Relativity

Does anyone know any good derivations for the Einstein Field Equations?

I have a kind question, why my yesterday's post disappeared from this forum without any response ? Post concerned the credibility of SR theory and the question in the following issues: Whether measurements of the speed of light in a glass rod (flint 170 000 km / s), will show the difference of speed, if the first measurement of the speed will be executed when the rod is in a position parallel to the speed of the Earth, and the second measurement, when the rod is in a position transverse to the motion of the Earth . Does the speed of light in a glass rod (or other medium) depends on the motion of the Earth?

What are the processes involved in creating mass from pure energy

While explaining the E=mc^2, lots of people says matter/mass converts to energy. Which I read that, while converting matter into its different forms, the missed or not observed matter is equal to energy. I would like to know more, regarding to this. For matter converting into energy many people gives the example of radiating materials like uranium ect. Other than this how we convert huge mass into energy. Like earth ect....... What needed to convert matter into energy?

Can someone please help me with Lorentz Transformations?? I think it is this x’ = gamma (x –vt) t’ = gamma(t- vx-c squared) gamma =1/sqrt 1-vsqaured/c squared I am unsure if this is the actual formula as I have seen it posted here. Can you also be simple?? All I really need to see is an example using some simple "numbers" only. I am very thankful of you respond, thanks!

I don't understand why FTL should imply causality violation. The only examples I've been able to find of this violation is essentially like the tachyon pistol duel outlined here: http://sheol.org/thr...on-pistols.html. It just seems that the tachyon pistol duel (TPD) has several problems, for example: 1) The tachyon bullet from A is assumed to travel along A's "line of simultaneity". Why not along B's, or the referee's? The bullet certainly isn't flying along their line's of simultaneity. Imagine another tachyn gun at the same point in spacetime as where A fires his tachyon bullet, but this gun stationary relative to B. Both A and the stationary gun fire at th…

Could one think of a time dialation as an escape of entropy within the relative field of spacial distortion? Such as: the entropy flowing around a galaxie is disturbed by the entropy flowing out and within the galaxie.

There was a discussion some months back about travelling to our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, and how long it would take to get there if you accelerated to the speed of light at 1g. A 1g acceleration would be a reasonable acceleration to be comfortable to those who are travelling. Some of the more mathematicaly inclined and knowledgeable proffered the suggestion it would take about 7 years (if I remember correctly) whereas I said I had heard it would take some 245 years. So my question is this; if our Sun and Proxima Centauri are rigidly attached to an inertial frame A with time t and our mode of transport has its own frame B with time t' then is it correct to s…

Hello, I am confused on fractions of light. I have heard that .5 c is 1/2 the speed of light = 299.792458 How so????? is it: 1/ 299.792458 2/299.792458 3/ 299.792458 Also, is 1 second = 299.792458 "and" is the fraction "remaining" 1 as well? And in Lorentz transformation does this fractions of the speed of light " take on" another hidden value which "still" means "this" fraction of the speed of light as well? Thanks, but I have always been confused about this, and no matter how much I have studied it, it just never seems to make sense because I confuse as to what these " fractions of the speed of light" are referring to in relation to t…

please see what I discover - dynamic velosity measure for any objects ( sorry for my English ) ONLY ENERGY IS IMPORTANT ( NEWTON - forces , time sometimes are reason mistake , ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyXYltvtvQ8 more explain ( please sorry any mistake I have normal job I making this additional ) www.maroszVSnewton.cba.pl x222g.pdf

So the frequency of a photon you measure is relative, but if you know the distance or and speed and angle you were traveling when you observed that photon, can't you just always work out what the actual energy change is that created that photon, in which case isn't the energy change of that object not actually relative, doesn't actually have to be a definite value in order for you to have measured it at the frequency and angle and speed you measured it at?

Measurements made ​​in a laboratory on Earth have shown that the speed of light measured in the air is constant in every direction and does not depend on the speed of the Earth (speed of the measuring interferometer). So will be right the conclusion that measured, in the same laboratory, the speed of light in the motionless water or glass, will also be constant in any direction and independent of the speed of movement of the Earth? Best whishes of happinesses and successes to All in the new year has already begun!

In his book 'Concepts of MODERN PHYSICS', Chapter 1, Section 1.7, page# 22to 24, Arthur Beiser tries to derive an equation for relativistic momentum, which he finally does. But I found the situation considered by him inappropriate so is with the way he deals with it. Can anyone please tell me if I am wrong in comprehending his method? Thanks in advance.

