It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Light Speed: Fixed... or Relative? Exploring Einstein's Relativity

page: 3
7
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:05 PM

GargIndia

You have given a very good example.

However take the example of a ship and human occupants of that ship.

Let us assume the ship is moving at the speed of light.

Now for the occupants, everything in the ship is moving at same speed as them, so there is zero relative velocity. So the occupants should see everything just as normal.

Assume there are some lights on on the console. The operator of the console should see the light just as normally as a stationary ship, as the eyes of the operator are moving towards the source of the light just as fast as the source of the light is moving away.

So "relativity" is not an important concept at all. It is only causing confusion in science.

Everything is moving in space. The earth is moving, along with its occupants. The sun is moving along with all its planets. The galaxy is moving along with all its suns. Still we are able to perform all our stuff normally.

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:37 PM

GargIndia
Now for the occupants, everything in the ship is moving at same speed as them, so there is zero relative velocity. So the occupants should see everything just as normal.

Assume there are some lights on on the console. The operator of the console should see the light just as normally as a stationary ship, as the eyes of the operator are moving towards the source of the light just as fast as the source of the light is moving away.

So "relativity" is not an important concept at all. It is only causing confusion in science.
You didn't show that at all. You discussed one reference frame aboard the ship.

In order to see any effect of relativity, you have to introduce an observer outside the spaceship. If you only look at things inside the spaceship of course relativity has no relevance, because you have no other reference frame for comparison.

Also note the spaceship could possibly travel near the speed of light but not at the speed of light, and once you define what it is traveling near the speed of light relative to, then you have the outside reference frame and can discuss relativity.

posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 10:45 PM

What do we gain by introducing "an outside observer". Nothing.

This whole theory is just a brain exercise with no practical implication.

Einstein contribution to science is the single equation E=mc^2. That is about it.

Rest is all confusion.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:45 AM

GargIndia

What do we gain by introducing "an outside observer". Nothing.
Unless you have more than one frame of reference, relativity is meaningless. So when you add a second relativistic reference frame to the first one, you gain all of relativity.

This whole theory is just a brain exercise with no practical implication.
GPS is practical application of relativity we can all use, and it wouldn't work without relativity.

Most other applications are extremely relevant to astronomers (for example relativity explains the precession of Mercury), and a lot of astronomical observations and effects we wouldn't understand without it, like gravitational lensing. It's also an important factor in particle accelerators in which particles travel at close to the speed of light.

Rest is all confusion.
You may see it as confusion, but you don't speak for everybody. There is a pretty strong consensus in the scientific community that relativity has provided us with a very useful model, though even Einstein would admit the picture it provides us with is incomplete which is why he spent years working on a more comprehensive theory.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:23 AM

When the phrase light speed is used it has to be considered in terms of a fixed reference and a moving reference.
For example I stand with a flash light and the lighmoves away from my fixed reference at light speed.
If im pointing my flashlight towards a helicopter above me which is going upwards then the people on the helicopter see the speed of light from the torch as the speed of light minus the upward velocity of the helicopter.

My personnel opinion is the speed of light is determined by gravitational force. So with ability to create gravity artificially the speed of light can become variable.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:34 AM

Here are my views:

GPS: I understand that clocks on satellite and earth are periodically synced. If calculations were so accurate, the syncing would not be needed as clocks can be adjusted by the computer.

Astronomical observations are a different cup of tea. As I mentioned elsewhere, there can be multiple explanations of a phenomenon. The understanding of space (with its vastness) will take considerable time.

These theories do keep scientists occupied though. Theoretical physics keeps many thousands of scientists in their jobs.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:36 AM

Gravity can be created artificially in lab. So it is not difficult to test your hypothesis.

Please do set up an experiment and let us know.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 09:02 AM

GargIndia
GPS: I understand that clocks on satellite and earth are periodically synced. If calculations were so accurate, the syncing would not be needed as clocks can be adjusted by the computer.
The relativity calculations are accurate, however they use an estimate of the mean gravitational field the satellite will be subjected to. Since the surface topography and density of the Earth's surface is not uniform, even our best estimates of this mean will be imperfect to a slight degree, necessitating periodic recalibrations. In no way does this invalidate relativity if you're trying to suggest it does.

