Relativity

When I refer post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84740-relativity-is-wrong/ I was surprised to see calculation F’x = Fx –[(V/C^2 ) (Fy.Uy)]/[(1-V Ux/C^2)]. As Fx =0 F’x = –[(V/C^2 ) (Fy.Uy ]/[(1-V Ux/C^2)]. This type of transformation is not correct. This is only transformation equation which transform Fx in S frame to F’x in S’ frame. So, when Fx =0 then F’x =0. because F’x = Fx – n Fy here n=[(V/C^2 ) (Fy.Uy)]/[(1-V Ux/C^2)] 1)in non relativity expreassion Fy/Fx =(m ay)/(m ax) = ay/ax Fy= (ay/ax) Fx 2) In relativity Now, Fy = dPy/dt = (dPy/dUy ) . (dUy/dt) = ay . (dPy/dVy ) So, Fy/Fx = (ay/ax) . {(C^2…

If falling object already has some speed to center of big mass, then what will be energy change with change of hight?

E2=m2c4+p2c2 What is derivation of the equation?

suppose the same mass is attached to the moving and stationary spring balances, will the springs be stretched to the same extent in both the cases

At velocity equal to c (if we visualize movement through space as the X axis and movement through time as the Y axis), time stands still. But how? After all the time dimension cannot be decoupled from the space dimension and some ripples of gravitational waves could produce effects on the time dimension, as a collateral. Altough the first postulate seems correct (and is thought to be) the latter seems intuitive. Could anyone please shed light on this issue?

In the GPS satellites detuning frequency of the signal generators is 10 229 999.99543 Hz, while the frequency of such generators in ground receivers is equal 10 230 000.00000 Hz. From this it follows that the detuning of generators frequency, gives the time deviation equal 38597.0653 nanoseconds / day. This is not consistent with the theory of relativity, as the required sum of relativistic deviations, resulting from the velocity of satellites and gravity, should be only 38419.1878 nanoseconds / day ( 45629.9702-7210.7824). As you see the difference to the relativity requirements is significant.

When photons move through empty space, they are found to always move at the same speed, i.e. that of the speed of light. This property of 'a single speed' can be demonstrated by the situation of several photons moving parallel to each other, side-by-side, always staying abreast to each other. This is regardless as to how the photons were created, or when they were created. In order for this to be the case, does this mean that light - no matter where it is in the universe and when it was created - is moving to an absolute frame of reference?

We can't see light in space because there is nothing for light to illuminate. But is there still an electromagnetic wave between the Earth and Sun or does this disturbance happen because of atmosphere? If we looked at a cross cut of the space between the Sun and the Earth with an infrared or other light spectrum camera, would we see the electromagnetic waves of any light spectrum? Is space empty, or is space a "sea of photons"? Seemingly infinite stars are emitting seemingly infinite photons into space, seemingly infinitely. Space is dark because there is not a lot in space for photons to interact with, but whenever something is in space for photons to interact with, w…

I do not understand why the thread "VETER- The program for verification the special theory of relativity …." was closed by Mr Imatfaal along with the removal of the link to this program without any objections to its content. VETER is a simple, interactive computer program (in Excel), which in a clear math way present contradictions occurring in the special theory of relativity. In the first part of the program are presented unexpected, glaring inconsistencies occurring in the calculations, based on the basic formulas of special relativity, which definitely puts into questions the credibility of these formulas. In the second part of the program is mathemat…

The idea is that at absolute zero a particle would be without motion. But we try these experiments on a planet that's in motion in space time. Since we are in motion, a particle that is "not in motion" relative to us is not the same thing as a particle that is "not in motion" relative to space time. So is absolute zero more than a temperature barrier? It is also about overcoming the motion of the particle through space time? Even if we could find out what zero motion is relative to the moving universe, would we still need to find out how to stop that particle's motion through time?

I am trying to teach myself about the Lorentz Transform. I have been using the derivation in [1] as my resource*. I am able to follow the derivation pretty well, but have some questions on how they got from equation (25) to equation (28). Here is a snippet of the derivation that I'm stuck on: Here are my questions: 1. Regarding equation (26), when would parameter a ever be less than 0? 2. Why is parameter a associated with the speed of light? I don’t understand their explanations for this association, including: a) The derivation explains that parameter a is invariant. I realize that it is well stated that the speed of light is invariant. However, are th…

Extended version of the above program is available now on the existing link <link removed by mod> In the new part added to this program, there is mathematically pointed out an error in the original assumptions of the special theory of relativity.

I've been following several discussion between GPS experts(?) and I wondered what GPS does for tidal corrections when the position is reduced to a chart?

Are the spin states of all quanta in-phase, throughout the universe, when viewed from the perspective of Minkowski spacetime ? edit: I understand that Minkowski spacetime is relatively "flat" which I why I frame the question as such. If Minkowski spacetime is not flat then please feel free to make suggestions on how universal in-phase spin states for all matter might be shown as being true.

If I'm traveling 299,792,457 m/s, then relative to me, $c$ would only be +1 m/s. But according to special relativity, $c$ should be a constant velocity relative to me, no matter what velocity I'm traveling, as long as my velocity is not $c$. From Wiki: The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." (from the preface).[1] That is, light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant, independent of direction) in at least one system of inertial coordinates (the "stationary system"), regardless of the state of motion of t…

Wiki has stuff on the Einstein equation which is nice (someone at Wiki is occasionally using index-free notation, which is neater and easier to write) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_tensor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_equation this has my favorite way of writing the einstein equation which is simply (in Wiki's notation) G = kappa T where G is the Einstein tensor (expressed in curvature units) and T is the stress-energy tensor (expressed in energydensity or pressure units) and kappa is the reciprocal of a force, namely the force c4/8piG. Sean Carroll and John Baez also have some intuitive handles on the Einstein eqn. We shou…

It might be a very stupid question but in a sense of particle-wave duality if we take a reference frame of a photon what would be the speed of the wave represented by that same photon in this particular reference frame?

My theory relates to prove a theory, to send pictures, but I still did not have the power to send pictures, no way, can only give some links, please moderator to give understanding. In addition, please moderator to see the links in the content is said to be the garbage? http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=1384140&do=blog&id=813080

In conclusion, based on the wave motion relative to the light source with covariance, not only can be derived group than Xiao Jun transformation of Lorentz transformation more, also can be derived from the speed of light and light speed (15). (15) type is the relationship of people dream of, its export is an epoch-making event.

So if I took a rod that had a 4 inches in radius and 5 meters long, and dropped it on a 4-inch radius black hole that hovers above ground (lets assume we have enough force to prevent the Earth from being sucked into it and to keep boht the Earth and the black hole stationary to a scientist testing the situation) in such a way that the center-of-mass-line that ran through he rod was perpendicular to the surface of the black hole, what exactly would I see? Part of the rod would look indefinitely frozen and indefinitely shrink in time while the rest of it continue to fall to the ground or something?

A spaceship in the sky whizzes past an observer at a tremendous speed. The observer sees and measures its lenght to be 10 metres. The people on the spaceship measure it to be 12 metres. The same spaceship again whizzes past the observer at the same speed. This time, the observer uses his ultra powerful telescope to view the space ship so that he can have a very close view. What would be the length of the spaceship as seen and measured by the observer? 10m or 12m?

It was thought a few hundred years ago that the earth was flat. Just as now, it is said that energy cannot go faster than the speed of light, the cosmic speed limit. Though in a simple observation you will learn energy can move a lot faster than light. Take 19 0's such as <0000000000000000000> with a line at the end. Let each 0 represent 10,000 miles of atoms, touching each other the distance of the 19 0's to the finish line at the end. Now one could say that light traveling at roughly 186,282 MPS would take over a second to travel the distance of the 19 0's to the finish line. Though one can observe, if one applies enough mechanical energy to move the 19 0's, to th…

Reading over the formulas following the post named Gravity Stacking (OP: 514void) two questions come to my mind that are not associated enough with that post to be asked within that post. The first question has to do with the esssence how the first question of the post was was asked: would something as massive as the earth fall at g or 2g towards the earth? Since we are in the part of the forum entitled Relativity I am curious to know if the way science perceives reality after Relativity became part of the scientific vernacular, would the mass of two objects as massive as Earth cause gravitation to make those objects fall towards each other or would it be said that the t…

How many times the speed of light would an object be moving if it flew from Earth to the Vega Star(25.05 Light Years) in 30 mins? I'm highly aware these types of speed are impossible at this time how ever I read in a piece of fiction, where a Star Ship did it, and I was just wanting to know the speed needed.

I have read about "relic neutrinos" that are the size of the expanded universe, What would these speeds mean to a neutrino the size of universe? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090602-particles-larger-than-galaxies.html Does the universe exist within a neutrino?