Blackholes Forum Message Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
 Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...The Space and Astronomy Agora This Is How Einstein Arrived At Relativity... Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response ToPosted by Mark on October 10, 2001 22:13:59 UTC

Partialy on other troublesome paradoxes, but mainly on Maxwell's equations. I forget where I read it, but the text exclaimed that if you look at Maxwell's equations from the point of view of Newtonian mechanics, there arises a conflict when one calculates the behavior of EM field oscilations from a relative frame other than that of a frame where speed of light in a vacuum is equal to c.
For example... a boat on water will measure waves to propogate outward at equal speeds in every direction, given that one is at rest relative to the pond. But if the boat were in motion, one could calculate the speed by which one were moving relative to the rest frame of the water, by observing the dopler shift of the water waves. Same goes for the universe, according to Newton... there exists a background or absolute frame, where by "absolute" motion can be calculated accordingly. This is in conflict with EM field equations, because if one were able to "chase after a beam of light", the oscilations would quickly die out. This is because in the frame of reference of the chasing individual, light moves away from him with less speed than c, and hence oscilations quickly fizzle out of strength (I guess you could say like weak bosons). But surely there is a conflict if one person chases the light beam and the other remains at rest, beacuse relative to either of them, two different scenarios take place. Things get even cookyer if I pointed a flashlight at you and said, "Now run toward me." In this scenario, the light will get brighter as time progresses, seemingly out of nowhere, in violation of conservation of energy (energy is created); in the previous scenario (speed of light less than c) energy is destroyed. So Einstein came along and resolved the paradox by announcing that the speed of light is the same for all observers (actualy you could say Lorentz, Michelson, Morely, etc... sort of arrived at this conclusion first) regardless of relative motion... and based his entire theory upon this premis.

>>>Weak bosons do not carry nuclear force, gluons do.>Weak bosons are believed to be massive photons (although it is not clear what makes them massive).>>Growing with distance force between quarks is introduced to explain their unseparation. No non-contradicting explanation so far for the nature and mechanism of this force, although there are attempts to modify nuclear force to fit such behavior.>Alternative view is that quarks simply do not exist (as elementary particles) - that they represent different but entangled properties of nucleons.