General and Special Relativity

"Dark" in the phrase "dark matter" comes from the fact that it interacts with ordinary matter only very weakly (at most) except through the gravitational force (and, for certain possible types of "dark matter" since we're not really sure what it is exactly, through the weak force, but that's strictly limited in range).

Since it does not interact through the electromagnetic force, and photons (light) are the gauge particles for the electromagnetic force, "dark matter" seems like a pretty reasonable name.

Don't confuse "dark" with "black": in order to be black, something has to absorb photons. Dark matter neither absorbs nor emits photons. This also means you can't feel it, since the apparent solidity of matter is also a function of the electromagnetic force. It is literally invisible and intangible.

The XM Radio satellites use S-band frequencies from 2,332.50 through 2,345.00 MHz.

Einstein was a native of Switzerland, whose first language was German. He was well known

as a scientist by the time he moved to the USA and became a naturalized American citizen.

He was in fact Jewish, which did in fact have a lot to do with his decision to leave Europe.

While we're on the subject, notice that not everyone who was Jewish and feared for his life

was presented with the opportunity to leave Germany.

no the back will flip up and the front will go back

Astronomically: I'm pretty sure that a pulsar is also known as a neutron star.

If it's the car your talking about, they also often known as a Sentra

No -- the story is utterly false.

It's difficult to know where this canard got started. Einstein did exceptionally well in mathematics from his earliest days in school. Although he rebelled against the rote learning common in German schools of the time, he always got superb grades.

The only academic failure that young Einstein experienced was when he applied for Zurich Polytechnic School at age 15 -- a year younger than was typical for applicants -- and failed the French part of the test. This should be no surprise, as he had studied French for only half a year prior to taking the exam. In addition, his marks in science and math were so impressive that he was allowed to study there even before he was formally admitted.

I was under the impression that his problem was that he was dyslexic

No evidence exists that Einstein, who was extremely capable of reading, writing, and communicating in his native German, had any form of dyslexia. Another canard that, for reasons unknown, continues.

It depends on which theory of relativity you mean. The special theory of relativity has only one assumption, namely that the speed of light is constant (in vacuum!) and has the same value for each non-accelerating observer. Thus you can say the speed of light must always be conserved.

In the general theory of relativity (the one with the curved spacetime and the geometric picture of gravity), one further assumption is made; that the inertial mass (resistance to acceleration) of every object is equal to its gravitational mass (source of gravity). This is called the Equivalence Principle and is sometimes explained as the requirement that all things fall at the same rate (if there is no air resistance) regardlass of mass. In this theory the equivalance of the two types of mass is always to be conserved.

Also note that although these are the main assumptions it is usually also assumed that energy and momentum are conserved and that there is no violation of causality.

A dimension without space, matter, or time would be purely theoretical and difficult to comprehend since our understanding of the universe is based on these fundamental concepts. It would challenge our current understanding of reality and would likely lead to a complete reevaluation of existing scientific theories.

no.

speed of light is always constant .

as long as the light stays in the same medium.

the speed is generally slightly different in different media.

Time exists in solids as it does everywhere else in the universe. However, the concept of time can be affected by factors like gravity and velocity, leading to time dilation. In solids, time passing may be perceived differently due to the interactions of particles and the constraints of the solid structure.

The speed of light varies depending on what kind of material it's traveling through.

It's fastest when in vacuum, and it's different, and slower, in air, water, alcohol,

oil, glass, jello, etc.

The general theory of relativity was published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It describes gravitation as a geometric property of space and time. It implies the existance of black holes as the death state of massive stars. It predicts the existence of gravitational waves and is the basis of current models of a consistently expanding universe.

The ruler is thin by the edges so that the markings can be easily compared with whatever is being measured. It is thick in the centre so that it does not snap too easily.

