Do realativity equations for time, length and momentum hold true for everyday low speeds also?
546164
Yes.  The laws of relativity have been shown to be true at various speeds.  At slow speeds the effect is very, very tiny, so it is very hard to measure, but every bit of evidence we have says that relativity is true for all speeds (and for being stationary, for that matter).\n\nWhy is it hard to measure?  Well, say you're in a small (2 meter) automobile going 100 km/hr.  The contraction due to relativistic effects would be about .2 micron, or 200 nanometers.  To see a contraction of just two cm - just under an inch - you would have to get the car up to 95 million miles an hour!  \n\nTime, momentum, mass, etc are likewise.  They are affected relativistically, but the effect is so very small that for all practical purposes it is zero.  \n\nBut maybe you have an impractical purpose??  :-)
619048
It's actually kind of unfortunate the the ultimate speed limit is generally referred to as "the speed of light", because the concepts are actually different.  Also, saying that "the mass increases" really only confuses the issue, and physicists don't really talk in terms of changing mass in relativistic systems.  The "mass increases" argument is actually just a kludge to keep the P=mv (momentum equals the product of mass and velocity) equation working at relativistic speeds, but it makes more sense just to use a relativistic momentum expression and not talk about changing masses.\n\nSpecial relativity, amply confirmed by experiment, shows that things we consider "obvious" about space and time, are not quite as simple as they appear.  Velocities don't strictly add  together, and faster objects become shorter, with clocks passing more slowly.  These results are, in fact, an inevitable outcome of Maxwell's equations, though it took a long time for them to be carried to their logical conclusion.\n\nSo, velocities aren't additive, and there is no global clock which passes equally for all observers.  Given these, it is possible to talk about the mathematics of relativity in flat space.  The math produces a sort of mapping, one which happens to reach asymptotes at the "speed of light".  This defines an ultimate speed limit, a speed beyond which it makes no sense to talk about things.  In a way, something moving at the speed of light is moving at infinite speed in a "mapped space" under the Lorentz equations which govern the way relativistic effects manifest themselves.\n\nSo, the mathematics of the Lorentz transforms lead to the existance of an ultimate speed limit, one for which there is no "faster than this", in the same way that there is no number "larger than infinity".  No matter how quickly you go, the speed of light is always the same relative speed to you, light always passes you at the same measured speed.\n\nLight moves at the ultimate speed limit because it is composed of massless particles, which are required to move exactly at the ultimate speed limit.\n\nSo, the speed limit is mathematical, externally imposed.  The speed of light is the same because photons are massless.  If photons were not massless, they would travel at less than "the speed of light", but there would still be an ultimate speed limit, one which photons could approach but never reach.\n\nThe speed of sound is related to the motion of atoms which carry a disturbance, and because the atoms have mass, they are not constrained to travel at the ultimate speed limit, and in fact are forbidden from doing so, so the speed of sound is below the speed of light.\n\nWhen light slows down, it's because it is being jostled, absorbed and re-emitted, generally impeded by obstacles.  In between such interruptions, it still moves at the ultimate speed limit, but the interruptions reduce the average speed.  To use an imperfect analogy, if you ran at full speed through an empty room, and measured your own ultimate speed, then filled the room with people, you would find that they would form obstacles that could slow you down, but would not speed you up.
685470
the speed = distance/time
168069
assuming your statement is true, then\na=k/t\nwhich gives t=k/a\nso time is a nonlinear function of acceleration.\nGraphically, the plot of a versus t is not a straight line (it is a hyperbola)
880820
Einstein has 2 theories of realivity.  The Special theory of relativey and the General theory of realtivity.  \n  The first simply means this in layman's terms.  All laws of physics laws are valid given that the state of object is in Uniform motion.  (uniform motion means a constant state of acceleration)\n  The General theory of relativity is all about gravity.  Basically it is a theory to explain the force of gravity.  \n   Although Neither theorys specifically mention time travel, many people have used the specifics of these theorys to try to show whether time travel is indeed possible.  \n    One of the principals of the general theory is that no object can travel faster than the speed of light.  Although this seems like qquite a simple statment it really isn't.  If you think about light and the things you are seeing "lets say your looking at the stars"  The light coming from those stars has traveled billions of miles to get to earth.  You are in fact seeing the light that a certain star has emmited in the past.  Now if you were to travel faster than light you could in effect travel through time and reach light events that people have yet to see.  \n   Now at face value you would say well since the theory of relativly states you can't travel faster than light this is impossible.  Here lies the catch.  The speed of light is always the speed of light (meaning if you were in car traveling at the speed of light down the road and you turned your headlights on the speed of the light from the headlights would still travel away from the car at the speed of light).\n   Now let's say your a person standing on some point and were watching the car travel at the speed of light.  The light that is coming from the cars headlights would to you seem to be traveling at 2times the speed of light. Get it?  \n   So when speaking relativisticly the frame of refrence is the most important factor.  Now one thing to note that time is NOT a constant.  It has been proven that the faster an object moves the slower time is for that object.  This indeed does work for everyday activities such as your car driving down the road.  Time for you is accually an extremely tiny bit slower than it is for the tree that you past on the road. \n    SO if we "could" get an object to move the speed of light or greater time could either stop or go in reverse for that object.  We cannot get matter to the speed of light at this time.  We have gotten close, but right now the laws of physics seem to prevent that.
