PDA

View Full Version : Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?


Halfbaked_Boy
30th Oct 2013, 18:07
Random thought occurred to me...

Specifically, travelling at or near to the speed of light, here's a hypothetical situation -

Light from Star X takes four years to reach Earth.

When it reaches Earth, it is like looking at Star X four years in the past, because light doesn't age. If light aged (not sure this makes sense but bear with it), then by the time it reached us it would have been travelling for four years, and it would have aged four years (during the four year transit), so it would be like looking at Star X EIGHT years ago, which is not the case. This is how I visualise the idea of time stopping for an object travelling at the speed of light.

Make of that paragraph what you will, I know the second half is nonsense but it is precursor to my real question -

How do we know that the quality of 'not aging' at the speed of light is something not just attributable to light photons? How do we know that it is the act of travelling at the speed of light that halts local time? As opposed to the act of a light photon (specifically) travelling at that speed, carries the attribute of its 'time' halting?

If that question can be phrased for a better answer, how about... Despite the formula (which I understand), WHY does 'local time' stop for an object travelling at that speed? I get that the theory states, in a mathematical format, that for 'A' to equal 'B', 'B' must equal 'A' etc etc, but WHY?

I haven't started drinking yet.

rgbrock1
30th Oct 2013, 18:12
Halfbaked:

Thanks for you little expose'. After reading it my brain burst into flames, causing my cubicle to spontaneously ignite as well.

Couldn't we discuss the relativity of big boobs instead? :}

Lonewolf_50
30th Oct 2013, 18:16
RG, I'd rather not talk politics in a thread with scientific material. It might cause a tear in the space-time continuum and render Hillary Clinton desireable via the photons reaching your eyes. You'd then need to poke them out.

Let's not go there, nor then.

rgbrock1
30th Oct 2013, 18:18
If anything rendered Hillary Clinton desirable to my eyes I would not only poke them out but seal them shut with crazy glue just to be sure! :} (Besides, I made mention of the relativity of big boobs. Hillary has no boobs. :ok:)

Halfbaked_Boy
30th Oct 2013, 18:20
rgbrock1,

We can call the object a boob, is that any good? The question still remains though, why does it stay eternally youthful instead of dropping like a wizard's sleeve?!

rgbrock1
30th Oct 2013, 18:23
Well, as far as the boob is concerned many do stay youthful in appearance whereas the host has gotten on in the years. However, gravity has they way of doing nastiness to some boobs. Which tend to droop like a bloodhound's ears.

Now, what this has to do with photons, protons, neutrons or neutrinos I have no clue. On the other hand, perhaps photons have a time-stilling effect on the non-drooping kind of boobs. Therefore, the more light of day a pair of boobs see the less likely for eventual droopiness.

Damn, I should have been Einstein.

Dak Man
30th Oct 2013, 18:25
42...........

er340790
30th Oct 2013, 18:25
Talking of First Ladies, I did once have a dream that I was on the White House lawn, unfastening Michelle Obama's yellow dress.

(What I was doing wearing her yellow dress in the first place, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA!!! :})

But that was before she got all lardy, obviously... :E

rgbrock1
30th Oct 2013, 18:28
Talking of First Ladies, I did once have a dream that I was on the White House lawn, unfastening Michelle Obama's yellow dress.

Hm. I wouldn't have considered that a dream but a friggin' nightmare. Unfastening her dress? Judging by the size of her arms she probably would kick the ass of the undresser from one end of Sunday to the next. And then rip your dick off just for the hell of it. :}

Dushan
30th Oct 2013, 18:30
It depends...

The story goes something like this:

Young Albert was married to a Serbian woman from Novi Sad. On Sundays the couple would go to her parents fro lunch, and after lunch the men would sit around the table and smoke and drink coffee. The old man would say to young Albert: "it's all relative, you know", from which he later devised his theory.

wiggy
30th Oct 2013, 18:54
Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?

Err, no....."General Relativity" comes under the heading of "The really really difficult theory of life the universe and everything" ;) - OTOH I think the question you pose comes under the heading of "Special Relativity" , as in the chunks of relativistic theory concerning a special/limited situation....so...


How do we know that the quality of 'not aging' at the speed of light is something not just attributable to light photons?

As an example I refer you to experiments surrounding the measurement of Muon decay, e.g.......


Wolfram Demonstrations Project (http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RelativisticTimeDilationInMuonDecay/)

In a nutshell ;) the faster they go, the longer they take to decay, as measured by a "stationary" observer.

Sorry for drifting off topic, now back to the boobs :E

axefurabz
30th Oct 2013, 18:59
When it reaches Earth, it is like looking at Star X four years in the past... If light aged then by the time it reached us it would have been traveling for four years, and it would have aged four years (during the four year transit), so it would be like looking at Star X EIGHT years ago ..Nope, you're going to have to explain how you arrive at that conclusion. Are you saying that if I've spent 7 hours traveling from A to B I've actually aged by 14 hours because I've, er, aged?

Methinks you should be starting to drink ...:}

Sailor Vee
30th Oct 2013, 19:01
I'm not related to any Generals! :rolleyes:

tony draper
30th Oct 2013, 19:04
Hmmm, for the photon leaving star x it arrived at your eyeball the instant it left star x,no time has passed at all, only the information it is carrying is four years old.
ere I think.
:rolleyes:

Limeygal
30th Oct 2013, 19:23
general relativity in a nutshell?

Seems to me, that if you were in a nutshell, you wouldn't be able to move very fast at all-just sayin' :)

Solid Rust Twotter
30th Oct 2013, 19:41
It's all magic but it responds to garlic.



...Or is that gravity...?




...Something that starts with a G in any case...

flying lid
30th Oct 2013, 19:49
The Alan Parsons Project- Space Time (Time Machine) - YouTube

Not only explained - but also to music !

Lid

ShyTorque
30th Oct 2013, 21:37
If you were traveling at the speed of light and someone held a big mirror in front of you, would you do a 180 and go back to where you came from, or would you just reflect on it?

arcniz
30th Oct 2013, 22:07
the photon leaving star x it arrived at your eyeball the instant it left star x,no time has passed at all, only the information it is carrying is four years old.

Nice..., butt. Even if photon is transmitted instantaneously, the aforesaid arriving info regarding said photon will - in your proposed calculus - be naturally incorporating not just the final integral but all the intermediate states of the path of the photon as it travels from source to observer, tracing a very complex set of wiggles and woggles as Mr. P is pushed and pulled off course in 3 or more dimensions enroute to one's eyeball. The entire history MUST exist as an information entity in continuum, because it is, inherently, we would surmise, associated with that particular photon making that particular transit in n-dimensional space at that one or set of instants in time. Were all the information of the transit not somehow preserved, the observed result could not possibly convey valid information that respects the true gravitational history of the intervening space -- a concept that is the moneyspot premise of modern cosmology and astronomy, n'est ce pas?


:):):)

Loose rivets
30th Oct 2013, 22:10
The music is a bit, War of the Worlds, innit?

tony draper
30th Oct 2013, 22:13
All that might be true Mr arcniz if there were many photons,but you see there is only one photon in the entire universe and being out of time it appears everywhere simultaneously for we timebound entities.
:)

arcniz
30th Oct 2013, 22:41
there is only one photon in the entire universe and being out of time it appears everywhere simultaneously for we timebound entities

One colud buy the premise of one great universal mother of a photon doing all the work -- rather like Kubele, back-in-the-day -- if it were made clear where the history of all the ubiquity comings & goings might be stored as a record.


Perhaps that could be Space-time itself, comprised entirely of Histerons?

Airborne Aircrew
30th Oct 2013, 22:42
I don't think general relativity is restrited to merely a nutshell... I'm pretty sure it will prove to be universal... :}

lomapaseo
31st Oct 2013, 04:06
I think that you have to look at light in that way as corpuscular (billiard balls colliding) theory and the only linearity is in your own eyes averaging what they see between blinks. The condition of the object emitting the light is the first billiard ball which may be now at rest or having deflected itself to somewhere else. All you detect is the last billiard ball trigger to your eye and any repeated occurrences thereafter.

