We imagine a lattice of meter sticks, such as shown to the right, and at each

intersection we place a clock. This lattice represents an inertial frame of

reference, and we imagine that we are at rest relative to the lattice.

We synchronise the clocks to the "Reference Clock." To do this correctly

requires taking into account that if we are standing by one of the clocks
looking at the Reference Clock, the time that we see on the Reference is not
the current time, but is the time it was reading when the light we see left the
clock. Thus we have to account for the small but finite time it takes light to
travel from the Reference Clock to us standing beside another clock. A bit
tedious, but fairly straightforward.

We imagine some event occurs. We define its position by where it happened

relative to the lattice of meter sticks and we define the time when it
happened as the time read by the nearest clock.

Of course, in practice nobody ever does this sort of thing.

Usually we don't bother to draw the whole lattice, but rather represent it by a
set of coordinate axes, x and y, and a single clock measuring time t, as shown
below. We have also put an observer, whom we shall name Lou, at rest in his
coordinate system.

Next we imagine that Lou has a light bulb at the "origin" of his coordinate
system. At some time t which we shall call zero he turns on the light. The
light moves away from the light bulb at 1,079,253,000 km/hr as measured by
Lou's system of rods and clocks. At some time t later the light will form a
sphere with the light bulb right at the center.

There are two animations of this situation. One is a "simple" animated gif with
a file size of 22k; it may be accessed by clicking here. The other is a Flash
animation with a file size of 16k; it may be accessed by clicking here.
Now, Lou has a twin sister Sue, whom we shall assume was born at the same
time as Lou (a biological impossibility). Sue has her own lattice of meter sticks
and clocks and she is at rest relative to them. Just as for Lou, we represent
Sue's rods and clocks as shown below.

Sue is an astronaut, and is in her rocket ship which is traveling at one-half the
speed of light to the right relative to Lou. Of course, relative to Sue, Lou is
travelling at half the speed of light to the left.

Let us imagine that Sue, traveling at half the speed of light relative to Lou,
goes by Lou and he turned on the light bulb just at the moment that Sue
passed by it. Sue will call this time zero as measured by her clocks.

Relative to Sue, the light bulb is traveling to the left at half the speed of light.
However, because of Einstein's "explanation", the speed of light relative to
her is exactly 1,079,253,000 km/hr. Thus, at some later time she will measure
that the outer edge of the light forms a perfect sphere with her at the middle.
There are both a animated gif and Flash animation of the above. To access
the 18k gif animation click here. To access the 18k Flash animation click here.

There is also a Flash animation of both Sue and Lou. To access the 22k
animation click here.

If we think about the above a moment, it is clear that something weird is

going on. Lou claims that the light forms a sphere with the light bulb at the
center. Sue claims the light forms a sphere with her at the center. But except
for the moment when the light bulb was first turned on, the light bulb and
Sue are at nowhere near the same place. Evidently the position and time of
the outer edge of the sphere as measured by Lou's system of rods and clocks
and as measured by Sue's system of rods and clocks are not as our common
sense would predict.

Note that the only assumption we have made here is the constancy of the
speed of light. Thus, to avoid this sort of weirdness one must come up with
another explanation of the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

We shall close this section by being slightly

mathematical. The only mathematics that we shall use is Pythagoras'
Theorem for right triangles.

This theorem says that for any right triangle such as the one shown to the
right:

x2 + y2 = h2
Now, when Lou measures the position of the outer edge of the sphere of light
he can use Pythagoras' Theorem to calculate the radius r of the sphere:

x2Lou + y2Lou = r2Lou

But the radius at time t is just the speed of the light, c, times the time:

rLou = c tLou

So:

x2Lou + y2Lou = (c t)2Lou

Notice that we don't need to label c as being the speed of light relative to
Lou, since it is the same number for all observers, including Sue.