Actually the recalibrations confirm relativity, because they are such small amounts of adjustments. If relativity was not true, the adjustments needed would be many times larger.

Gravity can be created artificially in lab.
If you mean a centrifuge, some people loosely refer to that as somewhat like artificial gravity, and maybe there is some similarity, but it's not really artificial gravity. If there's really a way to make artificial gravity in a lab other than that, please link to it.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:34 PM

If we have a bowling ball in the vacuum of space and it is being held between 2 extremely taught (but with give/flexible) trampolines, and from outside you grab the ball and the trampoline and pull back (as you would a bb in a sling shot) and then let go, would the bowling ball theoretically bounce back and forth (for at least) a long time? (I tried to give an example not on earth where gravity of earth would play a factor, and I understand the energy may be observed by the trampoline as a form of friction and this would cause the bouncing back and forth to stop after x amount of time as opposed to the object put in motion staying in motion imagining this set up to be some type of closed system). Any way I was trying to think of what that one poster and then you said about making gravity in a lab, and I was thinking about how an increase of an object with rest mass' energy/velocity increases its mass, which increases its gravity, and how that relates to the idea of a centrifuge. I was wondering if an experiment with a macro object such as a bowling ball (compared to subatomic particles in search for the means of gravity) accelerated/given energy, therefore having its mass increased and gravity increased, would there be any way to measure the change in gravity surrounding that object?

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:22 PM

ImaFungi

If we have a bowling ball in the vacuum of space and it is being held between 2 extremely taught (but with give/flexible) trampolines, and from outside you grab the ball and the trampoline and pull back (as you would a bb in a sling shot) and then let go, would the bowling ball theoretically bounce back and forth (for at least) a long time? (I tried to give an example not on earth where gravity of earth would play a factor, and I understand the energy may be observed by the trampoline as a form of friction and this would cause the bouncing back and forth to stop after x amount of time as opposed to the object put in motion staying in motion imagining this set up to be some type of closed system). Any way I was trying to think of what that one poster and then you said about making gravity in a lab, and I was thinking about how an increase of an object with rest mass' energy/velocity increases its mass, which increases its gravity, and how that relates to the idea of a centrifuge. I was wondering if an experiment with a macro object such as a bowling ball (compared to subatomic particles in search for the means of gravity) accelerated/given energy, therefore having its mass increased and gravity increased, would there be any way to measure the change in gravity surrounding that object?

In essence, you are asking whether the increase in kinetic energy can be experimentally measured to contribute to the active gravitational mass, i.e. the effect of mass on causing gravitational fields.

You have to look at the numbers. Consider a bowling ball. Suppose you converted all of its mass to photon energy (e.g. if it were made of half matter and half antimatter). That's as much energy as a few dozen H-bombs at least, i.e. a heck of a lot.

as a baseline, the gravity caused by a bowling ball is very very very very small. In order to for example, to measure double that, you would need to add kinetic energy of a quantity about equal to that few dozen H-bombs of energy.

In a nutshell: yes, what you're asking to do is possible in principle, but extremely difficult to do experimentally because the amount of mass you need and amount of kinetic energy you need to make a measurable difference is stupendously large.

Occasionally you get lucky. There are very fast rotating neutron stars, 'millisecond pulsars' which emit extremely large radiation in periodic intervals. Here you have something the mass of a star with literally astronomical kinetic energy. The change in time of the spin period has been found to match the predictions of General Relativity. If the effects of kinetic energy on gravity and dynamics weren't what they are, the answer would come out wrong compared to experiment. But it isn't. This work earned a Nobel Prize, for good reason.
edit on 31-1-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:48 PM