Ozzy
31st Oct 2013, 04:11
"Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?"

Yes. Send me a PM and a check for $499,999 USD and I will spill the beans.

Ozzy

westhawk
31st Oct 2013, 05:07
"Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?"

There was once this fellow named Albert Einstein who attempted to! His book Relativity: The Special and General Theory was purported to have been written with the goal of explaining relativity theory so that someone without "higher math" training could understand it. Personally, I'm not sure ol' Albert understood just how large a gap there was between his own understanding and that of most of the rest of humanity. (relatively speaking) I've read the book four times so far and I think I get a better picture of relativity now than I did the first time, but I'll probably read it some more...

The problem is of course that I, like most other folks, am intellectually stuck in the "mechanical universe" where things have to make sense from "ability to visualize" perspective. Understanding relativity is going to require more than simply gaining skills in higher math for me. It's going to require that I learn to accept the existence and function of processes that cannot be easily visualized. Translating the apparently abstract into a sensible and understandable visual model is the way forward but in no way is changing the way one fundamentally thinks easy. Anyway that's my excuse for not understanding and I'm sticking to it! (Lorenz transformations or no)

Best of success and please do share if you find a way to "easily explain" relativity!

PS We're all counting on you...

westhawk

sitigeltfel
31st Oct 2013, 06:22
Why, when a Major is superior in rank to a Lieutenant, is a Lieutenant General superior to a Major General?

Cacophonix
31st Oct 2013, 06:25
Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?

It is a bit like Venus on a half shell except much, much faster...

Let Philip Glass explain...

philip glass einstein on the beach - YouTube

Caco

ExRAFRadar
31st Oct 2013, 06:41
No boobs but...

Special Relativity is not that difficult to grasp (if you just want the principles and not the maths, well with a bit of maths)

To make it work you only need 2 Postulates:


The speed of light is constant for all observers
No point of view is any more valid than any other (Inertial frame of reference)

First point is proven thanks to Maxwell's equations
Second point is a strange one that has all to do with 'There is no experiment you can do that proves you are moving if you are at constant velocity (Speed and Direction)


The first postulate gives rise to the famous 'You age while I don't' at relativistic speeds. It also means that lines of simultaneity (my 'now' and your 'now') do not agree.


SpaceTime diagrams show all this actually quite clearly.


The quick win in this is to know that everything travels at the speed of light (c) in 4 dimensional SpaceTime but until you approach speed c most of your journey through SpaceTime is spent going in the space direction and not time.


By the way Light speed is not the speed limit, c is the speed limit, light just happens to travel at speed c because it has no mass.


Now General Relativity is where it gets really interesting...


Back to the boobs.

RequestPidgeons
31st Oct 2013, 06:45
General Relativity was killed on the Somme during War One.

End of story.

Boobs. MMMMmmmmmm.......

jolihokistix
31st Oct 2013, 06:59
How big is the nutshell?

Lightning Mate
31st Oct 2013, 07:12
light just happens to travel at speed c because it has no mass

Radio waves do though.

ORAC
31st Oct 2013, 07:49
One colud buy the premise of one great universal mother of a photon doing all the work -- rather like Kubele, back-in-the-day -- if it were made clear where the history of all the ubiquity comings & goings might be stored as a record. Holographic Universe (http://sciexplorer.********.co.uk/2012/04/holographic-universe.html?m=1)

Blacksheep
31st Oct 2013, 08:01
...there is only one photon in the entire universe and being out of time it appears everywhere simultaneously for we timebound entities.
I see we are on the same wavelength, tony. For some time I was afraid I was, like the photon, alone in this wild, untamed universe of ours. ;)

To the photon, all locations are one and the same and all the information it carries is a probability function with no "reality" as we understand it. The universe or to be more precise, space-time, is actually a consequence of the emergence of time froma state of nothingness.

