It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
GargIndia
reply to post by ImaFungi
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.
You didn't show that at all. You discussed one reference frame aboard the ship.
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.
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.
GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur
What do we gain by introducing "an outside observer". Nothing.
GPS is practical application of relativity we can all use, and it wouldn't work without relativity.
This whole theory is just a brain exercise with no practical implication.
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.
Rest is all confusion.
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.
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.
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.
Gravity can be created artificially in lab.
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
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?
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
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?
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)
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.
Do you think a 1 with 39 zeroes after it may help explain why gravity is harder to detect on small scales?
ImaFungi
Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields
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.
Arbitrageur
Do you think a 1 with 39 zeroes after it may help explain why gravity is harder to detect on small scales?
ImaFungi
Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields
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
Arbitrageur
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gravity can be created artificially in lab.edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification