Quote - GPS. And relativity is important in communications using satellites due to the fact that satellites are travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Significant fraction ??? How much is the speed of light and how much is the speed of Earth ?

How do you know that GPS are really using Relativity ? Much better, how do you know that the GPS products that are sold use satellites and not cell phone towers ?

Quote - The design of cathodic tubes for TV must take in account relativistic mass increase due to the electrons travelling at a very considerable speed.

Realtivity is noy used, nobody designs a cathode ray tube using Relativity and the cathode ray tube was, invented, designed and used well before Relativity was accepted by all the world and this happened only after WWII.

Quote - The same is true for the design of free-electron lasers.There are probably many others that I don't know just now.

Electron lasers???? This much be something very new, I never heard before and I am unable to imagine what it can be.

Quote - And there is something that you should know about electronics. You have to take in account quantum mechanics to design computer circuits, right? Then, you should know that the Dirac equation, one of the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics, incorporates relativity.

All Qunatics Physics used by Electronics is based on non-Relativistics Quantics. It is based on Schoedinger wave equation, Bohr, Pauli and Heisenberg work.

Dirac's Relativistic Quantics is never used in any electronic creation and no Electronic enginner studies Dirac*.* It has no use.*

Quote - Yes, I know. I have deal with his ilk before. Until his last posts I didn't realize that I was dealing with a relativity denier, and not with a misinformed person.

I cannot say that I am exactly a realtivity denier, in some way I am. Once I was a great fan of Relativity and Einsteins, but it was long years ago. When I was 14 years old I learned General Relativity, with Special Relativity I was even more younger, don't remember how much younger.

Quote - Haven't atomic clocks been used to verify relativistic effects in different rates of the passages of time at different altitudes on Earth, as well?

Yes it was verified, everyday we hear in the news that Relativity has been verified again, I read this since when I was born and able to read.

The question is, has been Relativity really verified ? If you analyze these verifications you will find that are flawed, if have really existed. I shall use Relativity itself to prove this.

There are two theories of Relativity, the Special and the General. What was "verified" millions times is the Special Relativity Theory. The General Theory of Relativity has been verified by only three astronomical observations. Other astronomical theories have produced results that were against with the consequence of the creation dozens of alternative theories (stings, worm holes, spinors,...) and even the need of a mythical dark matter that nobody was able to find until today neither God's particle (It's turning religion now ?). Let us return to what has been proved millions times: The Special Theory of Relativity.

The Special Theory of Relativity has a limited scope of application, the scope was defined by Einstein himself: The Special Theory of Relativity can only be applied to empty space without matter and to objects moving with uniform speed, in other words, no acceleration.

All those "verifications" were made in Earth, rockets, atomic clocks, etc. The Earth is not an empty space, the Earth has mass and so has gravity, you also have the Sun and the Moon, ignoring the other planets. The Earth is not moving with uniform speed, has at least two rotations and so it is a movement with acceleration. Any rocket is subjected to strong accelerations. The Special Theory of Relativity cannot be applied to observation made on Earth beacuse it is beyond the scope of application of the theory. Here is the flaw of these "verifications"

What must be applied to any experiment made on Earth is the General Theory of Relativity that is able to deal with gravitation and accelerarions as happens in Earth. The problem is that General Theory is impossible to apply to an Earth experiment, because it is very very complicated. The Earth is not so simple, it has a lot of movements, is not symetric, has irregular distribuition of mass, a dynamic moving mass that are the oceans amd is stronly inflenced by the Sun and the Moon. Even the Newton's theory that is very simple becomes very difficult to apply where more than two bodies are involved. The consequence is even the very well known and easy Newton's theory, satellites and space flight relies on hundreds of tabulated empirical data collected by observation. Imagine with General Relativity that is nothing easy !

Kawecki not only denies a number of theories, he also denies the existance and usefulness of Google search. I have been biting my tongue because I know it is pointless to argue but really it's making me insane to just let these blatant falsehoods and confused ravings go unanswered.

Can you use Google Kawecki?

Google "GPS and relativity" - there are 911,000 results, which is a lot to read, but the first page is very enlightening.

In your rant above you respond to the question of verfication of relativistic effects with a diatribe against SR, and a claim that GR is so complicated it is unusable. It's clear that it is too complicated for you but not to the engineers who worked out, using SR and GR, what adjustment to make on the atomic clocks in orbit so they stay synchronized with the ground clocks.

I like this one - it sums things up pretty neatly:

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Quote - To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking fasterthan identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location.

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

I like to cite my sources rather than just make wild unsubstantiated assertions like Kawecki.

Earlier he denied the importance of relativity in Cathode-Ray tube calculations.

Kawecki - do you know the speed of the electrons in a CRT? Does 1 * 10^8 m/s sound fast or what? It's 1/3 the speed of light. At such speeds, the mass of the electron is increased by 25%, and if you do not consider this in deciding how much force is needed to deflect it into the right position, it does not go into the right position.

Here's a guy who mentions both the GPS and his use of relativity in designing CRTs.

http://mathscinotes.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/gps-and-relativity/

Wow - is that guy an idiot or what, huh Kawecki?

This page discusses the CRT math, including the increased mass of these very fast electrons.

http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/physics_a2/options/Module_8/Topic_1/topic_1.htm

also here:

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/physics/relativitytelevision.htm

Quote - > Quote - The same is true for the design of free-electron lasers.There are probably many others that I don't know just now.

Electron lasers???? This much be something very new, I never heard before and I am unable to imagine what it can be.

He didn't say electron lasers. He said free-electron lasers. And remember I said there's this thing called Google? Perhaps you find it hard to use. Here I'll help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-electron_laser - FELs use a relativistic electron beam as the lasing medium which moves freely through a magnetic structure, hence the term free electron.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/18/navy-breaks-world-record-futuristic-laser-getting-real/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWdGkb7r1iA

http://www.lightsources.org/cms/?pid=1001328 - Free Electron Lasers (FELs) represent an increasingly important kind of light source with a brightness that can be up to one billion times higher than that of ordinary synchrotron light. FEL’s differ from conventional lasers in that they use the electron beam as the lasing medium rather than a gas or a solid.

Quote - Do you think that Michelson-Morley were comformed with the failure of their experiment and were happy with Einstein's explanation and then dedicated to the garden of their houses ?  Of course not ! They continued their work, revised their failled experiment, created new experiments and in 1926 they had success and were able to measure the absolute speed of Earth. Everybody knows about their failed experiment, but nobody knows about their successful experiment.

You know there's this thing called Google and it's really easy to check your non-facts, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Morley was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Miller worked on increasingly large experiments, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length at an installation at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, he used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. He consistently measured a small positive effect that varied with each rotation of the device, the sidereal day and on a yearly basis. His measurements amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation.

Though Kennedy later also carried out an experiment at Mount Wilson, finding 1/10 the drift measured by Miller, and no seasonal effects, Miller's findings were considered important at the time, and were discussed by Michelson, Lorentz and others at a meeting reported in 1928 (ref below). There was general agreement that more experimentation was needed to check Miller's results. Lorentz recognised that the results, whatever their cause, did not quite tally with either his or Einstein's versions of special relativity. Einstein was not present at the meeting and felt the results could be dismissed as experimental error (see Shankland ref below). To date, no-one has been able to replicate Miller's results, and modern experimental accuracies are considered to have ruled them out.[7]

Quote - Michelson-Morley were not only the ones, other scientists created other experiments and among them was a guy named Georges Sagnac that in 1913 had also success in measuring the absolute speed of Earth.

No - it was rotational speed, not absolute speed. The Sagnac effect is about rotation - not linear motion. Further, the effect is easily predicted both by relativity theory and traditional Newtonian physics.

Quote - Wiki -  The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any ballistic theories such as Ritz's could be tested directly, as the light going one way around the device would have a different length to travel than light going the other way (the eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light). In Ritz's theory there would be no shift, because the net velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory. This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes.

All the rest of what you said is just fantasy piled upon fantasy. You haven't got the least little facts right even on the history of relativity, let alone its use in engineering.