Now, Sue measures the position of the outer edge of the sphere of light with
her rods and clocks and will conclude that:

x2Sue + y2Sue = (c t)2Sue

klkdmkvmkigdognIn this document we discuss Einstein's Special Theory

of Relativity. The treatment is non-mathematical, except for a brief use of
Pythagoras' theorem about right triangles. We concentrate on the implications
of the theory. The document is based on a discussion of the the theory for an
upper-year liberal arts course in Physics without mathematics; in the context
of that course the material here takes about 4 or 5 one-hour classes.

Einstein published this theory in 1905. The word special here means that we

restrict ourselves to observers in uniform relative motion. This is as opposed
the his General Theory of Relativity of 1916; this theory considers observers
in any state of uniform motion including relative acceleration. It turns out that
the general theory is also a theory of gravitation.

Sometimes one hears that the Special Theory of Relativity says that all motion
is relative. This is not quite true. Galileo and Newton had a similar conception.
Crucial to Newton's thinking is that there is an absolute space, independent of
the things in that space:

"Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external,

remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable
dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by
its position to bodies .. because the parts of space cannot be seen, or
distinguished from one another by our senses, there in their stead we use
sensible [i.e. perceptible by the sense] measures of them ... but in
philosophical disquisition, we ought to abstract from our senses, and consider
things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible measures of them."
-- Principia I, Motte trans.
For Newton, the laws of physics, such as the principle of inertia, are true in
any frame of reference either at rest relative to absolute space or in uniform
motion in a straight line relative to absolute space. Such reference frames are
called inertial. Notice there is a bit of a circular argument here: the laws of
physics are true in inertial frames, and inertial frames are ones in which the
laws of physics are true.

In any case, from the standpoint of any such inertial frame of reference all
motion can be described as being relative. If you are standing by the highway
watching a bus go by you at 100 km/hr, then relative to somebody on the bus
you are traveling in the opposite direction at 100 km/hr.

This principle, called Galilean relativity, is kept in Einstein's Theory of

Relativity.

Many of the consequences of the Special Theory of Relativity are counter-

intuitive and violate common sense. Einstein correctly defined common sense
as those prejudices that we acquire at an early age.

THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Once we realize that light is some sort of a wave, a natural question is "what
is waving?" One answer to this question is that it is the luminiferous ether.
The idea behind this word is that there is an all-pervading homogenous
massless substance everywhere in the universe, and it is this ether that is the
medium through which light propagates. Note that this ether could define
Newton's absolute space.

A rough analogy is to a sound wave traveling through the air. The air is the
medium and oscillations of the molecules of the air are what is "waving." The
speed of sound is about 1193 km/hr with respect to the air, depending on the
temperature and pressure. Thus if I am traveling through the air at 1193
km/hr in the same direction as a sound wave, the speed of the wave relative
to me will be zero.

The speed of light is measured to be about 1,079,253,000 km/hr, and

presumably this is its speed relative to the ether. Presumably the ether is
stationary with respect to the fixed stars. This section investigates these two
presumptions.

Galileo attempted to measure the speed of light around 1600. He and a

colleague each had a lantern with a shutter, and they went up on neighboring
mountains. Galileo opened the shutter on his lantern and when his colleague
saw the light from Galileo's lantern he opened the shutter on this lantern. The
time delay between when Galileo opened the shutter on his lantern and when
he saw the answering light from his colleague's lantern would allow him to
calculate the speed of light. This is absolutely correct experimental procedure
in principle. However, because of our human reaction times the lag between
when the colleague saw the light from Galileo's lantern until when he could
get the shutter of his lantern open is so long that the light could have circled
the globe many many times.

In 1676 Römer successfully measured the speed of light, although his results
differed from the accepted value today by about 30%

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

In this sub-section we discuss a famous experiment done in the late

nineteenth century by Michelson and Morley. Some knowledge of the fact that
light is a wave and can undergo interference is assumed. A discussion of this
occurs in the the first two sections of the
document http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/DoubleSli
t/DoubleSlit.html.

