/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12267122

296KiB, 634x268, Three_famous_physicists.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

It's all about motion

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 10:14:25 2020 No.12267122 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12267124 >>12267161 >>12267242

>Galileo's uniform acceleration
>Newton's classical mechanics
>Einstein's relativity
And motion is relative and force is a consequence of motion. Am I wrong? New to this physics stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:15:57 No.12267124 Report

Quoted By: >>12267126 >>12267154

>>12267122
relativity is more about geometry than motion

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:17:45 No.12267126 Report

Quoted By: >>12267131

>>12267124
Is force a consequence of motion or is motion a consequence of force?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:19:55 No.12267131 Report

Quoted By:

>>12267126
both

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:32:10 No.12267154 Report

Quoted By:

>>12267124
Relativity is more about forcing observational results onto geometry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:35:56 No.12267161 Report

Quoted By: >>12267180

>>12267122
Einstein is pretty much all the mental gymnastics you have to do when light always goes 186,282 miles per second no matter what inertial reference frame you're looking at it from. So if a guy's on a rocket going 50,000 miles per second relative to earth and he shoots a laser ahead of him, he'll see the beam shoot out at 185,282 miles /s in front of him. But if we're looking at him from a telescope on earth we wouldn't see the beam of light go 235,282 miles /s, it could still be measured going the same speed from our perspective. That means if we have to keep the speed of light constant then we have to distort space and time. So the guy will apparently have time slowed down compared to us, and then the length of his rocket will also appear to be contracted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 10:51:45 No.12267180 Report

Quoted By:

>>12267161
Actually I don't think I get it at all now that I think about it. I had it in my head that the guy in the rocket's time would be going slower relative to a "stationary" observer. So if there was an atomic clock on earth and an atomic clock on the rocket going extremely fast then from earth's perspective the atomic clock of the rocket will slow down. So when the guy comes back from his trip he'll still be young and we'll have aged more compared to him. But why would that be the case. From rocket man's perspective, it's earth that's moving really fast relative to him and he's just staying still. So earth's clock would be moving slower relative to him. So he'd be the one getting old while everyone on earth stays young. So when he gets back to earth is he going to be older or younger?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Oct 2020 11:24:12 No.12267242 Report

Quoted By:

>>12267122
Acceleration implies there's some force, but look at gravity? What kind of motion? Does space itself moves towards place where there's bigger mass? Possibly yes.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches