Science Forums
Advanced search
User Name
Password

Science Social Network
home    members    help/rules    who is online    contact   
Welcome to Hypography, a forum for science and technology. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Go Back   Science Forums > Science News > Technology News

Are the theories of relativity real?
Become a science forums sponsor today
Comment
Page 1 of 5 1 23 > Last »
 
LinkBack Article Tools
Published by Inter.spem.et.metum 10-03-2007
What evidence is there that the theories of relativity are actually laws? Are they applicable? If you must assume certain conditions in the creation of a hypothesis without being able to reproduce the same conditions, then what have you proven? The assumptions that we create make the calculations relational just in principle. What is the purpose of these studies if we are not able to use them?

This is not an attack. I would like to understand more about this area.
  #1  
By freeztar on 10-03-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum View Post
What evidence is there that the theories of relativity are actually laws? Are they applicable?
Certainly! One very popular example is the GPS system. Newton's laws do not give the accuracy needed, hence the theories of relativity are used and produce great results.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
By Jay-qu on 10-03-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
here is a link to some tests that show that relativity must be part of our universe. It includes such experiments as the Michelson-Morely experiment and observations of binary stars.

There have been many tests and so far they have shown that time dilation from relative velocities or gravitational fields are very much real.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
By kmarinas86 on 10-04-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay-qu View Post
here is a link to some tests that show that relativity must be part of our universe. It includes such experiments as the Michelson-Morely experiment and observations of binary stars.

There have been many tests and so far they have shown that time dilation from relative velocities or gravitational fields are very much real.
Given a constant relative velocity, obviously the image of something will be time dilated, but does that mean that the object itself must be time dilated as well?

I know acceleration causes an absolute dilation of time, which can be measured as clocks have been sent into space and then returned to earth. I do not yet believe that the same would be true for objects moving a constant relative velocity. I think that in SR (special relativity), it's just the image that's being time dilated.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
By Buffy on 10-04-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarinas86 View Post
Given a constant relative velocity, obviously the image of something will be time dilated, but does that mean that the object itself must be time dilated as well?
You might want to try to define what you mean a little bit more clearly. No, the object itself "was" not "time dilated," it and the observer *experienced* time dilation by respectively moving and observing. If they get together at the end, their clocks will differ, and that difference in the clocks is how they "experience" it. To each of them in their own reference frame, they will not "experience" anything being different at all.
So when you say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarinas86 View Post
I know acceleration causes an absolute dilation of time, which can be measured as clocks have been sent into space and then returned to earth.
There is nothing "absolute" about it: the difference is purely an effect of the *relative* motion between the two observers.

And as a result:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarinas86 View Post
I do not yet believe that the same would be true for objects moving a constant relative velocity. I think that in SR (special relativity), it's just the image that's being time dilated.
...is sort of true, since both "observers" don't "feel" anything wrong.

This is similar to one observer seeing the "traveling" party appear to be forshortened (a related effect of SR): the traveler does not "feel" squished" and in fact is *not* physically squished: its the *appearance* to the observer that's squished. So in that sense its not "real" in the sense that it is not "physical."

But that doesn't mean that SR isn't "real," just that you need to be careful in interpreting the words used to describe it.

Blue-shifted,
Buffy
Reply With Quote
  #5  
By Little Bang on 10-04-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Michelson-Morley only showed that the material of space had no effect on the speed of light.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
By Jay-qu on 10-04-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bang View Post
Michelson-Morley only showed that the material of space had no effect on the speed of light.
Or more specifically that the speed of light is independent of the relative motion of the observer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
By Qfwfq on 10-05-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum View Post
If you must assume certain conditions in the creation of a hypothesis without being able to reproduce the same conditions, then what have you proven?
Exactly which conditions that can't be reproduced?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
By Inter.spem.et.metum on 10-05-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
Why is it still called a theory?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
By Jay-qu on 10-05-2007
Re: Are the theories of relativity real?
from thefreedictionary.com -

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

No matter how good a theory describes the world we live in, all it does is describe what we can see and test. We have been shown many times in the past that when we think we know something, bam physics throws a curve ball. In 100 years these theories may not be the best description of the world, but they still remain a description of the world and may work fine for most purposes.
Last edited by Jay-qu; 10-05-2007 at 05:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Comment
Page 1 of 5 1 23 > Last »

Bookmarks

« U-M research: New plastic is strong as steel, transparent | Astrophysicist Replaces Supercomputer with Eight PlayStation 3s »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Article: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Article Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Article Article Starter Category Comments Last Post
Redisorganization Theories Monomer Watercooler 2 06-06-2007 10:38 PM
Theory Of Realistic Relativity (and branching theories.) arkain101 Physics and Mathematics 1 10-13-2005 06:58 AM
theories on the universe ellimist Astronomy and Cosmology 2 03-02-2005 01:35 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:31 PM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0 ©2008, Crawlability, Inc. Copyright © 2000-2008 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network
Powered by GARS © 2005-2008
Contact Us - Hypography Science Forums - Top