Yes. Depends on how big the clock face is, I suppose
yes and no. Depends on your physics text book or your belief in who has the sainer point of view.
I wish physics were about belief. Then I could break the rules with wild abandon.
But special relativity is true. If it weren't, none of the dozens of particle accelerators around the world would function.
nope. Show me which part of special relativity is described as the solution - be all and end all of spacetime theory and how exactly it predicts every form of happenstance ever in the known universe. Sure, there is a very high statistical probability that it describes accuratley the process of spacetime, but we won't ever know until we find a way to measure time in all places at once.
F = ma isn't the be-all and end-all to mechanics, but it predicts what we see and is used by NASA all the time to get very nice pictures of far away places by rovers.
A theory doesn't have to be "be-all" and "end-all" to be very useful.
Plus, the competing hypotheses (strings, LQG) have no testable tenants, so we have to be agnostic about them until there are results.
Yeah .<br />
yes.. Einstein figured out that time and space are one in the same.
um, people realised that a long time before Einstein theorised Special Relativity. HG Wells but one notable example
Space and time can't be the same. If they were, you could move forward and backward in time just like you can in space. They're connected by something called the spacetime interval, but they have different signs in the Minkowski metric.
And, actually, very few scientists bought into the idea that two objects could age at different rates even *after* Einstein postulated special relativity. This is why he never received the Nobel prize for it. Although H.G. Wells wrote an awesome story, Einstein also showed that causality prohibits going backwards in time, although you can go as far forward as you like.
i have always understood space/ time as a intertwined fabric. i know that a lot of special relativity has been modified and redefined over the years of research so i may be wrong. but isn't the basic idea of space/ time as one coherent fabric still considered to be true?
To quote Minkowski,
"...space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. "
So there is this "thing" called "spacetime." But a viable path in "spacetime" must always be future-pointing. It's not just 4-dimensional space.
It *is* true that what is "time" and what is "space" can be flipped. Inside the event horizon of a black hole, the roles of space and time switch. The "future" then points towards the singularity.
Yes. <br />
Imagine two strobe lights next to each other. They flash. Two different observers will measure a different distance between the strobes depending on the time each measures between flashes. <br />
Resnick & Halliday wrote a very readable textbook for special relativity.
I'm not positive about this, but I think that Einstein fiigured out a reasonsable relationship between time and space... Wanna go for a go for a ride?
Ask einstein!! He seems to know well....
Yes, traveling through space gives the illusion of time