Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 03:20:54 UTC No. 16183787

>>16183758
>relativity
>absolute velocity
It's in the fucking name retard. There is no "absolute velocity" in relativity because all velocity is relative. The best you could do is pick one point in the universe to use as your reference frame, and then base all your velocity measurements on that frame. But that's still not absolute velocity, because from a different reference frame (and all non-accelerating reference frames are equally valid) you will measure a different velocity.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 03:30:09 UTC No. 16183799

>>16183787
why cant the fabric of spacetime be used as your refernce frame?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 03:50:33 UTC No. 16183819

>>16183799
Because it doesn't define a reference frame. You also can't measure it locally, and if your system is big enough to observe externally-induced spacetime curvature then it's not closed.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 04:48:56 UTC No. 16183886

>>16183758
What would you do with that measurement?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 07:06:06 UTC No. 16184052

>>16183787
This is a conundrum because energy increases at the square of velocity. If I am peddling enough energy to get up to 100 m/s, but my relative velocity from some other reference frame is going to see me adding 20 km/s + 100 m/s. There is a huge energy discrepancy there.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 07:07:24 UTC No. 16184054

>>16183799
Because there is no fabric of spacetime

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 07:47:40 UTC No. 16184097

>>16184052
so it reduces to a problem of measuring energy?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 09:50:30 UTC No. 16184222

>>16184054
then what do objects propagate through?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 10:01:30 UTC No. 16184230

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 10:05:08 UTC No. 16184232

>>16183758
>accelerate
>wonder what my speed is
>idea !
>reach into pocket
>grab my relativity to measure with
>use relativity
>measure absolute speed
>determine speed to be relative.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 10:13:08 UTC No. 16184248

>>16183758
The popularization of astronomy has been a nightmare for the physics community.

You niggers should be forced to stare at the ground for the rest of your life.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 10:14:09 UTC No. 16184249

>>16184222
All objects are matter, though, there is no empty space or fabric

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 10:18:29 UTC No. 16184253

>>16184232
as above poster noted, energy varies square compared to speed.
i was originally thinking, while everything is relative, the speed of light is constant in all frames, so why cant that be what things are relative to? are length contraction and relativistic mass measurable? is the relative speed of light measurable?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:14:37 UTC No. 16184461

>>16184253
You totally can't do that. Yes, you can measure length contraction etc. Yes, the speed of light is measurable. Have you considered studying some basic special relativity? It's not that hard. There are probably some good youtube videos if you want to experience the impression of understanding without actually doing anything.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:16:36 UTC No. 16184465

>>16184461
care to elaborate why not?

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 13:17:29 UTC No. 16184469

>>16184465
I don't care to, no.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:27:12 UTC No. 16184545

>>16184253
>so why cant that be what things are relative to?
pretty sure it is lmao

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:29:50 UTC No. 16184550

>>16184249
>there is no empty space or fabric
what compels people to say things like this

the expansion of the universe is literally in the field equations

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 14:58:08 UTC No. 16184596

>>16184545
the chuds in here seem adamant it isnt

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:07:52 UTC No. 16184607

>>16184596
Yeah well, I can't tell if they're retarded or I am, so I'm going to choose them by default. It would be fucking stupid for the geometry of spacetime to be malleable and shapeable if it wasn't an actual thing that can interact with matter and energy. The cosmological constant also clearly lays out a mathematical relationship between the shape and expansion of the universe and the rest of the equation, which wouldn't make sense if it didn't exist. Gotta remember that even when Einstein was wrong about whatever the fuck he believed, his math turned out to be totally infallible. That's not about to stop being the case just because some dumbies on 4chan don't understand relativity, but think they do. Also remember not even Einstein understood relativity totally, and he didn't want to work out his own equations because it was too hard. Someone else came up with the swarzchild radius.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:11:03 UTC No. 16184609

>>16184607
>>16184596
oh I'm retarded I thought you replied to my other post. Anyway, I think the other anon was being facetious, and from what I've gathered from the series I've watched on relativity, c is in fact the unifying element from which other relative aspects are understood. But there's a lot of things that go into understanding how things are relative to each other. The speed of light is one of the only rock solid constants that everything can be compared to, but even then they are in some respect relative to the speed of light.

Anonymous at Mon, 20 May 2024 15:15:01 UTC No. 16184616

>>16184596
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtakP73Amf8&list=PLxBAVPVHJPcrRBCjRc_2b5rAWE3qgaC7s

here's a really good series on relativity by the way. The guy is autistic but that's how you know it's legit and you should listen to him.