E is the amount of energy in an atom or molecule of a substance. M is the mass or the amount of that substance. C is the speed of light that never changes and is equal to 299,792,458 m/s. So, the ENERGY of something is equal to the MASS times the SPEED OF LIGHT squared.

to improve this answer i think i shall firstly be able to make you see how Einstein saw e=mc2 and secondly ill show how he was wrong.

okay so Einstein's proposal was as follows

E = Energy (the fundamental force of & for our physic existence(a physical form of change( time is needed and for(x=12,y=112.7,z=1pp....you get the picture)))

M = Mass (Existence as our approximate mass relative to the specific weighing system)

C = Constant (The speed of light, being the fastest or largest physical force in existence(a constant change so to speak))

2 = squaring that number(adding a value to itself its valued amount of times(second level of perceptual inflation whereby 10squared adds a zero & 10 cubed adds another zero and so on until we trick computers into letting us use pi(but that's a different numbering system all together)))

okay so now we know exactly what were putting into to the equation lets test it.

we have two pieces of corn weighing 100g each.

(299,792,458 m/s x 299,792,458 m/s)= 898,755,178,736,817,64 s/d X 200 = ....asln

(g = grams)(m/s = meters/per second)(s/d = super/per dupers)(asln = a stupidly large number)

29,979,245,800 adding itself 29,979,245,800 times(weird how were defining time here), then whatever we get from that we add to itself 200 times(erm) in our case (weeeeeeeeeee)

i believe the best analogy i can give is that einsteins picture of energy in its purest form is a corn popping .... however the variables would be slightly different, so for example the size of a piece of corn that pops would be transformed to say an atom turning into our planet and this probably isn't suffice due to the speed of light

this equation looks as though (if we can for a minute) its the big bang in mathematical terms

......ive decided i shall leave logic to its own devices, i can only understand it never standover

i see " DingoBot suspects that this answer includes Gibberish.DingoBot suspects that this answer contains unnecessary repetition

"

the question asks for a meaning, the original answer states the variables used and the equation, not any sort of value or meaning of the equation. i think you will find my answer sheds if only the dimmest light upon Einstein's meaning of the equation, thanks dimbot

Yes! I would not want to jump with a miniaturized parachute...

what is difference between 18 & 81 in general knowledge

Photons have no invariant mass (the hypothetical mass they would have if they weren't moving, which cannot happen). So in that sense, light is massless.

However, light (and individual photons) have energy, and we know from Einstein's famous formula that energy is related to mass. (A different formula E=hv relates energy to frequency, so we can even calculate the precise equivalent mass for any given wavelength of light). In this sense, light has mass, and this can be shown by gravitational lensing, where a large enough concentration of mass can actually bend the path of light ... precisely as would be expected if light had mass.

Newtonian physics -- like any scientific paradigm -- was abandoned when it could no longer explain physical reality. Newton's theories on the nature of light was abandoned when it could not explain interference. His ideas of gravity were shown to be only an approximation when it was shown it could not explain the bending of star light near a large mass. And his basic ideas of space and time have also been shown to be not in accord with experiment.

There will probably always be people who don't like these theories, because they contradict common sense (or perhaps I should say, they contradict everyday experience). However, they have been borne out by countless experiments.

1. When Maxwell's Equations predict an electro-magnetic wave travelling at a certain speed, what frame is that speed measured from?

2. How to explain the photo-electric effect.

3. How to explain Brownian Motion.

4. Can gravity be added to special relativity?

If he had solved any one of the above issues, Einstein would have been regarded as one of the great minds of the 1900s. He solved all of them!

However, he was unable to solve either of these:

1) Can the electric field be added to general relativity?

2) Is there a general paradigm for our Universe in which quantum mechanics is only a useful subset of reality?

They both remain unsolved today.

Wind is primarily caused by differences in air pressure in the atmosphere and is not directly affected by gravitational force. Gravitational force does play a role in holding the atmosphere close to Earth's surface, which in turn impacts the distribution and behavior of winds.