Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Ok.  In the unlikely event that anyone's reading here - to quote the immortal Elisa Doolittle - 'I think I've got it.'  Here's the thing.  Velocity is determined by distance and time - the greater the velocity the less time to cover a given distance, and conversely the slower velocity the greater the time to cover a given distance.  Extreme values in distance and velocity results in extreme differences in time.  All time is relative to distance and velocity.  All distance is determined by velocity relative to time.  All velocity is relative to distance and time.  It's a three way sum.  This would apply to an orbit or to a straight line through space.  But the straight line through space would, theoretically, allow for greater distances which would incorporate greater variations to time.  So.  That's not so difficult.  God alone knows why everyone complicates it.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

Ah, but you are missing one point, at least according to Albert, and that is that the speed of light is the constant.  So now, if you go back and review what you said in your post above you may see where relativity fits in.

I'll try to open one of my many books in my personal library over here that has a great, but yet understandable, explanation.  When I read it, it opened my eyes.

It is too late and I am too tired to even try to think about it because it is a bit mind boggling, but I will get back to you with it.  Your ideas are on the correct track though, in my opinion.

Bill

PS  Your pint about velocity being a function of both distance and time is correct.......but.....Albert showed that velocity was indeed, in the eye of the beholder....in other words, it was relative to your position at the time (there is that word again) the measurements were taken.  Velocity relative to what frame of reference?  That is the key.

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

OK, one more post before bed.

If you and I were on a train, and you walked forward on the moving train traveling at say 50 mph, inside the car, I would clock you at about 2 miles/hour.  This is how fast you were moving relative to my position on the same train with you.

Now, someone outside the train looking through the windows also clocks you....guess what?  Their speed of you is calculated at 52 miles/hour from their position.  Both answers are exactly correct.  But, that can't be right?  One of Albert's main points was that velocity was relative based on the frame of ref. of the observer.

I will write more when I check my books.  This is all I can recall at this time.

Bill

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose:

Ah, but you are missing one point, at least according to Albert, and that is that the speed of light is the constant.  So now, if you go back and review what you said in your post above you may see where relativity fits in.

I'll try to open one of my many books in my personal library over here that has a great, but yet understandable, explanation.  When I read it, it opened my eyes.

It is too late and I am too tired to even try to think about it because it is a bit mind boggling, but I will get back to you with it.  Your ideas are on the correct track though, in my opinion.

Bill

Bill - go to bed.  This subject can wait.  Quite apart from which you must remember that the speed of light which is, indeed, constant - is only a measure of something with a given velocity over a given time.  It just happens to be the fastest thing that we know and can use and compare things against.  It's not the 'theoretical' limit to velocity.  It's only the theoretical limit to velocities that we can measure.  It's like the gold standard.  But unlike the gold standard it's got a dependable predictable value.  We use it - is all.  It's the only 'finite' or 'extreme' limit that we can measure.  All else is invisible.     LOL.  That - I presume to propose is where our 'reality' stops and dark matter comes into the equation. 

Which is me going on an on about a pet peeve. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

That reminds me of my first physics professor in college who said that the speed of light was the fastest thing we could imagine.  To which I replied "what about twice the speed of light?"

He was not amused.

Bill