Relatively speakingFollow

Exuse me, blame Einstein.

Next year may not be quite what is seems. Although every care has been taken in the preparation of the World in 2005, it has been pointed out that certain difficulties attach to the concept of time, and thus to the concept of "next year," adding a certain je ne sais quoi to our thoughts about the future. These difficulties were first elaborated by Albert Einstein in 1905---100 years ago.

Suppose, for a moment, that you are alighting from a spaceship. Suppose, too, that you are a twin travelling on your own, and that you have whizzed away from Earth for ten years at 0.9 times the speed of light before turning round and whizzing back. Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" has some implications for you.

One is that you think you have been away from 20 years and are therefore 20 years older than when you left---making you 45 years old if, say, you were 25 when you set off. But your confused twin thinks you have been away for 46 years, making him 71. This, the "twin paradox", is all a consequence of various inadequacies in Sir Issac Newton's belief that space and time were absolute concepts that existed independently of the Universe. Einstein was the first to jot down what now seems so obvious---that the Universse should be considered as a continuum with both spatial and temportal dimensions.

All this adds up to the awkward fact---awkward for prognosticators, anyway---that the time that elapses between two events will depend on the motion of the observer. If, therefore, an event predicted in this publication strangely does not come to pass in 2005, the explanation is almost sure to be that the observer of the non-event is not at rest but travelling. And the closer his speed is to the speed of light, the greater the likelihood of this stumbling on some seeiming inexactitude.

Happily, most people try to keep travel at the speed of light to an absolute minimum. For them the good news is that large particles travelling at speeds much less than that abide by the laws set by Sir Isaac, and the same goes for travellers. For all practical purposes, they can carry on regardless.

Where does that leave Einstein's specail theory? Well, with quite a bit to say about other things, notably the relationship between matter and energy. That is because particles accelerated to something close to the speed of light gain in mass, and are unable to go any faster than that speed. This implies not just a relationship between matter and energy but an equivalence, summed up in the formula e=mc2, where E is energy, "m" is mass and "c" is the unsurpassable speed of light.

Once again, the implications seem to be greatest for particles rather than human beings going about their daily business. But humans are affected. First, philosophers, who have much to explain; second, T-shirt designers, who can emblazon their wares with the familiar formula and a picture of the most photogenic nutty professor ever; and third, everyone, since the mass-energy equivalence makes nuclear weapons possible.

In fact, the relative is everywhere---and that is not a reference to your great-aunt. There is, of course, moral relativism, much frowned upon these day by those who deplore the associated belief that moral standards vary according to cirumstance and from person to person. And there is the widespread reckoning in mudance affairs not just of absolutes but of rates of change. Thus economists are more concerned about inflation rates than actual prices. Carmakers sell their products less by their top speeds than their ability to get away from the lights. And, at least in rich countries, it is not absolute indigence that raises questions about social justice so much as the relative poverty of those who cannot keep up with the Joneses.

If such reflections owe more to Archimedes and the other Greeks who cottoned on the differential calculus than they do to Einstein, that should not detract from his genius in drawing attention to the curious nature of relativity. In 2005 the least he deserves is a centennial T-shirt.

Exuse me? You were sub default, went away for a bit now you're 2.5.

This wasn't a conversation. You see? For this conversation to take place, you would need to be a little smarter than the fu[b][/b]ckwit you are.

Edit: Sentence Fragment.

Edited, Wed Jan 12 22:49:49 2005 by LtGoose

Where was that from, Goose? If you're going to discuss an article, generally speaking you should provide a link, or at least a name of where you got your material. Even better would be to give just a sample or summary statement of the article, then link itso we can read it - if we care to. Otherwise you're jstu spewing out spam mail and chain letters aka al'katie.

Relativity is so much easier to explain, even with little words. Imagine you're standing somewhere. You see someone walking by, tossing up a ball, and catching it as they move. From their perspective, the ball appears to be simply moving up and down from their hand.

However, from your position, the ball appears to be moving in a curve, or a parabola. Both views are correct of course, it just depends on your relative perspective :)

I wonder how the twin paradox lines up with the modern theories of physics, like the string and super string theory wherein time and space each have equal properties.

Ah well, it wasn't his most interesting idea anyways. Now the unified field theory, now THAT was cool.

Relativity is so much easier to explain, even with little words. Imagine you're standing somewhere. You see someone walking by, tossing up a ball, and catching it as they move. From their perspective, the ball appears to be simply moving up and down from their hand.

However, from your position, the ball appears to be moving in a curve, or a parabola. Both views are correct of course, it just depends on your relative perspective :)

I wonder how the twin paradox lines up with the modern theories of physics, like the string and super string theory wherein time and space each have equal properties.

Ah well, it wasn't his most interesting idea anyways. Now the unified field theory, now THAT was cool.

Honestly, I was working on my typing.

Yes, I did take this from a magazine I have at home and I apologize for misleading you.

Shrodingers cat is *********

and I don't believe that their 2 planes experiment fesibly aplies to anything.
I can bounce a ball and watch which way it bounces then tell everyone that that is the way it will bounce all the time.

Einstein states that his reletivity wouldn't work, would there be an outside observer to actually "witness" everything in syncrinisity with everything else...... It wouldn't work it somthing could see everything. But this is lacking because it is on the assumtion that there can never be a completly objective perspective.
That is waht I disagree with.
and the childish uses of light and time.

I soo wish I wasn't so busy today, for these are the arguments I look for... but alas.. duty calls....
/off to spanking it.

Edited, Fri Jan 14 11:52:10 2005 by Kelvyquayo