Om.

probes
31st Oct 2013, 09:22
rgb,
After reading it my brain burst into flames, causing my cubicle to spontaneously ignite as well.
the laws of the speed of light apply then? :cool:

tony draper
31st Oct 2013, 09:44
Time is what stops everything happening at once and space stops everything happening at once in the same place.
:rolleyes:

Airborne Aircrew
31st Oct 2013, 09:47
Siti:

Why, when a Major is superior in rank to a Lieutenant, is a Lieutenant General superior to a Major General?

Because the rank Major General is, in fact, a contraction of Sergeant Major General but those poncey officers didn't think it was classy enough to have the word Sergeant in such a high rank's title.

Every day is a school day eh? :ok:

cattletruck
31st Oct 2013, 10:03
"Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?"

It is impossible to fit a human being inside a nutshell.

ORAC
31st Oct 2013, 10:08
wMFPe-DwULM

wiggy
31st Oct 2013, 10:17
ORAC

Ahh, the Great Explainer :D at work and in full flow ....thank you kindly for the link.

arcniz
31st Oct 2013, 12:12
HOLOGRAPHIC 2-d UNIVERSE....

Thank you, ORAC, for the interesting ref. It makes for some interesting datapoints, re quantum entanglement and the general weirdness to be expected in neighborhoods of black holes..... (all puns hereby acknowledged and forbidden).

One thinks the Physicists can take great liberties with their little particles without being questioned sharply... because it's a game outsiders absolutely cannot win. Whether the Physikers can usurp total sway over information theory, bending it for convenience to satisfy one particle fantasy or another, remains to be seen. Liberties, it would seem, are being taken by equating the entropic propensities of matter to those of information. Many in the P camp drool at the possibility of rescue from overreaching by virtue of showy tricks with quantum entanglement. Concurrently, some in the I camp see that as shallow hope for repairing the excesses of recent exuberance in seeking reasons to employ a few hundred thousand more person-years of P-type labour as budgets tighten.

Limeygal
31st Oct 2013, 12:49
Feynman must be related to KAG :eek:

wings folded
31st Oct 2013, 12:59
It is impossible to fit a human being inside a nutshell.


All humans come originally from a nutshell, but it is more usual to call it a nut bag.

rgbrock1
31st Oct 2013, 13:09
A nut bag? I thought that had something to do with squirrels, no? :}

1DC
31st Oct 2013, 13:22
well I am now confused, how can their only be one photon. When i used to play a spaceship game on my Sinclair Spectrum or ZX or whatever they called it, their were lots of photons and they used to go beep beep when they were moving across the universe.., and people using these long words and stuff.
As my grand daughter said when they had a flood at school it was very serious because the men who were looking at it were using very long words..

wings folded
31st Oct 2013, 13:23
Nut sack, if you prefer.

Dialects differ.

probes
31st Oct 2013, 16:37
thank you, ORAC, on behalf of the people around me - it will take some time before I ask any questions again :p.

Thomas coupling
31st Oct 2013, 16:38
Two pints please.
Photon walks into a bar. :D:D

Photon walks into a bar.
Barman: Have I seen you before?:D

Roman soldier walks into a bar and holds up 2 fingers.
"Five pints please" :D:D:D:D

Edited because I changed my mind before I typed this.............:E

funfly
31st Oct 2013, 18:52
The reason people get confused with things is that they believe there is a fourth dimension - time.
That is not the case.

We don't move through time at all, time is only the now, anything past is gone and anything in the future is yet to come.

So your light from the star that has taken four years to reach to you…

They are waves that reach your eyes and are focused by the lens and the nerves at the back of the eyeball react to them and transmits a pulse to a part of your brain that interprets it as what you think is light. Your brain 'sees' a star because that is what you have taught your brain to interpret that image to. The interpretation that these light waves are from a star and have taken four years to reach you is also information that you have placed in your brain based on what other people have persuaded you is fact.

