tommyedison

Time dilation says that relative motion changes the speed at which time passes. This means that if a person is travelling at high speed and another person is standing still, then from the reference frame of the person who is standing still, time will pass more slowly for the person who is moving at high speed.

Thanks

Thanks

If free will does not exist then Osama Bin Laden was not wrong in burning down the WTC and Hitler was not wrong in waging the World War II. If it does not exist then we have no right to condemn or praise a man since whatever the man is, he was not so of his own choice. If there is no free will then there is no difference between Thomas Edison and a common shoplifter. People may not realize it but this is what they are implying when they say that they do not believe in free will. Free will is the power to choose or not to choose. Since choice obviously exists, free will follows as a natural consequence. No condition determines whether you like an apple or an orange. You choose one of them out of your own free will.

I have recently read the book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and I have found Ayn Rand's ideas to be irrefutable. But I cannot understand why was she rejected and still is because her ideas are perfectly practical. Also I read on a site, that one of the prime problems with a gold standard in today's world would be that there is not enough gold to back up all the money in the world. And gold is also not unlimited and the end of the supply of gold (when the mines are exhausted) would mean that no more money could be created since money would have to be backed up 100% by gold under a gold standard (my own interpretation). Isn't there a solution to this problem?

In the special relativity theory, Einstein uses the train-platform example to calculate the formula for time dilation in which the person inside the train fires a vertical light beam which appears slanted to the observer on the platform. Let's take an experiment in which the observer inside the train, instead of firing a vertical beam of light, fires a slanted beam of light which is reflected from the mirror on the ceiling. The beam then will appear even more slanted to the observer outside. I then tried to derive the equation for time dilation through this example using sort of the same method which is generally used. However my equation did not match the time dilation equation. Where did I go wrong? Did I go wrong on the concept? Also, I would like to know Theory of Elementary Waves' position on time dilation.

I read that Einstein's general relativity theory solved the case of Mercury's perihelion. What is this thing about Mercury's perihelion all about? Also I have a question about gravity. Let's take body1 and body2. When they start moving towards each other, the distance between them decreases and consequently the attraction force increases according to Newton's law of gravitation. However, when they move towards each other, the frequency of the waves/particles, which actually cause gravity, hitting the two bodies should increase. Shouldn't this also contribute towards the increased force too?

Did Ayn Rand support the Atom Bomb project and the subsequent bombing on Japan? And did she favor nuclear disarmement?

Let's suppose that the diameter/size of the most fundamental particle is 10^-35 m. It can hit another fundamental particle. But the uncertainty would be that we will not know where the two collided. The measurement won't exist in nature as nothing can be smaller than the smallest particle. However the subsequent motion of the two particles is a lot dependent on where and how they collided.

As much as I would like to not believe in uncertainty principle, there is one thing I cannot understand. There are two ways of thinking about matter. Either it is made up of minute indivisible particles which are not made up of any sort of particles. Or every particle has components or particles. If one believes in the first theory, then fundamental uncertainty is a natural outcome because anything smaller than the size of the smallest particles doesn't exist. Diameters smaller than the diameter of the minutest particle cannot be measured or measured precisely since length would also be quantized. Because if length is not quantized, then that would be an indication that smaller particles exist. If one believes in the second theory, well then there doesn't seem to be any end. Any smallest particle will necessarily have smaller particles of which it is made and those smaller particles would also be made of smaller particles and so on... Please help me

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand gives the example of Taggart Transcontinental, built without government subsidy. However, nowhere she mentions the case of the Great Northern which was built by James Hill, also without government subsidy. It was one of the few railroads which got through the Panic of the late 19th century. Similarly, when critisizing Christianity, she fails to mention Thomas Paine whose Age of Reason on religion, revelation and deism is commendable though far from perfect.

Well, according to the Uncertainty Principle, momentum and position cannot be determined with exact precision at the same time. This has many philosophical implications. Firstly, it allows space for free will. Because thoughts are made of electrons and electric signals, if we were to know the exact state of mind at present, we could calculate all that the mind would think or decide in the future in different situations. Therefore, a fundamental uncertainty has to exist to allow free will. It doesn't prove it (I goofed on the wording, sorry). Secondly, it disallows determinism. Which means the future cannot be determined exactly. For if we were to know the present exactly, future could be determined. However it violates the Law Of Causality even if at a small scale. More interpretations of this theory can be found at: http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08c.htm

Music cannot be subjective. Otherwise there would be no difference between Beethoven's 9th Symphony and meaningless scribble of notes by a child.

Before answering the question whether God exists or not, we have to define God. According to the dictionary, God is either "Regarded as the Creator of all things and requires human worship" and/or "person of supreme value and importance". If you believe in the first definition, then that contradicts science. If you believe in the second, then God has most certainly existed in history.

Ayn Rand based her philosophy on "everything that moves an individual away from life is evil. Everything that moves him towards it is good". Now, if public health has succeeded in wiping out major diseases like small pox and increasing life expectancy, then it is benefit to all since no man can absolutely seclude himself from a disease. Therefore, the public health system is actually promoting everybody's life. Hence, it should be conformable to the principles of Objectivism

I have first semester college level knowledge of physics. Which would be the best books to read with as I want to go into aeronautics and astronautics

According to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, free will exists. But the principle violates the law of causality and that nothing in the present and future can be determined with infinite precision. But without such a principle, free will couldn't exist. Then wasn't Ayn Rand wrong in her firm belief in both causality and free will?

Firstly, free will has been proven by science, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle to be exact. Secondly, even though the brain is characterized by biological limitations, you can make your own decisions which is the essence of free will.