ImaFungi

If we have a bowling ball in the vacuum of space and it is being held between 2 extremely taught (but with give/flexible) trampolines, and from outside you grab the ball and the trampoline and pull back (as you would a bb in a sling shot) and then let go, would the bowling ball theoretically bounce back and forth (for at least) a long time? (I tried to give an example not on earth where gravity of earth would play a factor, and I understand the energy may be observed by the trampoline as a form of friction and this would cause the bouncing back and forth to stop after x amount of time as opposed to the object put in motion staying in motion imagining this set up to be some type of closed system). Any way I was trying to think of what that one poster and then you said about making gravity in a lab, and I was thinking about how an increase of an object with rest mass' energy/velocity increases its mass, which increases its gravity, and how that relates to the idea of a centrifuge. I was wondering if an experiment with a macro object such as a bowling ball (compared to subatomic particles in search for the means of gravity) accelerated/given energy, therefore having its mass increased and gravity increased, would there be any way to measure the change in gravity surrounding that object?

even if such experiment could have bin done somehow... no, it's not doable. It's not even possible to calculate it.
The invented uncertainty relation forbids it. You can know either the velocity or the position not both at the same time.
This is QM.
Even if somehow an subatomic particle (proton is 2000 times heavier then electron) can be accelerated near the speed of light, so it's mass can be calculated so high it has measurable gravity, nobody will know where the centre of this mass is!

this whole thing is absurd, gravity is not created by mc2

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:55 PM

mbkennel
Occasionally you get lucky. There are very fast rotating neutron stars, 'millisecond pulsars' which emit extremely large radiation in periodic intervals. Here you have something the mass of a star with literally astronomical kinetic energy. The change in time of the spin period has been found to match the predictions of General Relativity. If the effects of kinetic energy on gravity and dynamics weren't what they are, the answer would come out wrong compared to experiment. But it isn't. This work earned a Nobel Prize, for good reason.
edit on 31-1-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

I'm not really sure it means something, this science today is really something special...

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:22 PM

Yes ok thanks. We can see the kind of change in mass needed on a macro scale between the differences of earths gravity and the moon and a person on its surface. I wonder how smaller in mass the moon would have to be before you can escape its gravity with a jump, and then from there we can imagine why something like a bowling ball doesnt have much gravitational attraction. Im just really curious about what gravity is, whats causing it, how it reacts to matter and works, and I kind of understand why its elusive and hard if not thus far impossible to detect, but at the same time I dont really understand why. Is it a similar way as to how we cant explore the EM field and dont know much about how it exists, we can only explore 'photons' which is our modes of detection halting the forward progress of EM wave? So we dont have any materials to pierce the depths of what the depth itself is, in these cases EM field and Gravity, which must, if not being just about the totality of spacetime, must be intimately linked in someway.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:22 PM

AthlonSavage
For example I stand with a flash light and the lighmoves away from my fixed reference at light speed.
If im pointing my flashlight towards a helicopter above me which is going upwards then the people on the helicopter see the speed of light from the torch as the speed of light minus the upward velocity of the helicopter.

No, that's the point: according to the Michelson-Morley Experiment, the helicopter would see the speed of light from the torch as exactly the speed of light.

To me this made no sense... until I realized that since the helicopter moves, it warps space-time. And because it warps space-time, it warps the light's speed back to normal.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 04:08 PM

If the helicopter is moving away from torch as speed of light and the helicopter see stills the speed of light then relative motion itself is an illusion, doesn't really exist. If relative motion is an illusion then so is space distance, there is no such real thing as distance A to B. The only real thing then is emanation sources and perception points of light.
edit on 31-1-2014 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:14 PM

But gravity is a phenomenon that affects the surrounding of a mass, Just like closer surrounding the earth the 'space/time...gravity field' is different then it is way further away from earth, so to can we assume that an accelerated object/increased relativistic mass affects its local gravity field different then when it is at rest. Why can the difference in the gravity field not be measured, its because we dont even fathom what the gravity field is/is made of. How it is a connected net/field which can be warped and curved and displaced. Is it the lack of conceivable material that could detect and measure the difference in distortion of space? All though like should and can obviously be used, as it travels the 3 dimensionally curved gravity field caused by mass, so there should be a difference shinning light/lasers (like a million of them, at all edges of a bowling ball for example, and also up to a distance away from the edge of ball), and doing this to a ball that is moving. And I suppose this is the idea of photography at a basic level, and all kinds of EM radiation and spectroscopy at all other levels and scale. So as in gravitational lenses, light can only highlight a macro aspect of the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, just like light can highlight with the help of our eyes and brain, the macro aspect of the phenomenon of macro molecular clusters known as materials, where as there are many layers still hidden. Is it suggested, as in the mystery of creating perfect compatibility between quantum and macro phenomenon with gravity being a main missing link, that the field of gravity, that allows the macro phenomenon is composed of a smaller fundamental nature like the other supposed fields? Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields (yes i suppose they are too as single quarks have never been created or observed) and EM field (though im not sure we have a way of actually grasping the true nature of that field either)?