1063023
Don't you think that relativity dictates that those two things are the same?\nEdited my old answer after thinking-\nmy answer is:\nIt doesn't make a difference if I say I'm going 65 miles/hr or if I say everything else is and I'm going 0.  For all intents, purposes, and consequences, it's the same.  It's the same in this case, frame of reference is crucial in measurement, and so essentially, there is no difference in macro scale physics.\nGeneral theory of relativity wise, I'm still not sure about.  It seems like there might be serious consequences for this idea due to the speed of light/space relationship.  It also seems like I'm not really qualified to do those calculations, and the people who are could very well have already thought of this.  They are rather bright.\nSo my rating for viability of the idea is: (drum roll)\n23%
4310
It is true to say that you cannot feel the "speed" (velocity) of a bus when moving at a constant velocity - - but only in a "perfect" universe - - i.e., no "contact" between the bus and its environment. In reality, you probably perceive high velocity versus low velocity due to changes in vibration, bumps in the road, "wind" whistling, motor engine noise of the bus, etc.\n\nNot only is the earth moving at "constant" velocity (technically, its velocity is decreasing at an extremely low rate; slowing down only as measured over billions of years) - - its "interaction" with its "environment" (in solar system space) is virtually zero.
694048
velocity is frequency times the wavelength\nso if the frequency decreases the velocity also will decrease
1084783
Average vs. Instantaneous Speed\n\n\nDuring a typical trip to school, your car will undergo a series of changes in its speed. If you were to inspect the speedometer readings at regular intervals, you would notice that it changes often. The speedometer of a car reveals information about the instantaneous speed of your car; that is, it shows your speed at a particular instant in time.\n\n\nThe instantaneous speed of an object is not to be confused with the average speed. Average speed is a measure of the distance traveled in a given period of time; it is sometimes refered to as the distance per time ratio. Suppose that during your trip to school, you traveled a distance of 5 miles and the trip lasted 0.2 hours (12 minutes). The average speed of your car could be determined as \n\n\nOn the average, your car was moving with a speed of 25 miles per hour. During your trip, there may have been times that you were stopped and other times that your speedometer was reading 50 miles per hour; yet on the average you were moving with a speed of 25 miles per hour.\n\nThe average speed during the course of a motion is often computed using the following equation: \naverage speed is distance travel divided by time of travel.\n \nInstantaneous Speed - speed at any given instant in time.\n\nAverage Speed - average of all instantaneous speeds; found simply by a distance/time ratio.\n\nYou might think of the instantaneous speed as the speed which the speedometer reads at any given instant in time and the average speed as the average of all the speedometer readings during the course of the trip.
794003
Any speed really will do. Even on modern day jet airliners the Time Dilation effect is measurable with very precise atomic clocks. Of course, its a very small amount, and you must travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light to experience a significant difference from a human perspective (e.g. at half the speed of light, the time dilation faction is about 1.15 (so time travels about 15% faster for everyone else than for you)). Though, to you, everything will 'feel' normal, as every atom in your body is experiencing the same effect. It's kinda weird (and by weird I mean awesome), but that's how it is.\n\nJust for reference here's the equation:\nt= t0/SQRT(1-(v/c)^2)\n\nWhere,\nt = the time observed in the stationary frame (say Earth)\nt0= 'proper time' the time in the moving frame (i.e. a spaceship, etc.)\nv=velocity at which the moving frame is moving\nc = speed of light
1001657
V= V(i) + AT Initial velocity plus acceleratin x Time\n\n\n   = V(i) + (F/m)T     Acceleration = Force/ Mass\n\nNote  use same system of units
491699
I'm not sure what you are asking, but motion is measured with reference to something else.  \n\nFor example, when we say the car is traveling 30 mph down the road, we mean it is traveling that speed in reference to the road.  It would be equally correct to say that car is traveling 60 mph towards you if you were in a car traveling at 30 mph towards it.  In your reference frame, it would be traveling at 60 mph.
630244
No not at all. This concept has been tested on more than one occasion. The faster a body moves the slower time passes relative to that person. This was tested by getting two superbly accurate atomic clocks were taken. One was left on earth and another was taken up in a jet plane. When the plane landed the clock on the plane was observed to be a couple fractions of a second behind the clock on earth. \n\nThe equation for this difference is:\n\ndelta T(stationary)=(1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))*delta T(moving)\n\nNot to be disrespectful but why are most of your questions concerned with doubting the theories that Einstein has put forth. Almost all of his theories have been tested and confirmed to extremely high degrees of accuracy
252215
2nd Law of motion:  the net force = the time derivative of the momentum vector.
546523
Well according to Relativity Theory it is known that an Object of Mass (M) travelling at Velocity (V) would have a Change in Mass: ie\n        \n          Mass at Velocity (V)  = ( Rest Mass) / sqrt(1-(V^2/C^2) ) \n\nTherefore if we replace C^2 by V^2 then the Whole Equation becomes Infinite. in other Words You cannot Travel at the Speed of Light, because according to Physics an Object cannot have Infinite Mass.
1085576
F = d/dt(mv) [the time deravitive of the momentum] = dp/dt  where p is the momentum\n\nWork = Energy = F x distance\n\nPower = Energy/time\n\nPower = (F x distance)/time\n\nPower = [(dp/dt) x distance]/t\n\nremember dp/dt = d/dt(mv) = m dv/dt + v dm/dt
405952
Ask around if any of your friends have a GPS system.  There is your example of a daily-life example of the theory of relativity.  The Global Positioning System would not be able to give you very accurate locations if it did not take the corrections to time and distance from both special, and general reletivity into account.  I am pretty sure that it is the first piece of public consumer-grade equiptment that relies on our understanding of General Relativity.