English

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Jamski
We don't know why! But it works!

Presume the fastest possible particle viewed from any inertial reference frame travels at the speed of light.
Inertial reference frame: Is not accelerating.

Physics at a high level ceases to be logical.

It's quite logical, actually.
The fault is that Jamski already believes some incorrect things, and he can't change those incorrect beliefs.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Thus we have eliminated the need of God(-s), need of religy and all that stuff regarding it!

God is a concept invented by people to either
A. better enable them to perform their tasks
B. manipulate others to gain power

Sister Miriam phrases it best:
"Why would a perfect god create a universe at all?"

If there -is- a god, then the Real and the Imaginary are blurred.
Why would a god make this stuff Real?
Why couldn't the god invent this all in his own mind?
Moreover, how could we tell the difference?
Then there's the temoral-spatial argument.
Why are we on this planet, with those stars?
Why do I live in that city during this year?

If God does not contain imperfection, then before making anything, God could not observe imperfection.
Therefore, with neither experience nor concept, God invented a whole new idea!
If he could do -that-, then why couldn't he invent all sorts of other stuff?
If he invented imperfection, a flawed invention by definition, then was it a fudgeup (God imperfect)?

I like having answers to questions.
One might argue that my inability to work with exponential doubt is a flaw of my character, but still...
Christians answer the 'big questions' by presuming a God exists.
I answer my 'big questions' in relative to that by presuming a God does not exist in the same form as they think it/he does.

------
Perception is a difficult topic.
You have to consider that it is heavily based on reference frame,
that it changes form with time and movement,
that it is not predictable and very random on small-scale,
and that perceiving results about it will fudge the results.

Perception is therefore at least as complex as String theory.
There's also the annoying problem that perception is iterative - knowledge of an answer alters its solution.
Parts of perception are outside their own explainations.
and, importantly, there are both tautologies and paradoxes.

I may not have the answers now, but if anyone is going to find them, it will be me.

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by obstructor
English in SMAC>automatic translation>time travel>SF novels>God> ........

English in SMAC-->automatic translation-->time travel-->SF novels-->God-->Perception--> ........

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by Maniac
And why didn't the relative timeframe become the shaceships?

Because HongHu doesn't know what she's talking about.

Both timeframes are relative. One accelerates, the other doesn't.
Special relativity holds in the one that does not accelerate.
Do the relativity calculations, you get the correct predicted result.

That's exactly the contradiction I've been trying to explain all along but no one seems to get.

I've heard the twin paradox before.

You intuitively think in geocentric worldview. AFAIK it's equally valid to say:
"If the Earth goes away and then comes back, it had to do some accelerating."

Well... something had to do some accelerating in order for two things going away from one another to again converge.
I presumed it was the rocket since nobody's insalled booster rockets on the Earth just yet.

couldn't the explanation not also be eg that time goes slower when not in the close neighbourhood of mass (eg the Earth)?

Heard general relativity too.
You're correct in that explaination too, Maniac.
Gravity == Acceleration, and time goes slower in higher gravity fields.

[Snowflake]

From Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland:

Having a cup of coffee, Mr Tompkins even went so far as to claim that he had found a contradiction in the famous principle of relativity.

“Yes, of course,” thought he, “if all were relative, the traveller would appear to his relatives as a very old man, and they would appear very old to him, although both sides might in fact be fairly young. But what I am saying now is definitely nonsense: One could not have relative whiskers!"

So he decided to make a last attempt to find out how things really are, and turned to a solitary man in railway uniform sitting in the buffet.

“Will you be so kind, sir, ” he began, “will you be good enough to tell me who is responsible for the fact that the passengers in the train grow old so much more slowly than the people staying at one place? ”

“I am responsible for it ”, said the man, very simply.

“Oh! ”exclaimed Mr Tompkins, “So you have solved the problem of the Philosopher's Stone of the ancient alchemists. You should be quite a famous man in the medical world. Do you occupy the chair of medicine here? ”

“No,” answered the man, being quite taken aback by this, "I am just a brakeman on this railway. ”

“Brakeman! You mean a brake man . . .” exclaimed Mr Tompkins, losing ground beneath him “You mean you just apply the brakes when the train comes to the station? ”

“Yup, that's all I do, and every time the train gets slowed down, the passengers gain in their ages relative to other people… Of course, the engine driver who accelerates the train does his part too.”

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Gravity == Acceleration, and time goes slower in higher gravity fields.

That's right. If we cannot see frames of reference, we cannot tell the difference between gravity and acceleration. In an accelerating rocket in the outer space, the austronauts will experience weight.

The question then, is that if that means acceleration is not relative.

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
Inertial reference frame: Is not accelerating.

If speed is relative, why wouldn't acceleration be relative? If acceleration is relative, then how do you know which one is the inertial reference frame?

[Enigma_Nova]

Originally posted by HongHu
The question then, is that if that means acceleration is not relative.

It's relative, but you -can- tell an accelerating reference frame apart from a constant velocity one.
You can't do that with stationary/moving reference frames.
Special relativity holds for Inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames.

If acceleration is relative, then how do you know which one is the inertial reference frame?

/me pushes you backwards
Did you feel that?
That's how you tell when a force is acting on something.
If something is accelerating, there is a net force acting upon it.

[Snowflake]

Good point. Hopefully you've made me younger than I would have been without that push.

[Snowflake]

Now what would you answer to Tiger when he asks "why is the moon moving with us" when he sits in our car that is moving along the road?

[GeoModder]

"Because the moon is moving faster then us, Tiger "

[Snowflake]

That sounds like an answer to a question about the shooting stars.

[Illuminatus]

He is hungry, and he just likes to eat children. He must have spotted you

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
If something is accelerating, there is a net force acting upon it.

And then forces are reciprocal also. When there is a force that pushes the spaceship away from the earth, the earth receives a force that pushes it away from the spaceship too. Then what determines who gets the work (acceleration) done would be the mass I suppose.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by obstructor
He is hungry, and he just likes to eat children. He must have spotted you

Tiger is too old (or too young) to think that the moon is a he. And it is not good to try to scare children.

[Illuminatus]

Why? He will froze in fear on his seat if he is old enough