whether theory of relativity depend on physical factor or biological factor? how scientists accepted this ?

Question

basically i want to know about theory of relativity with best examples?

Answer 1

There are two theories of relativity, and both go off the 'physical factor' as you put it, but the two are really the same thing. Biology is made out of chemistry which is made out of physics.

Special relativity:
When we watch something moving, its mass, the rate that time is going, and how long something is all changes according to how fast it is going. (But for how long it is it is only in the direction of the velocity)

So if we here on earth were watching a spaceship going at 86% of the speed of light, then we would see the second hand on the ship only measure one second for every two of ours that pass.
Similarly, it would appear shortened in the direction it is moving, and appear to be twice as 'heavy'.

General relativity: the same thing, but replace how fast something goes with how strong it is bieng pulled by gravity.

Eg. If someone about to fall into a black hole, sending up a signal once per second by their watch, then anyone sitting back on a spaceship would see the signal every few seconds.

For everyone, ever, it will appear that they are just fine and in normal time, and that others are speeded up.

Answer 2

I don't have a clue what you mean. Why would any theory of physics depend on "biological factor?" A scientific theory has to explain observed data. The problem in the late 19th-early 20th century was that there was no explanation for how light was propagated. Experiments failed to prove the existence of the "ether," and the speed of light seemed to have a maximum. Wavelength changes happened if light sources were coming at you or away, but the velocity did not. If the velocity of light was the same coming and going, it was a constant, and if the speed of light was a constant, strange things had to happen: if a light source was on a train traveling at the speed of light and emitted a light, how could the speed of the light emitted not be added to the speed of the train? It meant you could not see the light coming from the train. It also had implications for being able to see things simultaneously, because an event happening on something moving at close to the speed of light would not be seen as happening at the same time as it happened near you moving at your speed.

Also, because of the light-speed constant, if you tried to measure the length of something moving at close to light speed relative to you, it would appear to be shorter than its actual length. Time would appear to pass more slowly on the moving object.

Experiments also showed that light behaved as particles and as waves. Particles have mass, waves do not; or do they? Following this train of thought led Einstein to come up with his physics-shattering idea: mass and energy were the same, and what was strangest, they were related to the speed of light! E=mc2.

The general theory of relativity was sparked by a different question: if you are in an object moving in space at a constant acceleration, how do you know you are moving? Everything in your environment will behave as if it was in a stationary gravity field.

Since Einstein published his theories, experimental evidence has been consistent with his theories, even to the point of confirming something Einstein repudiated as a mathematical consequence of his theories. That's about as good as it gets in proving a theory to scientists.

Now the problem is reconciling relativity with quantum physics and explaining why gravity is such a weak force.

Answer 3

The physical affects the biological. Like spinning real fast on a merry-go-round. The movement makes some people sick. Were a person to move near the speed of light, they would feel no sickness due to there being no ability to transmit that sensation to the brain.

When a mass moves, its frequency becomes greater in direction of movement. This happens at the expense of energy at right angles to direction of travel. At the speed of light there would be no more dimensions at right angle to direction of movement, so time and all physical reality would cease. Time would become zero due to there being no more potential of physical existence less than that of the value of "c".

This is explained more clearly in a two page work, "The Problem and Repair of Relativity" found here at my 360 blog, or at http://timebones.blogspot.com

Answer 4

Biology has nothing to do with relativity.

Best example of relativity? E=MC2. Look out the indow. See the sun? It shines because of E=MC2.
At our scale, other examples of relativity are impossible to really notice (that is why it took so long to be discovered). The bending of ligh rays by massive objects requires you to have a very powerful telescope. The slowing of time for object moving at relativistic speed requires you to have a particle accelerator, or a fast moving aircraft with an atomic clock on board.
All those tests and phenomenon have been done, observed, checked, verified and proven.

Answer 5

It depends on Physical factor.you can consider the example of two cars which comes towars each other and there sound increases so it is a physical thingnot a biological one.