Excuse me, what does acknowledgement mean on TV? What is a computer program? What is the essence o

Acknowledgments míngxiè Publicly express gratitude Acknowledgments notice Acknowledgments to people from all walks of life.

The relationship between the associations is complex and not very well understood.

The theory of relativity is currently recognized by most scientists as a mainstream theory.

It doesn't matter whether a theory is correct or not, it can only be said that no case has been found to overturn it.

The scientific community, in order to preserve their face and generous treatment, has to be considered right. My judgment is that the stage is correct, the method of proof is basically correct, and the essence of the problem is not correct.

I don't particularly understand either, so I'll talk about it for your reference.

A hypothesis of special relativity when the speed of light does not change, and a premise. This premise is derived from the fact that there is no clear frame of reference for the velocity of electromagnetic waves in Maxwell's electromagnetic equation. The absence of static mass of photons should be theorized by the theory of relativity, which is premised on the fact that the speed of light is the limit of the speed of all things.

In fact, when acknowledging Einstein's special theory of relativity, it is necessary to abandon Newton's view of space, so that it can actually be explained in a self-consistent way.

As for the two rays of light emitting in the opposite direction, I believe that anyone who has studied the theory of relativity has this doubt, and I am no exception. I can only briefly describe the "orthodox" explanation: in the new view of space-time, space-time is no longer absolute, and certainly no longer straight.

Rather, it is curved, which is equivalent to the surface of the earth, and small areas can be considered straight, and when large areas are large, they must be considered in a spherical system. If you look at the velocity of the rays in a stationary frame of reference, they are rays that are the opposite of c, but if you are in another frame of reference (for example, the velocity frame of one of the rays), the velocity of the other ray is bent because the velocity is too large, and C is measured. (Of course, it is possible to use formulas, but it is not intuitive).

But this bend is different from the bend of the equivalence principle of general relativity (that is, gravity is equivalent to space bending). I've read your argument with other people, and that time (physical time) is also relative, and one year here is different from another year. So, sometimes Einstein's theories make physics obscure.

I'm trying to build a compromise explanation that Einstein's time (physical time) belongs to regional time rather than philosophical time (order). Just as there are two poles on a sphere that are originally equal, the projection height of the other side in their respective slices is different due to the different positions of the squares (or in the vertical plane), but a definite "reality" still exists. (It's just that Einstein's theory cancels out part of the superposition of velocity as a slowdown in time.)

Regardless of whether the theory of relativity is true or not, I think it can be understood in this way, and I hope it will help you somewhat.

You are ignoring a very important issue, which is "relative".

Formula: e=mc2

Taking people as a reference, let the masses of the two rays of light be equal and both are m

e=mc2 for each light

Take one of the lights as a reference.

e of each light'=2mc^2

There is no change in velocity c, while mass m passively increases.

But the mass of light is basically 0, so the change in mass can be ignored).

From this point, it can be seen that the energy carried by radiant light is absolute, a fixed value, and is not affected by the relative object.

In addition, velocity can be understood in a sense as how quickly an object gets rid of or shrinks, and how quickly another object affects it.

But how quickly an object can get rid of the influence is also affected by the mass.

When the mass of the object itself approaches 0 infinitely, the maximum speed of escape from the influence can be obtained, which is the speed of light c.

The greater the mass of the object itself, the less likely it is to gain maximum velocity c, and this mass will increase relative to each other as the velocity increases.

So it is impossible for an object with mass to reach the speed of light.

Einstein's theory is not a traditional physical problem. You can't apply theories from classical physics to the theory of relativity. Just like the premise of the theory of relativity, the principle of invariance of the speed of light, once you apply the theory of classical physics, such as relative velocity, the speed of light is variable.

In this way, the basis of his theory is in question. You know Euclidean geometry, which is traditional plane geometry, in which there are five axioms (or assumptions), and then Euclidean geometry is derived, and Euclidean geometry is just the last assumption that goes against it (the assumption of whether two parallel lines intersect), and it is a separate discipline. This is the case with the theory of relativity and classical physics, and the conclusions obtained from this theory cannot be applied to another.

Landlord, you have always had a misunderstanding, that is, the theory of relative velocity in classical physics is used in the theory of relativity.

1 Light is not used as a frame of reference. Because the frame of reference means that, assuming it does not move, see where and how fast other objects are relative to it; Light is c relative to any frame of reference, and it cannot be assumed to be stationary.

2 However, the landlord's problem still exists, for example, two objects move in opposite directions at the same time, after 1 second, isn't the distance between each other exact?

It is true that standing in the Earth's frame of reference, object A goes to the left and object B goes to the right, and the ratio of their distance to time can be greater than C. But the problem is that no frame of reference can be found, and the distance time of the motion of an object can be greater than c. For example, taking A as the reference frame, the distance time of B motion is still less than C, and the specific value can be calculated as (40 41)C.