Will continue to be valid the relativity theory? There are already many objections to the relativity theory: the paradoxes, experiments with speeds superluminicas, experiments with light stopped, the speed of light greater than C (João Magueijo and the data from the quasar), the experiment of Martin Grusenick, etc. , etc. I think we need a radical examination of the theory. By the way i see on youtube a proposal for an experiment very interesting:

What is the equation for Relativistic KE?

Can the fabric of space-time be considered, to be 'embedded', in a higher-dimensional 'hyper-space' ? For example, in 'flat' space-time, the 'past light-cones' (PLC), of an observer, at some particular 'event' (x,t), are some sort of "hyper-stack" of spherical shells, into some sort of "sphere-cone" hyper-shape -- a little like a concentric set of onion shells, that have been "pulled out" along the time axis: In 'closed-but-static' space-time, the "hyper-stack", of spherical shells, comprising the PLC, both "grows & shrinks" in size; and, "porpoises up-and-down through hyperspace" (as the light-rays bounding the PLC "spiral around" the "hyper-cylinder" …

Hi, my question fits probably better to the sub forum "Relativity". The article I had in mind shows in Fig. 1.1 The propagation of spacetime curvature oscillating light ray triangles. So, according to the phase of the wave the (Weyl?) curvature is negative, zero or positiv. 1. However in which plane? Do these triangles show the curvature in the x-y-plane or parallel to the z-direction? 2. To make the light ray triangles is very fast compared to the period of the gravitational wave. Can one say that the triangles measure (almost) frozen states and not the dynamics of the wave? Supposed there is curvature in the x-y-plane, wouldn't that mean that l…

I've been trying to wrap my head around Einstein’s explanation of gravity. I'd like some input to see if they way I'm visualizing could be correct, because it's a little different than what I've been seeing. In typical illustrations of Relativity and the force of gravity, Space-Time is a shown as a two dimensional grid. Mass (a planet) is pictured as forcing the grid down, warping the plane like a heavy weight on a pliable surface, or re-shaping it into a sort of cone-like funnel. What I see (on those iritating nights that thoughts of Relativity are keeping me awake) is the same two dimensional grid drawn on a thin sheet of rubber. The mass is a small rubber ball…

If one person A is accelerating to (or traveling at) a very high speed relative to person B, do their views of each other work like this?... Person A sees the actions of person B speeding up AND vice versa: person B sees the actions of person A speeding up. Person B sees the aging process slowing down for person A, who in turn sees the aging process speeding up for person B. So person A sees the other age quicker and move quicker. While person B sees the other age slower and move quicker.

when light enters black hole,is it converted into matter[mass] i've read that energy exists all over the universe and when it is denser it is called matter. i mean does it become as dense as matter or does it become as dense as the black hole itself or nothing happens?

I was discussing with my friends the implications of neutrinos travelling faster than light (be it real or hypothetical). See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15791236 So far I've got the following background knowledge: Michelson-Morley found that the speed of light was the same in all frames of reference. Einstein claimed that nothing could exceed the speed of light and formalized the theory of relativity based on that maximum speed. I'm not sure why this claim is valid. What special property of light makes this obvious? If something CAN travel faster than light, what are the implications? Isn't it just a matter of correcting [math]c[/math] in [m…

So light's frequency is relative, so does that mean light is both most likely to exist in a certain area and also NOT likely to exist in the same area? How can the physical space light occupies be relative? Because to one thing light can be a gamma ray and to another thing it can be a radio wave, but those two wavelengths have different localization patterns. So just because I measure something, it automatically determines the physical space that it exists in for my point of view?

I believe GR breaks down at the atomic scale and for black holes. (And its predictions appear to be slightly off as in the fly-by and the Pioneer anomalies and, more radically, in the recent and unconfirmed INFN neutrino experiment.) Could some one please expand on the small scale limit of applicability? At what scale does it start to fail and how? Thank you

I'm not really too familiar with physics or science in general, so please excuse the fact that some of these questions might be elementary or just plain dumb... I'm sure you get a lot of these! a. Is the third dimension essentially the addition of time? doesn't depth slow the speed of light, causing time? how would light act in a 2D world? b. If we take a 2D shape, and apply it to a 3D model, such as squares to a cube, are we doing the same with a tesseract? applying 3D models into a 4D model, like the 3D object is a face of the tesseract? can we use this simple structure to conclude anything about time and perhaps infer something about the 4th dimension? What I'v…

1) how can we define the electric field lines...??? 2) Reason for using point charge & stationary charge in Coulombs Law...??? 3) How can we define "permittivity"...??? 4) What is "Quantization Of Charge"...??? 5) Area Vector...??? Reply to these Questions...???