Is the following statement by philosopher Kierkegaard consistent with the theaory of special relativity?
929095
Yes it is consistent with Special Relativity. K is not advocating time travel or travelling faster than the speed of light, nor any other Relativity flaunting theory. He is merely stating you can not live in the past, nor understand life by predicting the future.
272146
Special relativity (SR) or the special theory of relativity is the physical theory published in 1905 by Albert Einstein in his article "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". It replaced Newtonian notions of space and time and incorporated electromagnetism as represented by Maxwell's equations. The theory is called "special" because it applies the principle of relativity only to the "restricted" or "special" case of inertial reference frames in flat spacetime, where the effects of gravity can be ignored.\n\nSpecial relativity inter-relates space and time in such a way that the speed of light is constant, and the theory leads to situations where two observers can disagree over time intervals and distances between events, but without ever disagreeing about what events actually happened. It shows that time can pass more slowly if an observer is moving, depending on their relative speed.\n\nThe theory also predicts the famous equation E=mc². Special relativity applied to objects travelling close to the speed of light as opposed to the lower speeds covered by Newtonian theory. It is now well established although Newton's methods are commonly used to cover slower objects.
656628
Einstein didn't like the quantum impossibility to make exact predictions or the probabilistic reality that Quantum Mechanics postulates. He considered it an incomplete theory, he thought that quantum uncertainties where the result of incomplete knowledge and not a characteristic of the Universe. The EPR paradox is one of the aspects in which Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appear to contradict each other. There is a kind of particles that are called entangled particles in which a change in a characteristic in one of them immediately results in a change in the other. This apparently goes against Quantum Mechanics because it would be a way to lift Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (we could measure the position of one of the particles and the momentum of the other). On the other hand, the existence of entangled particles means that there must be some way by which such particles trade information between them, because each of them knows what the other one is doing (and they know it instantly, which means they exchange information at infinite speed!) And this kind of "subatomic telepathy" was not something Einstein liked, since Relativity states that the speed of light is the maximum speed allowed in the Universe. Mysteries...
573534
Nope! That's where he got a Nobel Prize..And not in relativity.\n\nWe are using photo electric devices everywhere now.
381128
That person was referring to Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. This theory states that time, weight and mass are not constant. When moving at high speeds, all of these get compressed. The speed of light is the only thing that remains unaltered. That happens because, said Einstein, energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared, or E = mc2. \n\nNowadays, most scientists accept that if, for instance, an astronaut was to travel for 20 years in space at the speed of light, he would return to find out that people he knew got older faster than he did. \n\nSo, yes, your friend's claim has some grounds...
561186
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
486526
Carezani is someone who I have heard of.  He claimed to have found an error in Relativity but so far no one other than him and his supporters seems to know what that is and he came up with a theory called autodynamics which he said was more complete.\n\nExperiments have since confirmed Relativity and shown autodynamics to be wrong but that doesn't seem to have stopped his supporters (I'm not sure what he is up to now).
1063023
Don't you think that relativity dictates that those two things are the same?\nEdited my old answer after thinking-\nmy answer is:\nIt doesn't make a difference if I say I'm going 65 miles/hr or if I say everything else is and I'm going 0.  For all intents, purposes, and consequences, it's the same.  It's the same in this case, frame of reference is crucial in measurement, and so essentially, there is no difference in macro scale physics.\nGeneral theory of relativity wise, I'm still not sure about.  It seems like there might be serious consequences for this idea due to the speed of light/space relationship.  It also seems like I'm not really qualified to do those calculations, and the people who are could very well have already thought of this.  They are rather bright.\nSo my rating for viability of the idea is: (drum roll)\n23%
1084318
Actually, the way modern physicists think of it, the question doesn’t quite make sense.  The problem is the “traveling at the speed of light” part, because one of the conclusions of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is that nothing can travel that fast.\n\nInterestingly, though, its was consideration of a similar question that started Einstein down the path toward relativity… Light is best described by Maxwell’s Equations, which predict that any experiement will measure same speed for light in a vacuum.  When Einstein thought about traveling at the speed of light, he realized that there must be a problem.  In fact, Maxwell’s Equations don’t allow for a “standing wave” solution, which is what a light wave would look like if you were traveling at the speed of light. \n\nSo Einsten took things back to basics, which is what he was good at.  Let’s start with what he actually said… His Special Theory of Relativity started with two postulates (or assumptions): 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 basically says that as long as you’re traveling at a constant speed, all your experiments will give the same results.  That seems reasonable.  But the thing about the speed of light always being the same sounds a little odd: the Michelson-Morley experiment (and others) had detected no change in the speed of light when measured from a moving frame of reference, however, and as I already mentioned, Maxwell’s Equations yield a specific value for the velocity of light.\n\nStarting from there, Einstein worked out how to add velocities together, and it comes out to be not simple addition, but a fraction that never gets larger than c. Basically, what happens is that the measurement of time and distance changes, so a physical object (e.g., a spaceship) can never achieve lightspeed.\n\nSo”  That’s a long-winded way of saying that your headlights themselves can’t travel at the speed of light.  If we want to think about them traveling very, very close to the speed of light, however, we realize that the light they emit still travels at lightspeed (as measured by the fast-moving headlights themselves), so they stil work the same way headlights would work on a car traveling much slower.\n\n\nRyan Wyatt\nRose Center for Earth & Space\nNew York, New York
176712
Einstein-"Time is an Illusion, although persistent still just an illusion." \n\nwhat he is talking about is that physical unverse exists in a single infinitesible moment just as much as it does over the span of a million years. Time presents our senses with the concepts of mass and form. Time only exists so that we may perceive the universe and of course if we could not perceive the universe it would not really exist would it? Do you beleive in God now?