Only by standing in a third party, it is possible to surpass the c value by directly summing the velocities of two objects, but this is not essentially any velocity.

According to the principle of relativity, the speed of light is invariant, and it is also one of the two basic principles, the speed of light is constant relative to any frame of reference, that is, no matter what frame of reference you choose, the speed of light is. Principle of invariance of the speed of light: The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for any observer.

The principle of invariance of the speed of light, in the special theory of relativity, refers to the fact that the propagation speed of light in a vacuum is a constant regardless of the inertial frame (inertial frame of reference) in which it is observed, and does not change with the relative motion of the light source and the frame of reference in which the observer is located. This value is 299,792,458 meter seconds.

The principle of invariance of the speed of light was obtained by solving Maxwell's equations simultaneously and confirmed by the Michelson-Morey experiment. The principle of invariance of the speed of light is one of the basic starting points for Einstein's creation of the special theory of relativity.

Special relativity is a self-consistent theory that starts from two basic assumptions and draws conclusions that, in turn, support both assumptions without contradiction. Of course, just self-consistent theories are not necessarily correct, and many effects of special relativity have been experimentally confirmed, so we believe that special relativity is correct, and those two assumptions are also correct.

The crux of the problem is that it is precisely these two assumptions and the definition of simultaneity of time that limit the speed of all physical particles to be less than the speed of light, so that no one can reach the speed of light, that is, there is no observer synchronized with a certain ray of light, so it becomes impossible to use a certain ray of light as a reference frame.

haha

To learn the theory of relativity, you should first understand the frame of reference.

You and the flashlight are not on the same frame of reference.

If you "sit" on the light of a flashlight and look at the light of the flashlight in the opposite direction, it is faster than light.

I wonder what it's like to sit on the light of a flashlight?

The theory of relativity also seems to say that there is a relationship between velocity and mass. It's just that the speed is fast, and the quality will change.

First of all, you have a problem with your propositions... If one ray of light is relative to another, if it is in the same direction, what is the speed of the light, what is the velocity if it is reversed, and what is the electromagnetic wave, the electric field. The gravitational field is beyond the speed of light... Or is it based on your feelings?

You think that beyond the speed of light is to use yourself as a frame of reference to compare two frames of reference between the speed of light, which cannot be compared

I don't know if you can understand this explanation, if two grandfather clocks move at the speed of light at the same time and in opposite directions, and you sit on one of the clocks, and you look at the second hand of the other clock while you move at the speed of light (assuming you can see it), you will find that its second hand is not moving, because when the second hand moves to the next second, the light it emits travels to your eyes at the speed of light, and when you move at the speed of light at the same time, the light emitted by the second hand will never reach your eyesSo you see another grandfather clock that is stationary, that is, to you, your speed is the speed of light, and the other grandfather clock is stationary.

When the velocity of the object reaches the beam, the concept of time changes, and it cannot be explained by Newton's classical physics, but your problem, the object has reached the speed of light, and you use Newton's classical physics to explain the relationship between time and velocity, which is not right, in this case, Newton's classical physics is no longer applicable. There is a special formula in the theory of relativity that calculates the relationship between s, v, and t when the speed of an object reaches or approaches the speed of light, and it is no longer s=vt but a deformation of it, of course, I can't remember the specifics.

There are also questions about axioms and assumptions, and I found that you have some resistance, which means that you don't quite understand why you need them and what they are, so I won't talk about them here.

The third issue of relativity is the general theory of relativity, how does the curvature of space-time cause the change of time, and how does GPS work? General relativity.

We live in a three-dimensional world, and when we add time to that, we have four dimensions, for example, three dimensions are a page of a book, and four dimensions are a book, and we live in one of the leaves (page 1), but because of a strong force, we are squeezed to page 2 or the next page, and when that happens, we say that space-time bending has occurred

If a man sits with a beautiful woman for an hour in lead socks, it will feel as if only a minute has passed, but if he is asked to sit in front of the hot locust for a minute, it will feel as if more than an hour has passed, and this is the theory of relativity. Huh,

What you should be talking about is the "separation of the white" or "separation of the white" of the famous family of the hundred sons, and the contract has been the same.

The second law of thermodynamics is the principle of entropy increase.

The first law is the principle of conservation of energy, and the two laws are independent of each other, one of them says that the first type of perpetual motion machine is impossible, and the other says that the second type of perpetual motion machine is impossible. The two laws are relatively independent, they are the two cornerstones of thermodynamics, and all thermodynamic conclusions and theorems are deduced from these two cornerstones, and the equivalence principle has the same status in the theory of relativity, Einstein himself said.

The essence is the principle of energy depreciation, which is complementary to the first law.