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 05:25 PM

There is nothing that says you cant move in relation to light. All relativity is saying is that whatever you move, however you move, however fast in relation to light, the light is always traveling the speed of light. If a car that can only and is only ever driving 50 mph (light traveling speed of light analogy) and you are running 10mph into the car, even though someone measuring from where you started running has the result that the car took x amount of time to reach them, it took less amount of time to reach you, would it be proper to conclude that the speed of the car was faster then the person not running measuring measured it to be? No, it was traveling the speed it always did, just your relative motion and relation to it caused you to experience it differently.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 06:01 PM

ImaFungi
Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields
Do you think a 1 with 39 zeroes after it may help explain why gravity is harder to detect on small scales?

Strong Nuclear Force

the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is around 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 1000000 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravitation.

Why do any of the fundamental constants (like the gravitational constant) have the values they have? We don't know.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 07:44 PM

Arbitrageur

ImaFungi
Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields
Do you think a 1 with 39 zeroes after it may help explain why gravity is harder to detect on small scales?

Strong Nuclear Force

the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is around 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 1000000 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravitation.

Why do any of the fundamental constants (like the gravitational constant) have the values they have? We don't know.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Well thats interesting considering gravity is such a macro phenomenon, and the strong and weak force as phenomenon only really exist in very relatively confined areas of space. These forces, strong and weak, exist due to virtual particles right? Which really is another way of saying...what? There is some coupling to the fundamental spatial field essence that when certain fundamental particles are in close enough proximity they snap together? All of these situations share the same problem, and common theme, they are characteristics and phenomenon (the fundamental forces that is) that are engrained, if not space itself, into space itself.

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:19 PM

Arbitrageur

GargIndia
GPS: I understand that clocks on satellite and earth are periodically synced. If calculations were so accurate, the syncing would not be needed as clocks can be adjusted by the computer.
The relativity calculations are accurate, however they use an estimate of the mean gravitational field the satellite will be subjected to. Since the surface topography and density of the Earth's surface is not uniform, even our best estimates of this mean will be imperfect to a slight degree, necessitating periodic recalibrations. In no way does this invalidate relativity if you're trying to suggest it does.

Actually the recalibrations confirm relativity, because they are such small amounts of adjustments. If relativity was not true, the adjustments needed would be many times larger.

Gravity can be created artificially in lab.
If you mean a centrifuge, some people loosely refer to that as somewhat like artificial gravity, and maybe there is some similarity, but it's not really artificial gravity. If there's really a way to make artificial gravity in a lab other than that, please link to it.
edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

An orbiting satellite is roughly at a constant distance from earth. It is not actually moving away or closer. So there is no relative motion with respect to earth.

We need to examine all possible reasons of why a clock registers different time on a satellite compared to a clock on earth. Assuming it is only due to relative motion is kind of hurried conclusion.

If 'gravity' is affecting the measurements (as you suggest - small variations in gravity are causing large enough effect to force syncing), then we need to consider 'gravity' as a factor in 'theory of relativity'. Do we?

I would ask you a question - what is the difference between engineering and science? One thing I can tell you right away - engineers build things that work and do the job. Eventually they care about theory only as much as it helps them. This is the reason devices have feedback loops for error correction.

---------------------

Artificial gravity

You are right centrifuges are used for creating artificial gravity. But why is this 'artificial gravity' any different from natural gravity?

The light from your torch and sunlight travel at the same speed and have same basic properties.

top topics

7