In is ironic that Michelson himself wrote in 1899, "The more important

fundamental laws and facts of physical reality have all been
discovered and they are now so firmly established that the
possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new
discoveries is exceedingly remote .... Our future discoveries must be
looked for in the 6th place of decimals." At this time there were a couple
of small clouds on the horizon. One of those clouds was his own experiment
with Morley that we describe in this sub-section. As we shall see, the
experiment played a part in the development of the Special Theory of
Relativity, a profound advance.

Recently some people, especially John Horgan in his book The End of

Science (1996), have been making similar claims about how the enterprise
of science is complete. My opinion is that they are no more correct than was
Michelson. I certainly hope they are wrong, because if they are correct all the
fun goes out of physics. In fact, as we shall see, I think there are already a
couple of clouds on the horizon. One cloud is the failure of our theories of
cosmology to account for recent observations of the universe. The other is
the failure of the quark model to produce any truly useful results.

Before we turn to the experiment itself we will consider a "race" between two
swimmers.

We have two identical swimmers, 1 and 2, who each swim the same distance
away from the raft, to the markers, and then swim back to the raft. The
"race" ends in a tie.
Now the raft and markers are being towed to the left. In this case the race
will no longer be a tie. In fact, it is not too hard to show that swimmer 2 wins
this race.

A small Flash animation illustrating the above race may be found here.

These notes are intended to be non-mathematical, with the exception of a

brief use of Pythagoras theorem about right triangles. However, some people
would like to see a little bit of the math. Thus, a proof that swimmer 2 above
wins the race may be found here. Below, a further small amount of math will
appear, but will always be labelled as a Technical note.

One of the difficulties that students experience in learning about the theories
of relativity is that it is easy to ask questions of themselves and/or others that
are not well formed. Insisting on complete statements often makes the
problems disappear. One common case of sloppy language leading to poorly
formed questions involves the concept of speed. If we say, for example, that
the swimmers in the above examples swim at 5 km/hr we have not made a
complete statement; we should say that the swimmers swim at 5 km/hr with
respect to the water. If we are stationary with respect to the water then they
swim at 5 km/hr with respect to us. But if we are moving at, say, 5 km/hr
with respect to the water in the direction that one of the swimmers is
swimming, that swimmer will be stationary relative to us.

Now we consider the Michelson interferometer, shown schematically to the

right. The light source is the red star to the left of the figure. The light from it
is incident on a half-silvered mirror, which is drawn as a blue line; this is a
"crummy" mirror that only reflects one-half of the light incident on it,
transmitting the other half. The two light beams then go to good mirrors,
drawn as green rectangles, which reflect the light. The reflected light actually
follows the same path as the incident beam, although I have drawn them
slightly offset. When beam 1 returns to the half-silvered mirror, one half is
reflected down; the other half is transmitted back toward the light source but
I haven't bothered to draw that ray. Similarly, when beam 2 returns to the
half-silvered mirror, one half is transmitted; the other half is reflected towards
the source although I haven't drawn that ray either. The two combined
beams go from the half-silvered mirror to the detector, which is the yellow
object at the bottom of the figure.

If the distance from the half-silvered mirror to mirror 1 is equal to the

distance to mirror 2, then when the two rays are re-combined they will have
travelled identical distances. Thus, they will be "in phase" and will
constructively interfere and we will get a strong signal at the detector. If we
slowly move mirror 1 to the right, that ray will be travelling a longer total
distance than ray 2; at some point the two rays will be "out of phase" and
destructively interfere. Moving mirror 1 a bit further to the right, at some
point the two rays will be "in phase" again, giving constructive interference.

Say we have the interferometer adjusted so we are getting constructive

interference at the detector. Then the "race" between the two beams of light
is essentially a tie. This may remind you of the race of the swimmers above.

Except that if we have the apparatus sitting on the earth, we have to

remember that the speed of the earth in its orbit around the sun is on the
order of 108,000 km/hr relative to the ether, depending on the season and
time of day. So the situation is more like the second race above when the raft
is being towed through the water. The interferometer is being "towed"
through the ether.

Michelson and Morley did this experiment in the 1880's. The arms of the
interferometer were about 1.2 meters long. The apparatus was mounted on a
block of marble floating in a pool of mercury to reduce vibrations. They
adjusted the interferometer for constructive interference, and then gently
rotated the interferometer by 90 degrees.