122905
Relativity says no such thing.  Where do you get taht from?
1017047
I'm agreeing with chopperchopster.You won't loose anytime.As Eistein's Theory of Realitivity states:,in a revamped version \nSpecial relativity considers that observers in inertial reference frames, which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is "stationary". This is known as the principle of relativity. While this principle was not new to Albert Einstein's work, he found that including electromagnetism in this principle required a new formalism with many surprising consequences. In particular, it required the speed of light in a vacuum to be the same for all these observers, regardless of their motion or the motion of the source of the light.\n\nOne of the strengths of special relativity is that it can be derived from only two premises:\n\n    * The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.\n    * The speed of light in a vacuum is constant (specifically, 299,792,458 meters per second relative to the observer).
12497
According to Einstein, time is not constant but relative.
1179434
Relativityis the only way we currently have of trying to extend our ideas beyind the local to the rest of the universe.\n\nThis is because the intuitive assumptions that we can simply extend our frame of reference here on earth to fill the rest of the universe (like extending the lines on a map off the page into infinity) is simply wrong.\n\nThe fact that the speed of light is the same everywhere in the universe, regardless of how you are moving, means that there is a difference between the reference frames of observers moving relative to one another. You can fill the universe with the reference frame of either observer, but they are different and neither is preferred. This is special relativity.\n\nThe fact that gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration, and that the force of gravity is in opposite directions on either side of the centre of mass of a gravitating mass means that you cannot construct a single reference frame that fills all of the universe in a simple way. This is general relativity.
67390
Actually there is only theory of relativity: Einsteins general relativity. Special relativity explains only movement of bodies without acceleration. Most people belive that is everything relative but it isn't, there is an absolute spacetime. Einsteins relativity differs from Gallilean only in the fact that Gallilean take space and time to be separeted. Because of this important difference and the fact the speed of light is top speed comes the difference in calculation.
828289
It is exactly that question that inspired Einstein to formulate his theory that nothing can ever travel faster than light. I am not saying the Einstein had a goal to make a theory saying nothing can travel faster than light. I am saying that the question made him think about how to explain what would happen in such a case and then the math lead him to a theory of motion in general which says nothing can travel faster than light.
880820
Einstein has 2 theories of realivity.  The Special theory of relativey and the General theory of realtivity.  \n  The first simply means this in layman's terms.  All laws of physics laws are valid given that the state of object is in Uniform motion.  (uniform motion means a constant state of acceleration)\n  The General theory of relativity is all about gravity.  Basically it is a theory to explain the force of gravity.  \n   Although Neither theorys specifically mention time travel, many people have used the specifics of these theorys to try to show whether time travel is indeed possible.  \n    One of the principals of the general theory is that no object can travel faster than the speed of light.  Although this seems like qquite a simple statment it really isn't.  If you think about light and the things you are seeing "lets say your looking at the stars"  The light coming from those stars has traveled billions of miles to get to earth.  You are in fact seeing the light that a certain star has emmited in the past.  Now if you were to travel faster than light you could in effect travel through time and reach light events that people have yet to see.  \n   Now at face value you would say well since the theory of relativly states you can't travel faster than light this is impossible.  Here lies the catch.  The speed of light is always the speed of light (meaning if you were in car traveling at the speed of light down the road and you turned your headlights on the speed of the light from the headlights would still travel away from the car at the speed of light).\n   Now let's say your a person standing on some point and were watching the car travel at the speed of light.  The light that is coming from the cars headlights would to you seem to be traveling at 2times the speed of light. Get it?  \n   So when speaking relativisticly the frame of refrence is the most important factor.  Now one thing to note that time is NOT a constant.  It has been proven that the faster an object moves the slower time is for that object.  This indeed does work for everyday activities such as your car driving down the road.  Time for you is accually an extremely tiny bit slower than it is for the tree that you past on the road. \n    SO if we "could" get an object to move the speed of light or greater time could either stop or go in reverse for that object.  We cannot get matter to the speed of light at this time.  We have gotten close, but right now the laws of physics seem to prevent that.