Quote - Realtivity is noy used, nobody designs a cathode ray tube using Relativity and the cathode ray tube was, invented, designed and used well before Relativity was accepted by all the world and this happened only after WWII.

Do you ever actually tell the truth? Do you enjoy for reasons that I cannot fathom being so wrong all the time? It would be fine to be wrong, except you're so persistent and annoying about it, shoving your weird beliefs into every conversation, and throwing around little factoids as if they were not things you just made up.

Relativity was not accepted until after World War II? Seriously - that's what you think?

Did you forget the little bit about the atomic bomb being the result of relativity theory - the bomb that ended WW II?

Man - I just can't believe how far you stick your neck out and you still strut around here like you have any credibility whatosever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity

Quote - Eventually, around 1911 most mathematicians and theoretical physicists accepted the results of special relativity. For example, already Planck (1909) compared the implications of the modern relativity principle — especially Einstein's relativity of time — with the revolution by the Copernican system. As a result, the fundamental difference between the dynamic approach of Lorentz and the kinematic one of Einstein was pointed out, and the term "Lorentz-Einstein-Theory" wasn't used anymore. Only a few theoretical physicists like Lorentz, Poincaré, Abraham or Langevin, still believed in the existence of an aether in any form.

Quote - The speed of light was never the "Maximum Speed limit" for the universe anyway.

Sorta... it just keeps turning out to be one for all practical purposes.

There are ways around that, though most of them involve either punching a hole through space-time, or bunching it up in odd ways. Problem is, most of these theories require two things: a metric sh!tload of energy, and a means to counteract an intertial reaction that would turn every human passenger into a runny red jelly on the nearest bulkhead or seat behind each one.

Funny thing is, we really don't have to bust the speed of light to get anywhere important. If you can just make it to, say, 95% of light speed, time-dilation starts taking care of the rest (at least from the passenger POV). Get up to 98%, and the difference becomes even better. 99%? Way better still. So, a trip to a star 100-light-years off suddenly comes down to a small handful of decades (counting acceleration/deceleration time) for the occupants of the spacecraft, and even insofar as the spacecraft itself. It'd be well within a reasonable lifetime of the typical traveler, and a reachable service lifetime of a reasonably-equipped spacecraft. 'course, according to us back home, it'd still look like it took multiple centuries. 

The beauty of it is, we're finding habitable planets within 50 light-years, and even closer in some cases. That cuts the time down even more if we can find one worth moving some folks out to.

To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, he's not even wrong.

Quote - Earlier he denied the importance of relativity in Cathode-Ray tube calculations.
Kawecki - do you know the speed of the electrons in a CRT? Does 1 * 10^8 m/s sound fast or what? It's 1/3 the speed of light. At such speeds, the mass of the electron is increased by 25%, and if you do not consider this in deciding how much force is needed to deflect it into the right position, it does not go into the right position.

Did you know that magnets around a CRT have not an uniform magnetic field, magnetic materials used for the magnets are non-linear ? All these errors make electrons go to other place that is not the correct one, so we need to put auxiliary magnets and adjust then manually to make electros go to the right place. Any error introduced by the electron mass increase with speed is insignificant compared to the errors introduced by the real world magnetic field. Perfect magnetic fields only exist in books and are for academics and not engineers.

The second point is that the increase of electron mass with speed was not discovered by Einstein and his Theory, this was afact known many years before Einstein. Also Einstein based his theory on Lorentz's work that has nothing to do with Relativity and it was an aether theory.

Quote - his page discusses the CRT math, including the increased mass of these very fast electrons.http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/physics_a2/options/Module_8/Topic_1/topic_1.htm
also here:

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/physics/relativitytelevision.htm

What are you going to do? create an assassin TV set ?

Did you know that electrons traveling at very high speed have high energy and what does happen when a high energy hits a target? It produce X Rays, higher the energy harder the X rays. You are making a X ray generator and not a Television CRT tube !!!!

PS1- Who was right and who was wrong, Einstein or Heisenberg ? Forget Tesla, he was crazy.

PS2- My new LED monitor has three gammas: gamma1, gamm2 and gamma3, which one is the right one ?

Well, this one is long enough, I guess.  Thank you for participation, the thread is locked.