Given the speed of light as 1,079,253,000 km/hr relative to the ether and the
speed of the earth equal to some number like 108,000 km/hr relative to the
ether, they calculated that they should easily see the combined beams going
through maxima and minima in the interference pattern as they rotated the
apparatus.

Except that when they did the experiment, they got no result. The
interference pattern did not change!

It was suggested that maybe the speed of the earth due to its rotation on its
axis was cancelling its speed due to its orbit around the sun. So they waited
12 hours and repeated the experiment. Again they got no result.

It was suggested that the Earth's motion in orbit around the Sun canceled the
other motions. So they waited six months and tried the experiment again.
And again they got no result.

It was suggested that maybe the mass of the earth "dragged" the ether along
with it. So they hauled the apparatus up on top of a mountain, hoping that
the mountain would be sticking up into the ether that was not being dragged
by the earth. And again they got no result.

Thus, this attempt to measure the motion of the earth relative to the ether
failed.

Lorentz was among many who were very puzzled by this result. He proposed
that when an object was moving relative to the ether, its length along its
direction of motion would be contracted by just the right amount needed to
explain the experimental result. If the length of the object when it is at rest
with respect to the ether is L0, then if is is moving at speed v through the
ether its length becomes L given by:

L=1−v2/c2−−−−−−−−√L0(1)(1)L=1−v2/c2L0

where c is the speed of light relative to the ether. If you chose to look at the
brief mathematical supplement above, the structure of this equation may look
familiar to you.

Einstein "Explains" the Michelson-Morley Experiment

When Einstein was 16, in 1895, he asked himself an interesting question:

"If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c I should observe such a beam
of light as a spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest. However, there
seems to be no such thing, whether on the basis of experience or according
to [the theory of electricity and magnetism]. From the very beginning it
appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an
observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for
an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how, otherwise,
should the first observer know, i.e.. be able to determine, that he is in a state
of uniform motion?" -- As later written by Einstein in "Autobiographical
Notes", in Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist.

He continued to work on this question for 10 years with the mixture of

concentration and determination that characterized much of his work. He
published his answer in 1905:

"... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
is independent of the state of [relative] motion of the emitting body .... The
introduction of a `luminiferous ether' will be superfluous inasmuch as the
view here to be developed will not require an `absolutely stationary space'
provided with special properties." -- Annalen Physik 17 (1905).

Put another way, the speed of light is 1,079,253,000 km/hr with respect to all
observers.

As we shall see, this one statement is equivalent to all of the Special Theory
of Relativity, and everything else is just a consequence.

Special relativity was originally proposed by Albert Einstein in a paper published on 26

September 1905 titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".[p 1] The
incompatibility of Newtonian mechanics with Maxwell's
equations of electromagnetism and, experimentally, the Michelson-Morley null result (and
subsequent similar experiments) demonstrated that the historically
hypothesized luminiferous aether did not exist. This led to Einstein's development of
special relativity, which corrects mechanics to handle situations involving all motions and
especially those at a speed close to that of light (known as relativistic velocities). Today,
special relativity is proven to be the most accurate model of motion at any speed when
gravitational and quantum effects are negligible. [3][4] Even so, the Newtonian model is still
valid as a simple and accurate approximation at low velocities (relative to the speed of
light), for example, everyday motions on Earth.
Special relativity has a wide range of consequences that have been experimentally
verified.[5] They include the relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, time dilation, the
relativistic velocity addition formula, the relativistic Doppler effect, relativistic mass, a
universal speed limit, mass–energy equivalence, the speed of causality and the Thomas
precession.[1][2] It has, for example, replaced the conventional notion of an absolute
universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame
and spatial position. Rather than an invariant time interval between two events, there is
an invariant spacetime interval. Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates
of special relativity predict the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in
the mass–energy equivalence formula  , where   is the speed of light in a vacuum.[6][7] It
also explains how the phenomena of electricity and magnetism are related. [1][2]
A defining feature of special relativity is the replacement of the Galilean
transformations of Newtonian mechanics with the Lorentz transformations. Time and
space cannot be defined separately from each other (as was earlier thought to be the
case). Rather, space and time are interwoven into a single continuum known as
"spacetime". Events that occur at the same time for one observer can occur at different
times for another.
Until Einstein developed general relativity, introducing a curved spacetime to incorporate
gravity, the phrase "special relativity" was not used. A translation sometimes used is
"restricted relativity"; "special" really means "special case". [p 2][p 3][p 4][note 1] Some of the
work of Albert Einstein in special relativity is built on the earlier work by Hendrik
Lorentz and Henri Poincaré. The theory became essentially complete in 1907. [4]
The theory is "special" in that it only applies in the special case where the spacetime is
"flat", that is, the curvature of spacetime, described by the energy–momentum tensor and
causing gravity, is negligible.[8][note 2] In order to correctly accommodate gravity, Einstein
formulated general relativity in 1915. Special relativity, contrary to some historical
descriptions, does accommodate accelerations as well as accelerating frames of
reference.[9][10]
Just as Galilean relativity is now accepted to be an approximation of special relativity that
is valid for low speeds, special relativity is considered an approximation of general
relativity that is valid for weak gravitational fields, that is, at a sufficiently small scale (e.g.,
for tidal forces) and in conditions of free fall. General relativity, however,
incorporates non-Euclidean geometry in order to represent gravitational effects as the
geometric curvature of spacetime. Special relativity is restricted to the flat spacetime
known as Minkowski space. As long as the universe can be modeled as a pseudo-
Riemannian manifold, a Lorentz-invariant frame that abides by special relativity can be
defined for a sufficiently small neighborhood of each point in this curved spacetime.
Galileo Galilei had already postulated that there is no absolute and well-defined state of
rest (no privileged reference frames), a principle now called Galileo's principle of
relativity. Einstein extended this principle so that it accounted for the constant speed of
light,[11] a phenomenon that had been observed in the Michelson–Morley experiment. He
also postulated that it holds for all the laws of physics, including both the laws of
mechanics and of electrodynamics.

Mndsfsm Jijasija
The clocks in space tick faster, according to Physics Central, because the
GPS satellites are above Earth and experience weaker gravity. So even
though the GPS satellites are moving and experience a seven-microsecond
slowing every day because of their movement, the result of the weaker gravity
causes the clocks to tick about 45 microseconds faster than a ground-based
clock. Adding the two together results in the GPS satellite clock ticking faster
than a ground-based clock, by about 38 microseconds daily.

Special relativity and quantum mechanics

As our knowledge of physics has advanced, scientists have run into more
counterintuitive situations. One is trying to reconcile general relativity — which
describes well what's going on with large objects — with quantum mechanics,
which is best used for very small things (such as uranium atom decay). The
two fields, which excellently describe their individual fields, are incompatible
with one another — which frustrated Einstein and generations of scientists
after him.

"Relativity gives nonsensical answers when you try to scale it down to

quantum size, eventually descending to infinite values in its description of
gravity. Likewise, quantum mechanics runs into serious trouble when you
blow it up to cosmic dimensions," an article in The Guardian pointed out in
2015. 

"Quantum fields carry a certain amount of energy, even in seemingly empty

space, and the amount of energy gets bigger as the fields get bigger.
According to Einstein, energy and mass are equivalent (that's the message of
E=mc2), so piling up energy is exactly like piling up mass. Go big enough, and
the amount of energy in the quantum fields becomes so great that it creates a
black hole that causes the universe to fold in on itself. Oops."

There are several ideas to overcome this (which are beyond the scope of this
article), but one approach is to imagine a quantum theory of gravity that would
have a massless particle (called the graviton) to generate the force. But as
physicist Dave Goldberg pointed out in io9 in 2013, there are problems with
that. At the smallest scales, gravitons would have infinite energy density,
creating an unimaginably powerful gravity field. More study will be required to
see if this is possible.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky
and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at:

jndajwi
(1) Objects in motion (or at rest) remain in motion (or at rest) unless an
external force imposes change.

