could you tell me please an example of the einstein relativity theory?

Was never intended to in any way discredit Jews. Your response to my criticism of the Einstein myth is a disappointment to me.
...Oscar

 

Does anyone else find physicists' explanations of relativity woeful? I've tried to read many books on the topic written by physicists and sorry.. but they just can't explain stuff. Stephen Hawking is actually one of he better ones, but still an awful scientific communicator. These people ought to collaborate with people who can write.

 

look here,relativity is not the point...the point is to find fundamental things,important things and how to handle them...
they are relative,so what?
everything is relative...

 

I could tell you an example but the I would have to kill you but GPS as you said in the OP.

Global Positioning Satellites basically use relativity to plot any position on Earth, if SR (Special Relativity) didn't work they wouldn't be able to.

They adjust for both general and special relativistic concerns, Newton was right but not accurate enough.

Ok I'm going to explain GPs in dumb maths terms so listen up. A sattalite needs to find it's neighbour, it does and sends a signal, the transmission site on Earth then sends a signal, it gets picked up, they use as many satallites as they can to triangulate a position, if the position is right and in synch then they send a signal back to the transmission source, over time they synch by using the fact that a sphere and its surface will have so many points on it, the spherical co-ordinates hence will tell you the size of that sphere and by analogy all the positions of the sattellites on that sphere. And hence they will be in synch by the mathematics.

And sadly I just bored myself.

This is very basic trigonometry. Luckily SR is very basic trigonometry.

 

You can find it through a quick Google Search!!

 

Check out Einstein's cross.

 

Einstein's equation E=mc^2 was an adaptation of Gottfried Leibniz's kinetic energy equation E=mv^2. Einstein just replaced velocity with light speed. His ideas on light speed and time were profound and rejected by most scientists for years but once realized, it completely changed the world of science.

 

time is relative to the speed at witch you are moving, simple and short.
that's why they need to fix the position of gps satelites every day, for the time on earth, the satelite as moved a set amount of time, in space, the satelite (26000km/h) has time going slower. so it's position is incorect(by a couple of meters daily) if you calculate where it would be normaly.

 

Think about this: time on earth must fluctuate daily and yearly. The earth spins at 1000mph and orbits the sun at 67000mph. So the difference in speed between midday and midnight is 2000mph on the surface of the earth because at one point your going with the direction of orbit and then against it. Also the entire solar system orbits the galaxy at 550000mph, so the speed of the earth fluctuates 134000mph over one year. Any change in speed must be a change in time...

 

time dont fluctuate on earth cause we are the one spining, we are in motion, satelite have a motion of his own relative to us. the speed diferential is high enough to cause direct observation of enstein relativity.

 

Just because we can't observe the fluctuation due to lack of precision or reference doesn't mean it isn't actually happening...

 

how do you know WE are the one spinning? it could be the rest of the universe is rotating around the earth. just ask any of the conservatives on the Texas board of education :dizzy2:

 

the farther away you move from an object the faster it appears to move.

 

Could you give an example of how that works?

 

I am not even sure if what I said is correct it seems to have come off the top of my head. I am stumped that I even said it and I do not understand it. I did a search on it and found nothing on it.

I do know that objects appear to get smaller as we move away from them.

I am going to try design and conduct an experiment to see if things appear to move faster as I move away from them and get back to you.

 

I was thinking that too. That's why I asked

 

I have resisted posting in this thread mainly because I am not sure what the discussion is actually about. I mean, it is accepted by every mainstream scientist that Special and General Relativity are the best explanations for macroscopic events in the Universe.

Anyways, since I hold a B.S. in Mathematics & Physics and have teaching experience at a major University, I figured I would use my skills to write up a relatively simple derivation of "E=mc^2". I wrote it by pen and scanned it since the forum cannot display Mathematical symbols. A basic understanding of differential and integral Calculus is preferred, but not necessary:

 

A Short Guide To General Relativity

In addition to what I posted above, which is just a "for fun" derivation of E=mc^2, which I did simply to show that these formulas aren't coming out of thin air, I will now attempt a short description of what General Relativity is all about without writing any math, because the mathematics used in G.R. involve operators and matrices which I cannot write in HTML.

Also, the math is extremely complex, and I don't mean that in a way that should shun a non-mathematician or non-physicist from learning about G.R. The only caveat is that to truly feel "comfortable" with the theory, at least in my case, it involved learning all of the math involved. And to show how complex it is, I first became interested in G.R. when I was like 15 and read books like The Elegant Universe often. But I was left wondering about "why" it is all so.

Interestingly, I became a Math + Physics major in college. The crazy part is that it wasn't until my SENIOR year in college that we even got to the point where we were developing the tools needed to tackle GR. And this was in a special graduate-level course (on Differential Geometry). So it took three and a half years of "lower" math to prepare for Differential Geometry! And I never really "understood" GR until very recently and that is despite going to graduate school in Mathematics for two semesters.

But, luckily, one can grasp a sense of the theory without the math.

General Relativity (GR) was developed in the early 1900s. Einstein was the one who "brought it all together" but as some other posters in the thread eluded to, the foundations AND the math (ie: Differential Geometry) were developed by other people including Minkowski, Lorentz, and Hilbert. But that is how science works. It is too much shit for one guy to think up alone.

The theory explains how matter and energy can mold the actual geometric structure of the Universe. It also, consequently, tells us about the very essence of the Universe itself.

The theory tells us that the macroscopic Universe is best modeled as a four-dimensional Manifold (topological surface). It doesn't need to "sit" in a bigger Universe or anything. It just exists as such. We give privilege to one of the four dimensions, calling it time and separating it from the other three which we call spatial directions. Why this is is largely because our brains evolved to see it that way. The only difference between space and time is, as I jokingly say "a minus sign", which is true since the metric tensor that explains what spacetime (the Universe) looks like in absence of matter, is simply a four-by-four diagonal matrix with entries: diag[-1,1,1,1].

Using GR, we can derive that the "shape" of the Universe in absence of matter is a four-dimensional hyperboloid and not a sphere as most would imagine. The existence of "straight lines" and such is really an illusion when it comes down to things.

GR is written as an equation. The left hand side explains how spacetime is curved without matter and energy. The right hand side explains to what degree certain distributions of matter and energy warp the left hand side. But the equation is very "compact" and when expanded literally yields about 100 separate equations to be solved.

We find that even the smallest amount of matter or energy can cause the Manifold to be "pushed" in upon, causing other matter and energy to "tend towards" the pushed-in dimple of spacetime. Spacetime is not punctured though as that would render it a non-toplogical surface. However, things like black holes do yield "funny" results that require some novel approaches to the solving of the equations.

And key to all of this is that matter and energy are interchangeable. In the grand scheme of things, they are the same essence just as in the grand scheme of things, space and time are of the same essence.

That is the jist of the theory. Feel free to ask me questions.

 

What is the very essence of the universe?