In describing Gravity wave Einstein did not realize that it is equivalent to a wave that has already been detected.
138613
what do you smoke goring ?\n\ni hope to god that you are not a physics student.
80862
The author Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that (I'm paraphrasing) units of time (moments, seconds, etc.) should be thought of not as connected points along a line, but rather like grains of soil in a mountain.  It's an interesting concept if you think about it.  One could move through time from one unit to another adjacent one without the ability to skip over one. Since each of us only exists in only one of them "at a time", so to speak, collectively we would be occupying all of them simultaneously.  It could explain where we "go to" when we are lost in thought, or how time seems to slow during some activities and speed up during others.  It might also help to understand the concept of multiple simultaneous dimensions. The notion of moving "ahead" through time is relative to your local frame of reference, just as "up" is relative to your local field of gravity and ceases to exist without a center of gravity.
263581
First of all, it is fundementally impossible to go at the speed of light. Therefore, the question as stated is invalid.\n\nHowever, it may or may not surprise you that, indeed, it is THAT VERY QUESTION that Albert Einstein surmised in 1896.  Here is his quote:\n"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest.  However, there seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according to Maxwell's equations.  From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest.  For how, otherwise, should the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion?  One sees that in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained.  Today everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the axiom of the absolute character of time, viz., of a simultaneous, unrecognizedly was anchored in the unconscious.  Clearly to recognize this axiom and its arbitrary character really implies already the solution to the problem."\n\nTherefore, In 1905 he realised how it could be that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast you go.  Events that are simultaneous in one reference frame will happen at different times in another that has a velocity relative to the first.  Space and time cannot be taken as absolute.  On this basis Einstein constructed the theory of special relativity, which has since been well confirmed by experiment.\n\nNow, I can't explain any more than that.  So there :P
589447
no, no one has detected gravitational radiation.  here is the site of the people who are looking: http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/
306034
To be sure, the theory has a lot of gaps.  So it's not a Law.  All's it takes is one scientifically provable discovery that doesn't fit the theory to launch a search for a new theory that will explain the new information while keeping the old proven stuff too.  A good example is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  Newtonian Mechanics fails at extreme sizes and speeds.  Relativity so far has been able to explain all the variances found to date at those extremes, but has not been proven to be 100% valid all the time, so it's not a law yet.  If you can discover something that invalidates evolutionary theory, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize!
144984
To the extent that there was a conflict, it was resolved by Dirac. His was a quantum theory that directly included relativistic invariance. His equation is now the basis for our understanding of relativistic electrons. As of now, we don't have a way of reconciling quantum theory and *general* relativity, though.
314479
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity started with two postulates: 1) that the laws of physics are observed to be the same in any non-accelerated reference frame and 2) that the speed of light (c) is observed to be the same for all observers.\n\nThe first assumption isn’t too worrisome, but the second seems trickier.  It’s certaonly not intuitively obvious, but it makes sense from both a theoretical and an observational perspective.  Observational because the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) detected no change in the velocity of light when measured from a moving frame of reference; theoretical because Maxwell’s Equations yield a specific value for the velocity of light.\n\nWhen Einstein considered Maxwell’s Equations, he realized that they don’t allow for a “standing wave” solution, which is what a light wave would look like if you were travelling at the speed of light.  So he already sensed there would be a problem with travelling at very high speeds.  Indeed, when you re-work the addition of velocities, it comes out to be not simple addition, but a fraction that never gets larger than c.  \n\nThus, in the photon-photon collision you describe, each photon would “see” the other one travelling toward it with a velocity c.  (Although measuring velocities from a photon’s perspective is a little non-intuitive; you have to take the limit of the aforementioned addition formula, which causes some trepidation.)\n\nOh, and the ten-dimensional idea is just one among many…  No way yet to prove (or disprove) that one.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
259635
Albert Einstein stated something along the lines of; "There may not be a single history (regarding the earth coming into existence) as we may have supposed. Rather, every possible history with some probability." Or in other words, there are many possible ways to explain the fact that we are here and living right now. Some of those ideas are more probable than others and some explanations are more likely than others. Bottom line is, when a hypothesis is brought forth and has physical evidence to support itself without being intelligently refuted, the hypothesis becomes theory. Only those unwilling to explore the realm of possibility close their minds to the many other intelligent theories concerning our existence which can be found in the world today.
44857
I too would be veeerrrrry interested in seeing some evidence for this claim from a non-creationist source. I keep an eye out for this sort of thing out professional as well as personal interest and I can't recall seeing anything like it.\n\nRoger are you absolutely certan that you haven't misundertsood the phase velocity experiments of Wang? They were done around that time (published 2000 IIRC). But they never shattered the speed of light or anything like that, no  did Wang et al ever make such a claim.\n\nTo help you out Roger, folow the link below? Is that what you arehtinkng of? If so you have misunderstood the results entirely.\n\n" Wang et al. (2000), who produced a laser pulse in atomic cesium gas with a group velocity of 310+/- 5 C. In each case, the observed superluminal propagation is not at odds with causality, and is instead a consequence of classical interference between its constituent frequency components in a region of anomalous dispersion (Wang et al. 2000)."\n\nIOW the speed of light wasn't exceeded by a particle, massless or not. It was the speed of the frequency change wihtin the medium that was 300 times faster than light. Perhaps the easiest way for a layman to understand this is to imagine one of those Newton's Cradle's toys. (see link 2). \n\nWhen you let go of one ball the motion is tranferred through the two intervening balls to the other end, causing that ball to fly up. That motion is is transmitted at near enough the speed of sound. IOW when the dropped ball hits the suspended balls the motion is passed along at the speed of sound. \n\nBut, and this is important, the ball itself wasn't travelling at the speed of sound. Nor did the ball on the end fly out at Mach 1 just because the motion was tranferred at MAch 1. The motion of the drooped ball was transferred at Mach 1, but at no stage was the ball or anyhting else actually travelling at Mach 1.\n\nWang's experiments did approximately the same thing using photons rather than metal balls. By some very clever work they managed to induce a phase change within the Cesium medium. In essence the Cesium atoms became the middle balls in newtons cradle. When light  hit an atom on one side it caused a phase change that was then passed on to the next atom, then the next and so forth, all at 300*C. But it was the phase change that was moving at that speed, not photons, not even electrons, just a phase change.
92036
His definition is a little odd, and does not seem to follow from his example (which is more about motion than position on the earth).  Technically, his motion relative to stationary students would make time pass at a different rate according to all that Einstein stuff (though there's no way he could ever notice the tiny difference).  But that would be true without any reference to the earth and the sun.  Is he trying to make a different point -- that his days would be longer because the sun would set later for him because he is walking toward the west where the sun sets?  If so, he's right that his days (defined as revolving around the Earth's axis) would be longer, but that would not mean time was moving at a different speed for him; it would only mean that the sun would set a little later from his visual perspective -- just like you can gain or lose hours when you cross time zones in an airplane; you reset your watch, but that has nothing to do with the passage of time.  Unless you are defining time only by calendars and clocks and common agreement.
537426
If you have ever seen the movie IQ there is a excellent answer to your question. Its a comedy with Walter Matthau as Einstein and some of his scientific collegues and also Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins. Anyway 1 of Einsteins collegues says to his friend. \n\nCollegue 1) "We are wasting time, come on,serve already" \n\n Collegue 2) "thats rediculous, how can you waste something that doesnt exist" \n\nCollegue 1) "What, time doesnt exist? since when?"\n\n Collegue 2) "I dont know, if time doesnt exist then there is no when"\n\n Collegue 1) "There you go, another crazy theory"\n\n Collegue 2) "Then tell me the exact time... right now... you see you cant... because as your telling me, the future has already become the past therefore there is no present therefore time doesnt exist"\n\nIts a funny movie, i recommend it :)
108670
It seems that when asked what he meant by this remark, Einstein replied ‘Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of ruse’. Whenever i've seen an Einstein quote refering to god or religion, he appears to be instead refering to the universe. I'd say that by this quote he was voicing his displeasure at quantum mechanics and it's implications that there are certain things that are simply unknowable (such as whether schroedingers cat is dead or alive, as indicated by the poster above).
44230
Fuel-burning action-reaction is here to stay for a long time.  We don't know enough about gravity and space-time to manipulate it.
146556
Albert Einstein was considered stupid by his teachers.Maybe you just haven't seen the real meanings of your thoughts.
548613
On the contrary, a light beam would merely percieve that it travelled instantly inbetween origin and destination. Space would be warped to Zero distance in the direction of travel, not Zero space. I know it seems like a sleight-of-hand trick with the mathematics, but the distinction is important.
34679
The weigh of the object in water can not be measured more than its weigh in open air. the question is wrong.
271887
Einstein postulated that the speed of light would remain the same regardless of the inertial frame in which it is measured.  This contradicts classical physics, since if an object is moving at a velocity v, as measured in an inertial frame, and that inertial frame is moving with a velocity v2 with respect to a second inertial frame, then you should take the vector sum of the two velocities to determine the velocity of that object with respect to the second inertial frame.\n\nEinstein postulated that within an inertial frame the laws of classical physics held.  So, to make things work out Einstein calculated that time and space are distorted with velocity.  It is as though you and your brother are of different heights, but you both want to be the same height, so you take a rubber ruler and stretch it so you get the same measurement for the two of you.\n\nIn this way you always measure the speed of light as the same value, no matter how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to you.  You adjust the rubber ruler so that what you want to believe remains true.