(2) Force is equal to the change in momentum per change of time. For a
constant mass, force equals mass times acceleration.

(3) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

But there were cracks in the theory for decades before Einstein's arrival on

the scene, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. In 1865, Scottish physicist
James Clerk Maxwell demonstrated that light is a wave with both electrical
and magnetic components, and established the speed of light (186,000 miles
per second). Scientists supposed that the light had to be transmitted through
some medium, which they called the ether. (We now know that no
transmission medium is required, and that light in space moves in a vacuum.)

Twenty years later, an unexpected result threw this into question. Physicist
A.A. Michelson and chemist Edward Morley (both Americans at the time)
calculated how Earth's motion through this "ether" affected how the speed of
light is measured, and found that the speed of light is the same no matter
what Earth's motion is. This led to further musings on light's behavior — and
its incongruence with classical mechanics — by Austrian physicist Ernst Mach
and French mathematician Henri Poincare.

Einstein began thinking of light's behavior when he was just 16 years old, in
1895. He did a thought experiment, the encyclopedia said, where he rode on
one light wave and looked at another light wave moving parallel to him. 

Classical physics should say that the light wave Einstein was looking at would
have a relative speed of zero, but this contradicted Maxwell's equations that
showed light always has the same speed: 186,000 miles a second. Another
problem with relative speeds is they would show that the laws
of electromagnetism change depending on your vantage point, which
contradicted classical physics as well (which said the laws of physics were the
same for everyone.)

This led to Einstein's eventual musings on the theory of special relativity,

which he broke down into the everyday example of a person standing beside
a moving train, comparing observations with a person inside the train. He
imagined the train being at a point in the track equally between two trees. If a
bolt of lightning hit both trees at the same time, due to the motion of the train,
the person on the train would see the bolt hit one tree before the other tree.
But the person beside the track would see simultaneous strikes.

"Einstein concluded that simultaneity is relative; events that are simultaneous

for one observer may not be for another," the encyclopedia stated. "This led
him to the counterintuitive idea that time flows differently according to the
state of motion, and to the conclusion that distance is also relative."

Famous equation
Einstein's work led to some startling results, which today still seem
counterintuitive at first glance even though his physics is usually introduced at
the high school level. 

2015 marks 100 years since the publication of Albert Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. Learn the basics of Einstein's theory of relativity in our infographic
here. (Image credit: By Karl Tate, Infographics Artist)
One of the most famous equations in mathematics comes from special
relativity. The equation — E = mc2 — means "energy equals mass times the
speed of light squared." It shows that energy (E) and mass (m) are
interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. If mass is
somehow totally converted into energy, it also shows how much energy would
reside inside that mass: quite a lot. (This equation is one of the
demonstrations for why an atomic bomb is so powerful, once its mass is
converted to an explosion.)
This equation also shows that mass increases with speed, which effectively
puts a speed limit on how fast things can move in the universe. Simply put,
the speed of light (c) is the fastest velocity at which an object can travel in a
vacuum. As an object moves, its mass also increases. Near the speed of light,
the mass is so high that it reaches infinity, and would require infinite energy to
move it, thus capping how fast an object can move. The only reason light
moves at the speed it does is because photons, the quantum particles that
make up light, have a mass of zero.

A special situation in the universe of the small, called "quantum

entanglement," is confusing because it seems to involve quantum particles
interacting with each other at speeds faster than the speed of light.
Specifically, measuring the property of one particle can instantly tell you the
property of another particle, no matter how far away they are. Much has been
written about this phenomenon, which is still not fully explained in terms of
Einstein's conclusions. 

Another strange conclusion of Einstein's work comes from the realization that
time moves relative to the observer. An object in motion experiences time
dilation, meaning that time moves more slowly when one is moving, than
when one is standing still. Therefore, a person moving ages more slowly than
a person at rest. So yes, when astronaut Scott Kelly spent nearly a year
aboard the International Space Station in 2015-16, his twin astronaut
brother Mark Kelly aged a little faster than Scott.