Similarly a ray of light impinging on an object is reflected by the forces at the surface of that object (forces, not the object itself) and some rays get to your eye where it is interpreted by part of your brain as an object that your brain has been advised is a chair or something else.

It's the same with the tree in the forest, does it make a sound when no-one is there? well the answer is no because the tree does not actually make a noise, what it does is create vibrations in the air and certain frequencies of these vibrations can cause a human ear to send information to our brains which are interpreted by us as a sound, in this case a crashing tree. The tree has not made the sound, our ears have received vibrations and send data to the brain which we translate to being a 'sound'.

The base of the matter is that our perception of the world is based on how our brains interpret the pulses sent to it. What our brain tells us is dependent on our learning. We know absolutely nothing of how anyone else perceives the world we inhabit. What we do know is that most things we consider solid are actually transparent as far as the universe is concerned, they only exhibit 'solidness' because the forces in them reflect the forces (light, pressure and sound etc.) Science has taught us that virtually everything we consider solid is totally transparent at an atomic level.

So the past and future don't exist, only now exists and life as we see it is only what our brains have decided to tell us based on information received from waves of energy impacting on the eyes or ears (or noses).

We must accept, I suggest, that matters on a universe scale, big bang etc., are being explained by science today, however the difficulty with this is that the human brain has limitations and science is trying in this case to explain something that our brains do not have the capacity to understand. Inevitably the scientists are attempting to put the theories into words that they can understand rather than admitting that there may be an area of astronomy that lies outside of the ability of the human brain. This inevitably means that when they do produce ideas the words are not valid. Hence their description of time as a dimension through which we 'travel' when it is patently obvious that this is not so.

G-CPTN
31st Oct 2013, 19:10
Do you think that dogs and cats (and elephants and dolphins) worry about how extensive the Universe is or whether there are other forms of life out there?

highflyer40
31st Oct 2013, 20:34
yes they do, well dogs anyway. my mutt asked me just the other day.

tony draper
31st Oct 2013, 20:43
I think Dogs and other critters already know these truths, tiz only we talking monkeys who are born dumb and ignorant,
:rolleyes:

lionelmandrake
31st Oct 2013, 20:46
You are very wrong sir, she has one big boob.

Airborne Aircrew
31st Oct 2013, 20:53
Funfly:

We don't move through time at all, time is only the now, anything past is gone and anything in the future is yet to come.

So... the me that was me a second ago is one of the infinite iterations of me. The me in the now is the "now me" and another of the infinite iterations of me yet it is different to all the other iterations. The me in one seconds time with be yet another of the infinite iterations of me and will, again, be different to all other iterations. I don't regenerate every [insert time period here]. That doesn"t make sense.

Maybe using the term "moving through time" isn't correct. Perhaps "travelling with time" is more appropriate but time is a dimension in and of itself. To say different is really to tell good old Albert that he's a dumb hick...

tony draper
31st Oct 2013, 20:58
Well Entropy suggests time does indeed exist,and the laws of same that it indeed has a direction.
:rolleyes:

Airborne Aircrew
31st Oct 2013, 21:04
Tony:

Unfortunately it does and, at my age, it ain't going backwards... :{

tony draper
31st Oct 2013, 21:12
I'm coming round to the idea mooted in that rather silly movie The Matrix,nothing is actually real, the universe, us, cats, dogs, trees,bananas ect and all that in there is are just a load of zeros and ones on a hard disk somewhere,we are all just a simulation.
Hell of a graphic card they have running the buggah though.
:uhoh:

Airborne Aircrew
31st Oct 2013, 21:21
Tony:

Cats are the spies... Trust me... They know something... :sad:

Loose rivets
31st Oct 2013, 21:23
Tony . . . read, "The Man That Reversed Entropy." I think. Something like that.

I also think it was, LeMesurier. Buggah me. I was in a restaurant many many years ago with Luciano Berio and the Swingle singers.

I was talking of this book, and Luciano asked one of the singers to get it for him. I'd really only quoted the last line. Obviously stuck in my - as you would say - my head-bone.

