzzler: Discussions/Challenges:
Do You Believe In Einstein's Theory of Relativity?
Elitist | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 05:16 am  Some followed the Synchronicity thread during Game I. Some wouldn't enter the thread on threat of their very lives. On the same line, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity true? What if we ignore it? Do we do so at our own peril, or is it just a game? |
Juju2bigdog | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 05:30 am  e=mc2?
then, if so, let me riposte with a2 + b2 = c2 <dang, Juju was gonna say "ignore at our own peril" first. grumble, grumble> |
Misslibra | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 06:08 am  On the same line, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity true? It's a fact, that everything is related, in some way shape or form, were all connected. What if we ignore it? You can't ignore it, It's all around you. Do we do so at our own peril, or is it just a game? No not a game but a fact, in my opinion. |
Juju2bigdog | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 08:04 am  "God does not play dice with the world." - Einstein.
 |
Guruchaz | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 08:56 am  I think Eintein's Theory of Relativity is a bunch of hokey, self-promoting propaganda just to get into history and physics books. Of what use has it really been? uh huh huh  |
Ocean_Islands | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 04:49 pm  A theory cannot be known to be true or not true Elitist, you should know that. You either have to commit to the Theory of Relativity or to Quantum Theory, they cannot both be true. In either case it is a matter of faith. |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 07:55 am  Ocean, please refresh my memory. I studied both Relativity and Quantum Physics in college, and I do not remember any reason why they should be mutually exclusive. What is your reasoning that both cannot be true? |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 08:02 am  And believing in a theory is not a matter of faith. Faith is belief in a idea or thought construct that has little or no evidence to back it up, i.e. the belief in the unknown and unknowable. Theory on the other hand is a thought construct that tries to explain observed evidence and predict the results of new experimentatation. As long as the theory explains the evidence, it is valid - when it does not, then it is either modified or discarded for new theory. Can a theory be known to be true or not true? No but a theory can be valid or not valid until proven otherwise. Can faith be known to be true or not true? Or valid or not valid? |
Merlin | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 08:39 am  I think this proves my theory that this thread revolves around the relatedness in a box of Einstein Bagels is not valid. Maybe I should be an observer on this one. I could learn something. |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 09:24 am  Relativity theory has some neat things come out of it. Such as: "As an objects speed increases toward the speed of light, its mass also increases" So now when people ask me if I have gained weight, I tell them no, I am just moving around lot faster. |
Guruchaz | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 09:40 am  So, let's say a steel ball about 1" in diameter travels at the speed of light. Then according to the Theory of Relativity, it's mass would grow. I just don't see that happening. |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:28 am  Actually Guru, if I remember right the mass grows to infinity at the speed of light. The real problem is getting it up to the speed of light. The more energy you put into it to accelerate it, the more the mass increases, requiring more energy to accelerate it even further. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but it does come out of the theory. Now the challenge to you guys from me is to find on the web the proof or evidence that suggests this outcome of relativity theory holds |
Spamgirl | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:40 am  The faster you try to download a (say) neverending webpage, the more k of crap you end up downloading per second, therefore bogging it down in a mass-like way? grin |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:46 am  LOL Spam. Well I went and did my own research, and found that what I am talking about Gu is relativistic mass - i.e. the appearance of mass increasing as it gains energy by going faster (from the old E=mc2). But it really isn't a structural change in the object, just a convenience. The invariant mass (or mass at 0 velocity) does not change with speed. So I guess I have to find another way to explain these extra pounds. |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:51 am  Also during my research I found statements that said Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the foundations of Modern Physics. So again, Ocean, why do you think they are mutually exclusive? |
Merlin | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:53 am  Elitist, I have a theory on your weight mass and it does involve velocity. Elitists mass= velocity of arriving at the meal/time at the table* weight of food intake |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:56 am  LOL Merlin - but it seems more like it is (weight of food intake) squared. |
Merlin | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:01 am  damn, you are a big man then |
Spamgirl | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:01 am  rofl elit ya porker easy solution elitist+(food/2)=weight loss |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:26 am  No I am just not moving slow enough to get to my rest mass. I am just short for my weight. elitist+(food/2)+(butt out of chair) = weight loss |
Elitist | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:27 am  Of course at 6'5" I could carry the weight of a couple of small children around and you would never know it |
Spamgirl | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:29 am  ah, forgot the exercise part ;) |
Guruchaz | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 12:12 pm  Ahh ok. So, basically the more energy we produce and the faster we talk, the relatively larger the mass of the viewer base. Would that be Food + O2 + TEXT = CH4 + Public Interest(squared)? uh huh huh  |
Ocean_Islands | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 02:56 pm  I'm not a physicist and certainly don't claim to be one or understand either relativity or quantum theory. In numerous conversations with a good friend of mine who is a Physics prof at the University of Orsay just south of Paris, who has taught also at McGill University -- scientists, as you might know, are attempting a unified theory of the university. Neither relativity nor quantum theory can explain the universe, that why they are not unified theories. Some are coming at the unified theory from the relativity (Einstein) end. Others are coming at the unified theory from the Quantum end. You might know that Einstein did not like Quantum theory and, in particular, the uncertainty principle. The convergence of these two theories poses a problem. Scientists, however, having based their lives by placing faith in the scientific method, never discuss the issue. We can only see (know/learn) small parts of 'reality' at a time. So I think the safest thing to say is that parts of relativity must be true, and parts of quantum theory also. The particulars of how they don't jive I'll have leave to someone else. = = = I agree with you say about faith and theories. I think your discussion of theories explaining evidence has some holes, however. Theories that explain evidence might be accepted, but they are not proven. So as to what you mean by 'valid,' I'm not sure. I'm glad to see you agree with me re: "Can a theory be known to be true or not true? No." A theory might be all we have to hang on to. The object of faith cannot be known to be true, that's why its faith. And I think faith is a feeling, not a thought. |
Juju2bigdog | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 03:00 pm  
|
Juju2bigdog | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 03:04 pm  Yes, but what about the mass of Elitist three quarters submerged in a hot tub flirting at the speed of light? How does the buoyancy factor figure into the length of time it will take him to approach optimum mass or shed his speedos, whichever comes first?
 |
Elitist | Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:04 am  Juju I am a Speedo shedding slut. |
Elitist | Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 10:09 am  What you are saying, Ocean, is that they are not mutually exclusive, but that they just haven't been unified into a single theory - which is the Holy Grail of Physics. And think about the possibilities if they do unify the theory. Electricity and magnetism used to be thought of as two different things and had two theories to explain them. Now they have been combined into electromagnetic theory. Part of what comes out of this is that you can convert electricity into magnetism, and vice versa - which is the basis of most of our power generation in the world, and for electric motors. What if unifying electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces, and gravitational theory pointed the way to such fantastic practical applications? Could anti-gravity be real? Unlimited clean power from the atom? Economical space travel? The possibilities are endless. |
Ocean_Islands | Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 04:22 pm  My understanding is that elements of the theories are, but I won't belabor the point. |
Guruchaz | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 06:01 pm  bump |
Ocean_Islands | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 06:25 pm  Are you just whacking things with your hip? Why don't you add something to enlighten us while you are at it. |
Guruchaz | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 06:28 pm  Pardon me for trying to resurrect the dead. |
Ocean_Islands | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 06:46 pm  Maybe you should just trying walking without bumping your hips into everything. >snark< |
|