This becomes extremely apparent at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Imagine a 15-year-old traveling at 99.5 percent the speed of light for five
years (from the astronaut's perspective). When the 15-year-old gets back to
Earth, according to NASA, he would be only 20 years old. His classmates,
however, would be 65 years old.

While this time dilation sounds very theoretical, it does have practical
applications as well. If you have a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) receiver
in your car, the receiver attempts to find signals from at least three satellites to
coordinate your position. The GPS satellites send out timed radio signals that
the receiver listens to, triangulating (or more properly speaking, trilaterating)
its position based on the travel time of the signals. The challenge is, the
atomic clocks on the GPS are moving and would therefore run faster than
atomic clocks on Earth, creating timing issues. So, engineers need to make
the clocks on a GPS tick slower, according to Richard Pogge, an astronomer
at Ohio State University.

zcmmcmczmzmvm
Nnmn jjhh jjjskjsdjks ncnsfnbsf
Internal Forces

Axial Force

Shearing Force

Bending Moment

Relationship Between Loading and Shearing Force

Relationship Between Shearing Force and Bending Moment

Shearing Force and Bending Moment Diagrams

Position of Supports for Uniformly-Loaded Beam to Give

Maximum Load-Carrying Capacity

Beam with Oblique Loading

Three-Pinned Arch

Linear Arch

Beam with Varying Intensity of Loading

Exercise 2

3. Bending Stresses in Beams

Mechanism of Bending

Moment of Resistance

First Moments of Area

Second Moments of Area

Principal Axes of Bending

Modulus of Section

Materials for Beams

Curtailment of Flanges

Moment of Resistance of a B.S.B.

Compound Girder

Simplified Plate Girder Design

Exercise 3

4. Complex Stress

Complementary Shear Stress

The General Case of Plane Stress (Principal Stresses)

Distribution of Shear Stress Across a Solid Rectangular Beam

Exercise 4

5. Statically Determinate Plane Trusses

Perfect Frames

Methods of Analysis

Force Diagrams

Graphical Analysis of a Roof Truss

Solution by s.f. and b.m. Diagrams

Exercise 5

6. Rolling Loads
Influence Lines for Simple Beams

Position of a Train of Loads to Give a Maximum s.f. at a Given

Section

Position of a Train to Give a Maximum b.m. at a Given Section

Position of a Train to Give a Maximum b.m. Under a Given

Load

Influence Lines for Simply Supported Trusses

Influence Line of Horizontal Thrust in a Three-Pinned Arch

Envelope Diagrams of s.f. and b.m.

Exercise 6

7. Combined Bending and Direct Stress

Beams with Longitudinal Loads

Eccentrically Loaded Stocky Struts or Ties

Structures Relying on Gravity for their Stability

Stability of a Chimney

Stresses on the Base of a Dam

Middle Third Rule

Stability of a Retaining Wall

Pre-Stressed Concrete Beams

Exercise 7

8. Deflection of Beams
Curvature

Calculation of Beam Deflections

Cantilevers and Beams with Simple Loadings

Macaulay's Method

Overhanging Beam

Exercise 8

9. Buckling of Struts

Stability of Equilibrium

Determination of Critical Load

Factor of Safety and Load Factor

Effect of Different End Constraints

Exercise 9

10. Deflection of Trusses — Strain Energy Method

Strain Energy

Deflection of a Truss

Steps in the Strain Energy Method of Analysis for Trusses

Exercise 10

11. Deflection of Trusses — Graphical Method

Displacement of a Loaded Particle Supported by Two Cords

Construction of Williot Diagram for a Cantilever Truss

Combined Williot-Mohr Displacement Diagram

Deflection of Simply Supported Truss

Exercise 11

12. Reinforced Concrete

Factors Affecting the Strength of Concrete

Reinforced Concrete Beams

Determining the Moment of Resistance of a Given Beam

Slabs Simply Supported on Two Opposite Edges

Economic Percentage of Steel

Simple Design Problems