Lonewolf_50
31st Oct 2013, 21:24
The reason people get confused with things is that they believe there is a fourth dimension - time. That is not the case.
Actually, if you talk to physicists, they will point out that time is a dimension. They can back it up with the maths. ;)
We don't move through time at all, time is only the now, anything past is gone and anything in the future is yet to come.
I understand what you are trying to say, see above. You are describing our experience of time, not time itself.
It's the same with the tree in the forest, does it make a sound when no-one is there? well the answer is no because the tree does not actually make a noise,
Yes it does, and every rabbit can hear it. Having a human nearby does not change the energy that is transmitted through the medium that is air. A sound wave is produced, but there may not be a human ear to receive it as it loses energy through various means of dissipation. Trees don't grow in a vacuum. They too need air.
What our brain tells us is dependent on our learning. The rabbit hears a noise. Whether or not he associates it with "tree" is irrelevant.

G-CPTN
31st Oct 2013, 21:59
It is an interesting concept that it is only because creatures have evolved to be capable of interpreting these vibrations as sound and light that they are so significant and that (presumably) most creatures hear and see similarly (spiders excepted, maybe).

Maybe there is a God?
We could advance the thought if we could find a creature from another World and see whether they have similar equipment.

Loose rivets
31st Oct 2013, 22:02
Just been stuck in the early 70s for a while. Luciano and Swingle II doing Cries of London or some such. Wonderful cappella. It do have two p's, don't it? Ooo, got a touch of Forrest Gump there.

Now, back to Relativity. My starter for 10.

Who said, "I wonder who the other one is?" when it was mentioned there were only three people in the world that understood Relativity.

South America is a clue.

Loose rivets
31st Oct 2013, 22:44
Now, I'm going to get even soppier. British pubs. I love 'em, but even my second home, the Red Lion, in Kirby le Soken, has I'm told, just closed. I simply can not look, so I have to take people's word.

It was my second home for 50 years. Indeed, I learned I was going to be a dad in one of the more comfy seats. She didn't know it was to be twins at that stage. Anyway, I found myself in another local pub. Food was off - kitchens closed due to a boiler fault, so we, The Three Musketeers of yesteryear, had the pretty, nay, divinely cute 18 year-old barmaid, to ourselves. Suffice it to say, a quick half only ended when I fell orf me stool at 4PM.

Strangely, we had got around to the subject of gravity. (no, not my doing. Okay, it was a bit to do with what I was saying about spacetime, (one word, gentlemen, please) ) Anyway, she drew a picture of planets and a clearly recognizable Earth on an order thingie. A large Teddy featured in the scene.

I added a spaceship, with crew, under Teddy. The now exquisitely beautiful girl mentioned my wings were not symmetrical. She was right, and I re-mapped them against the order-pad heavens. Anyway, this delightful kid, who refused to pronounce her t's as a matter of principle, reacted to my "No one know why this does this." I had heard myself saying as I dropped a 10p coin on the bar.

She scribed a huge world in the spacetime above the bar, shortly followed by a huge-er circle, while she explained it was an outer shell of some sort - one which radiated some kind of pushing force inwards towards our spherical home. I was awesmaked.

Was this not the stuff of Dark Matter? 27% of the total material that we deduce, by big sums, as being there . . . Question mark.

Just suppose the mysterious stuff was pushing, instead of just being a nuisance. By Jove! I cried. I think she's got it.

Right, this sketch is getting silly and should be cancelled. :*

Lonewolf_50
31st Oct 2013, 22:59
Dark matter is the Guinness thats in the very bottom of the pint glass that you didn't quite finish, when it gets left on the bar overnight and dries out a bit to be found by the morning shift and frowned at. :cool:

There is no real gravity, the earth sucks.

Ascend Charlie
31st Oct 2013, 23:44
One description of dimensions stays with me.

Imagine a 1-dimensional being, a line, moving in only 1 of 2 directions, happy with his/her life. But one day it meets another line, moving at right angles to it, in the second dimension. Poor little 1-d line doesn't understand how there can be anything other than 1 dimension, so writes it off as "time".

Next is a 2-dimensional piece of paper, rustling along nice and flat, when it bumps into another plane at right angles to it, in the third dimension. More puzzlement, cannot conceive of a third dimension, dismisses it as "time".

Here we are in our three dimensions, cannot conceive of a fourth, all we can do is call it time.:8

G-CPTN
31st Oct 2013, 23:55
a line, moving in only 1 of 2 directionsIsn't it movement that defines time?

After all a clock describes time when its hands move. When the mechanism stops and the hands don't move then time 'ceases' (at least locally).
In order to define how long the hands have been stopped you need another device (a timepiece) to measure the period.

Airborne Aircrew
1st Nov 2013, 00:48
We could advance the thought if we could find a creature from another World and see whether they have similar equipment.

That's far from conclusive as to the proof of a supreme being... The universe has certain "qualities" that, to be aware of the universe one would be required to be able to detect. Light is clearly universal so sight would be high on the list. Varying degrees of gravity are universal so the ability to feel, or not feel, your weight would be reasonable... By the time we're done everyone should have certain characteristics across the universe if they live in the atmosphere of a "planet".

I always laugh when these super bright scientists say a planet "can't sustain life" because if isn't a near clone of Earth despite the fact we have proved that there are life forms living in the sulphur jets of volcanoes a few miles down in our own oceans...

Cacophonix
1st Nov 2013, 00:51
Do the math(s) guys...

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

AtomKraft
1st Nov 2013, 01:04
Clearly came, the answer to the OPs question.......

Nope!

Cacophonix
1st Nov 2013, 01:09
Ach, come on Atom, you understand fast vis vis slow fission (Jah those little neutrons) and the concept of Barn... Kommen zie ...!

Rammstein - Du Hast Live from Volkerball - YouTube&

Caco

AtomKraft
1st Nov 2013, 02:20
Actually, Cackers, one has trouble nibbling ones fingers.


Without ones Social Worker. :uhoh::uhoh::}

Blacksheep
1st Nov 2013, 08:33
... yes they do, well dogs anyway. my mutt asked me just the other day. Ah yes, Chad. I've read your book (http://dogphysics.com/). Both of them (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8243716-how-to-teach-quantum-physics-to-your-dog)

Blacksheep
1st Nov 2013, 08:40
Time is what stops everything happening at once and space stops everything happening at once in the same place.Just imagine a situation where Everything [all that isn't, wasn't and won't be] was co-located as a single non-entity and it went out of control.

There would be one helluva Big Bang!!

I think you may have solved the GUT. All you have to do now is work on the mathematics. ;)

funfly
1st Nov 2013, 10:41
Blacksheep
I think you've cracked it:ok:

Loose rivets
1st Nov 2013, 12:01
Why is he describing a Feynman diagram if he's teaching the special theory?


(I'm slightly more sober today.:p)

TURIN
1st Nov 2013, 12:14
In answer to the OP.

Someone has tried...

Stephen Hawking

I didn't understand it either. :{

cattletruck
1st Nov 2013, 12:42
Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell?

If time, matter and light can be bent by these theories then so can the truth I say.

Caco, OMG, you reminded me I have two Rammstein albums in my collection that I completely forgot about, now if only I could go back in time and make a better decision.

AtomKraft
1st Nov 2013, 13:48
I'd have more respect for scientists, if I heard 'we don't know' a bit more often.

Or even.....once.

PTT
1st Nov 2013, 15:16
@ AtomKraft - Feynman said it a lot. Maybe listening to the scientists themselves rather than the newspaper reports of what they say will help?

ORAC
1st Nov 2013, 15:18
Quote:
Can anybody explain general relativity in a nutshell? Time is an illusion, we've been framed.

ExRAFRadar
1st Nov 2013, 15:33
Just do a bit of research into this chap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#One-to-one_correspondence

Some Infinities are bigger than others...