Constant speed of light (1 Viewer)

[Wohzazz]

no i'm reading it but i also have a short memory span, and i've only started to put effort to the sciences so all this stuff is kinda new
so abosolute=universal, hehe

reiterating.....
So Einstein's train proves that aether is wrong because it contradicts the idea that velocity is universal which is disproved by the fact the onlooker should see the light travel at twice its speed. thus end of story, correct? tell me i got it

 

[abdooooo!!!]

no...

ok how do you see? the answer is because of light... i weren't go into the biological side of these seeing theory.

E albert said light is the same relative constant for everyone on matter how fast they move hence disproving the aether theory. so the onlooker will see the light coming from inside the train at the same speed as it is inside the train. ie. 300,000km/s... so what must change then? time!!! time dilation man.

 

[Wohzazz]

edited, now it it right?

edit/ also why do you call it 'relative constant'?

 

[abdooooo!!!]

relative constant... ie its the same for you and me no matter how fast you travel compared to me.

do you understand what i am going on about? ok i'll clarify it abit if you have a train travelling real fast the onlooker will actually see the train at a further place because of the "extreme" speed of the train has carried the light alot further (note: it needs to be extreme to be realised because light is fast or else you won't see a difference). so all it is that LIGHT is seen to have travelled to a further place than it actually is compared to the person inside the train would see, but the speed of that LIGHT remained the same for them both. how is this possible, V = D/T, if V remains the same and then D changes because of the trains speed, hence T, time will have to change for the observer compared to the dude inside the train. i hate explaining this... you need a diagram if you want a better knowledge.

so thats what the idiot E albert is going on about. time could be different for you and me, and also the distance of this light seen could also be different due to different speed people or animal travel at, but not the speed of this LIGHT. because light is how we percieve time.

edit: spelling a grammar mistakes LOL.

it takes a million edits but i shall get my spelling and grammar right.

tell me you understand... please i can't explain any better. my englishs sucks LOL.

im still editing it... god i suck. but its good to see you understood.

 

[Wohzazz]

Yeah i get it..i'm telling you it was that aether thing that complicated matters
I understand now........thanks you do much abdoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

note: the number of 'o's' is just to expressed my appreciation

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Wohzazz
Yeah i get it..i'm telling you it was that aether thing that complicated matters
I understand now........thanks you do much abdoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

note: the number of 'o's' is just to expressed my appreciation

but didn't you read that aether was not real... just like the damn hobbits man!!! i've edited the post again if you didn't see.

 

[Wohzazz]

yeah i know it not real, it is only a medium for light
and the made properties for aether as well...........
i'll say this again, what i didn't get was how the aether model was disproved in the train situation, it didn't make sense when i read it

 

[Wohzazz]

is it possible to tell if your moving at uniform velocity or standing still if you had no frame of reference?

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Wohzazz
is it possible to tell if your moving at uniform velocity or standing still if you had no frame of reference?

what kind of question is that.... no way. how do you know?

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by Wohzazz
i'll say this again, what i didn't get was how the aether model was disproved in the train situation, it didn't make sense when i read it

In the train situation for the light to reflect the image while time is constant, the speed of light inside the train must be twice what it is outside the train. Given that the speed of light had been proved to be constant then, this was impossible and therefore the aether model was wrong.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Wohzazz
yeah i know it not real, it is only a medium for light
and the made properties for aether as well...........
i'll say this again, what i didn't get was how the aether model was disproved in the train situation, it didn't make sense when i read it

but do you understand now? its all because scienstist consider the E alberts way to be a more logical way to explain the speed of light, thus aether was disproved because its not needed with E alberts model.

whats them other two people Milchelson and Morley they've got a actual experiment that proves aether's non-existence. you'll prolly know this already or else you might fail hsc.

 

[Wohzazz]

beats me....it was a question..ahh i'm taking a break too much knowledge injection hurting my head

 

[Wohzazz]

yeah their experiment found no 'aether wind' that their suppose to find if aether exists

 

[abdooooo!!!]

hey Wohzazz why are you doing this? are you looking to do a science degree for uni? you prolly know my opinions of the hsc so i will not tell you again...

 

[Constip8edSkunk]

to be pedantic: MM experiment tried 2 find earths relative velocity to the aether (considered 2 b an absolute frame). The null result of the experiment did not disprove the aether, but later with einsteins relativity, showed that the aether is not required

 

[Xayma]

So neither disproved the aether? Including the above example?

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Constip8edSkunk
to be pedantic: MM experiment tried 2 find earths relative velocity to the aether (considered 2 b an absolute frame). The null result of the experiment did not disprove the aether, but later with einsteins relativity, showed that the aether is not required

yeah thats pedanticness. hsc like

nothing can absolutely disprove anything if you know what i mean. but yeah E albert's principle showed that it was not needed as i stated in the above post and because everyone consider E alberts theory to be more rational.

 

[Wohzazz]

science looks like a possible choice since i don't have too many options only doing the math 4U, physics and chemistry. Only got science degree and maths degree (which is even more boring) but it depends on the UAI i get
but seeing that i don't understand the science very well indicates that maybe i'm not good enough
What UAI did you get abdoooooooooo and what course? Possibly science since you seem to answer a lot in the science forums and your signature has many science associated quotes?

edit/ although the HSC doesn't really teach you much being a problematic system, you develop interest and it orientates you to your future career. plus it filters out people so i have nothing much against it

 

[Xayma]

You have plenty of options.. ever thought about Engineering? And abdooo is an '04er, he did accelerate in chem I think though.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

abdooooo!!! = 04er

abdooooo!!! = failure at chem... crappy band 6... im repeating it LOL... it'll be funny if i get a band 5 second time around... hahaha that'll be the end of abdooooo!!!

i want to do med man... med!!! or adv science at usyd. enginering could be good, and economics (math version) would good as well.

by the way im doing bio, chem, phy, 4u math, 3u english, and philosophy this year. my physics is crap, i prefer biology and chemistry combo. but math is my strength area...

hey Wohzazz, its not you don't understand science very well... its just that there are some real freaks and nerds on this forums.

the questions you ask are pretty hardcore... most of them are first year uni level, i think. so don't worry... you'll do fine. you'll never know in 10 month you might top the state in science...

Originally posted by Wohzazz
plus it filters out people so i have nothing much against it

what the? it filters out the wrong people in my mind.