The Theory of RELATIVITY

[arian]

[center]Relativity - 101 Grade school - High school version I've been told, and that this has been known and taught for over a hundred years![/center]

Relativity
Physics - the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, esp. regarding the nature and behavior of light, space, time, and gravity.

OK, .. so there seems to be a various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed object, even I have noticed this phenomena, it is somewhat a different perspective going 150mph on a motorcycle vs standing still and watching someone pass me by doing 150 mph on a motorcycle.

This states that all motion is relative and that the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed.
E=MC^2 - where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Thus, Einstein stated that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. The formula is dimensionally consistent and holds true irrespective of which system of measurement units is used.

All motion is relative, got it, but why ‘state’ that “the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed� .. and then go and square the speed of light in the equation E=MC^2?
OK, so this equation states that ‘C’ is Speed of Light which has a constant value of 186,282 miles / s.
Now squaring a speed that which nothing can exceed gives us a somewhat faster than ‘C’ speed of light, ... about 186,282 times faster because C squared is 34,700,983,524 miles / second.

Fine, let’s use that value of 34,700,983,524 miles / second to figure out the effects, or the relativity to T (time) on M (mass) when it is in motion at given V (velocity)?

- Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens, as its speed increases;

OK, so the Mass of a body increases with speed, another word something with let’s say a mass of 50lb. becomes heavier and heavier as it goes faster and faster. So any mass reaching the assumed speed of light squared (34,700,983,524 miles / s) would become infinitely heavy, .. is this correct?

.. and ALSO, it’s length in the direction of the motion shortens, which I understand that at the speed of C^2 (34,700,983,524 miles / s) the Mass (any mass) would become the size of this universe (since they don’t consider anything outside the universe), meaning infinitely heavy and infinitely big .. is that correct?

- Holding true more generally, any body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction; the term matter has no universally-agreed definition under this modern view.

Continuing with the Energy=Mass C^2, what I’m understanding is (since ‘infinite’ is not imaginable for them in this universe, we’ll just stick with the size of the universe (whatever that may be?) .. so Mass at the speed of light squared, would become as ‘heavy’ as the entire universe, and as big as the universe since as stated; “the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases� meaning that the leading end of the mass going at 34,700,983,524 miles / s would get shorter and shorter until it reached its trailing end, and since mass and energy is equal, it would all be one huge mass of energy (only this would happen at just past the speed of light, the effects of mass moving 186,282 times the speed of light would be much different effect) ... do I have this right?

But that is not all, they say that at the speed of light (especially at speeds C squared), Time would also slow down to a stop. Now if all the IFF’s are true, that would make sense since Mass and Weight would reach infinite, it would engulf the entire universe including time & space, thus everything would become an enormous gravitational Mass void of space, time or light ... am I close?

Is this what they call a ‘Gravitational Singularity’?

Question; to get to this point, don’t we need space and time where mass, any mass could have room to accelerate to reach the speed of light squared?

Let’s move on with relativity to how things 'might' appear by different observers at speed of light at 186,282 miles per second, or squared at 34,700,983,524 miles / second;

- the time interval between two events occurring in a moving body appears greater to a stationary observer; and mass and energy are equivalent and interconvertible.

As I understand and some of it based on - Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases that if somebody was traveling near the speed of light for millions of years would have experienced only days, or just minutes vs the man standing would have been long gone and vanished millions of years ago,
also if a man traveling at the speed of light was able to look over at the watch of a man standing still, it would be flying by years not minutes, while his at the speed of light would be standing still, or stopped.

How close am I to understanding the Theory of Relativity as described by Einstein's equation of E=MC^2? And what parts am I misunderstanding?

Here are some doubts about Einstein's (that is if it's truly Einstein's idea?) Theory of Relativity, so the question for the Original Post is: 'Am I wrong, and if so, where am I wrong?'

1. 'C'^2 is 186,282 times faster than the assumed speed of light in a vacuum. How can Mass move so fast, and where is it moving IN? (not the universe we know, because there is a 'speed-limit' in our universe as defined by Einstein, which is mutually agreed upon, .. right?)

2. it is claimed that; nothing is faster than the speed of light, yet they assume that on the outer-skirts of our expanding fabric-of-space lies entire galaxies that are expanding ten times the speed of light, AND still emitting light at the speed of light both in the direction of the expansion, and leaving a trail behind?

3. Why is it that at these speeds distance would be shorter, not the time it takes to get to these distances? Matter of fact, they claim 'time would stop' at 186,282 miles per second. This can only mean one thing; that once these expanding galaxies passed the speed of light, they are actually coming behind us, or as we see ourselves in the mirror, we behold our face from the back. That what we see out there is US passing through us?

But that can happen only UP-TO twice the speed of light, because three times the speed of light would pass through the 'twice the speed of light', and if Einstein is right about squaring 'C', we are actually seeing 186,282 TIMES the outskirts of our universe passing through us! That would be like taking a mirror and looking back INTO a mirror, ... our universe creating infinite universes... or am I missing something?

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

[Joman]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]
The radar waves from the police "radar gun" reflected back to the gun by the moving car are slightly different in frequency from those originally emitted.

The observing of any modulation of the speed of light falsifies the theory of relativity notion that the speed of light is constant with respect to any observer.

There is no such thing as the "fabric of space."

What is the scientifically proven nature of space?

All motion is relative to other "frames of reference," other objects or observers.

A meaningless statement.
Your response suggests that you think the speed of light can't be referenced to anything but frames of reference.
That is nonsense.

E=MC^2 proves that light speed can be referenced to the amount of energy per unit matter.
For, since it is known that matter can't be created nor destroyed, all loss of energy must equate to a decrease in the speed of light.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]
The radar waves from the police "radar gun" reflected back to the gun by the moving car are slightly different in frequency from those originally emitted.

The observing of any modulation of the speed of light falsifies the theory of relativity notion that the speed of light is constant with respect to any observer.

Really?? This information would be AMAZING to all those physics and engineers that rely on the predictions made the General relativity based on the speed of light. Would you care to back up your assertion with peer reviewed articles, or show a text book used at a major university that shows that to be true?

It looks to me that I have two choices. One, I can throw out my GPS, because without light being a constant, and GR making accurate predictions, it can't possibly work, or I can accept the assertions of an anonymous person on the internet that makes a claim without backing it up.

I think I will keep on using my GPS.

[Joman]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]
The radar waves from the police "radar gun" reflected back to the gun by the moving car are slightly different in frequency from those originally emitted.

The observing of any modulation of the speed of light falsifies the theory of relativity notion that the speed of light is constant with respect to any observer.

Really?? This information would be AMAZING to all those physics and engineers that rely on the predictions made the General relativity based on the speed of light. Would you care to back up your assertion with peer reviewed articles, or show a text book used at a major university that shows that to be true?

If you have no understanding of this subject that is not my problem.

It looks to me that I have two choices. One, I can throw out my GPS, because without light being a constant, and GR making accurate predictions, it can't possibly work, or I can accept the assertions of an anonymous person on the internet that makes a claim without backing it up. I think I will keep on using my GPS.

GPS doesn't require magical theory.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]
The radar waves from the police "radar gun" reflected back to the gun by the moving car are slightly different in frequency from those originally emitted.

The observing of any modulation of the speed of light falsifies the theory of relativity notion that the speed of light is constant with respect to any observer.

Really?? This information would be AMAZING to all those physics and engineers that rely on the predictions made the General relativity based on the speed of light. Would you care to back up your assertion with peer reviewed articles, or show a text book used at a major university that shows that to be true?

If you have no understanding of this subject that is not my problem.

It looks to me that I have two choices. One, I can throw out my GPS, because without light being a constant, and GR making accurate predictions, it can't possibly work, or I can accept the assertions of an anonymous person on the internet that makes a claim without backing it up. I think I will keep on using my GPS.

GPS doesn't require magical theory.

Then, you will be able to, you know, support your claim.

Please do.


And, no, GPS doesn't require magical theory. It requires that the predictions of General relativity be correct, and that the speed of light is constant. That's not magic, that is observation.

[Joman]

Time and Frequency Measurements
Using the Global Positioning System
Michael A. Lombardi, Lisa M. Nelson, Andrew N. Novick,
Victor S. Zhang
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Time and Frequency Division

This paper describes how Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite signals are used in time and frequency metrology. It discusses how a GPS receiver can provide a reference signal for frequency calibrations and time synchronization. It also explains the several types of time and frequency measurements that utilize GPS signals. These include one-way or direct reception measurements, single and multi-channel commonview measurements, and carrier phase measurements. A discussion of how GPS signals can provide traceability to national and international standards is also provided.

The basic carrier-phase equation (Equation 1) shows
the parameters that must be determined in the analysis.
The analysis software makes it possible to make a good
estimate of most parameters. Generally, the number of
cycle slips and the atmospheric delays are the most
difficult parameters to determine.

R
S = g + cS - cR+ trop - ion + mult + cp + NR
S(1)
where,
= carrier wavelength, c/f, R
S = carrier phase observable for satellite S and receiver R,
g = geometric range, √((XS-XR)2+(YS-YR)2 +(ZS-ZR)2,
S = satellite clock error
R = receiver clock error
trop = propagation delay due to troposphere,
ion = propagation delay due to ionosphere,
mult = multipath error,
cp =unmodelled errors and receiver noise,
NR
S= carrier phase ambiguity or bias.

The above shows that no magic corrections are required for GPS to function, and that GPS requires reference to real and palpable national standards rather than to imaginary concerns.

The above formula is for the carrier-phase GPS that is accurate to a millimeter. That is the precision form of GPS.
Whereas the common GPS is accurate <10 meters and is the Course Acquisition GPS.

The variable symbols didn't translate symbolically to this post format..
However, the description of each variable clearly what natural parameters are required.
Whether you can find this paper on the internet I don't know.

[Joman]

And, no, GPS doesn't require magical theory. It requires that the predictions of General relativity be correct, and that the speed of light is constant. That's not magic, that is observation.

consideration of all light speed measurements over the last hundred plus years prove that the speed of light is decreasing contrary to theoretical notions of nature.

[Joman]

Look folks, any one can google and regurgitate theoretical claims being made in disregard of up to date experiments. The idea that relativity concords with experiments is a hoax. Only non scientific minds fall for magic explanations.

It's time to wake up and give up the naivette of them that believe whatever thing they are told without one shred of critical thinking involved.

There is no scientific evidence of.....

constant speed of light,
increase of mass with speed,
singularities,
black holes,
dark matter,
dark energy,
nature creating itself,
nature designing itself,
science of chance based trends,
nature clocks running backwards
relative truths.

Each of the above are born of magic related imaginations looking for excuses for nature not agreeing with the bias' of theorists.

And yes, common sense is all that is needed to prove false sciences are false.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 365 by Joman]

How about reading this.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

[Joman]

[Replying to post 365 by Joman]

How about reading this.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

I already proved that the formula run by GPS system doesn't include any relativity whatsoever in the real world.

And you have not presented diddly.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 365 by Joman]

How about reading this.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~po ... 5/gps.html

I already proved that the formula run by GPS system doesn't include any relativity whatsoever in the real world.

And you have not presented diddly.

let me quote the relavent phrase.

o achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location.