Relativity, Speed of Light, and Time Travel

envy me

Golden Member
Nov 5, 2005
1,000
0
0

A popular beleif in SCI-FI is that time-travel is possible by travelling at the speed of light. I know that in theory, if you were to orbit the earth at light speed for say 20 years, from your point of view 20 years would not be the same length as for the people on earth.

But movies such as the star trek one where they travel back, what was the logic behind it working?

 

YahoKa

Member
Jan 20, 2003
66
0
0
AFAIK backwards timetravel is impossible, and I am still trying to get my head around forwards timetravel.
 

imported_Seer

Senior member
Jan 4, 2006
309
0
0
Travelling at the speed of light would cause time to stop entirely. It is because in our 4 dimensional world, the sum of our x, y, z, and time vectors equals the speed of light. (this explanation might not be 100% correct, feel free to point out errors) So, we have something like this:

X + Y + Z + T = c

As X + Y + Z approaches c, the speed at which time moves for us slows down. A lot. In fact, its theoretically impossible to obtain the speed of light if you have mass. But, if you could go faster than the speed of light, time should start turning backwards for you.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
Why in the world would you think that a Star Trek epsode would need a physical basis?
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,709
11
81
Originally posted by: Seer
Travelling at the speed of light would cause time to stop entirely. It is because in our 4 dimensional world, the sum of our x, y, z, and time vectors equals the speed of light. (this explanation might not be 100% correct, feel free to point out errors) So, we have something like this:

X + Y + Z + T = c

As X + Y + Z approaches c, the speed at which time moves for us slows down. A lot. In fact, its theoretically impossible to obtain the speed of light if you have mass. But, if you could go faster than the speed of light, time should start turning backwards for you.

Not quite. It's the magnitude of your 4-velocity.

(dr/dT)^2 + (dt/dT)^2 = 1

t = time
T = tau

I'm tired and lazy but changing velocities rotates the 4-vector about the origin in space-time coordinates. ie: You move slower through time as you move faster through space. Think of a line of length 1 anchored along the x-axis. It's x-projection is just 1. Now rotate it up towards the y-axis. You'll see that the x-projection will decrease, and slowly approach zero.
 

Trevorsouter

Junior Member
Sep 11, 2006
17
1
0
If i travel from earth to planet X 25000 light years away at the speed of light (although only 99% speed of light is physicaly possible in our understanding anyway) then it would take me 25000 years. 25000 years would ahve still passed on both planets... Its only relative to yourself. If you look out the back window then earth would appear frozen in time until u slowed down. It dosnt mean time has stopped on earth, it just looks like it.

If i travled at 2xLightspeed and then say.. in 10 years time, out that back window with my telescope, i would be seeing earth as it was 5 years b4 i departed. This dosnt mean time has gone backwards, its still 10 years later on earth. The light just hasnt reached you yet. You havnt moved backwards or forwards in time, you have just overtaken light on the highway.

But this

"Think of a line of length 1 anchored along the x-axis. It's x-projection is just 1. Now rotate it up towards the y-axis. You'll see that the x-projection will decrease, and slowly approach zero. "

does make sense and im going to need to stopa nd get my head around it for a minute ;)
when ur not so tired maybe you could explani it to me in detail. I'm quite interested in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DIREWOLF75

msparish

Senior member
Aug 27, 2003
655
0
0
Originally posted by: Trevorsouter
If i travel from earth to planet X 25000 light years away at the speed of light (although only 99% speed of light is physicaly possible in our understanding anyway) then it would take me 25000 years. 25000 years would ahve still passed on both planets... Its only relative to yourself. If you look out the back window then earth would appear frozen in time until u slowed down. It dosnt mean time has stopped on earth, it just looks like it.

If i travled at 2xLightspeed and then say.. in 10 years time, out that back window with my telescope, i would be seeing earth as it was 5 years b4 i departed. This dosnt mean time has gone backwards, its still 10 years later on earth. The light just hasnt reached you yet. You havnt moved backwards or forwards in time, you have just overtaken light on the highway.

But this

"Think of a line of length 1 anchored along the x-axis. It's x-projection is just 1. Now rotate it up towards the y-axis. You'll see that the x-projection will decrease, and slowly approach zero. "

does make sense and im going to need to stopa nd get my head around it for a minute ;)
when ur not so tired maybe you could explani it to me in detail. I'm quite interested in it.

You're actually wrong on most of that. If you were to travel to a planet 25000 light years away, at the speed of light, it would appear to you that you reached the planet instantaneously. Not even a second would have passed according to your watch; however, 25000 years would have passed on earth.

What you've written seems to state that you think if you are traveling away from the earth at 0.4c, light will propagate past you with an apparent speed of 0.6c. Not true! The light still passes you at 3*10^8 m/s from your viewpoint!
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
Originally posted by: msparish
What you've written seems to state that you think if you are traveling away from the earth at 0.4c, light will propagate past you with an apparent speed of 0.6c. Not true! The light still passes you at 3*10^8 m/s from your viewpoint!

I've always had trouble wrapping my mind around this one. It just doesn't seem to make sense. So let's say I could travel at the speed of light (or very near to it) and I was one light year away from earth. If I started traveling back toward earth at close to c and the front of my ship had a light on it, when would I arrive at earth in relation to the light my ship is outputting? Because if light still moves ahead of my at c, then it seems like observers on earth should see the light long before I arrived... but that would mean that to the observers on Earth the light would have had to have traveled at nearly 2c. I need someone to explain how this works...
 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Originally posted by: msparish
What you've written seems to state that you think if you are traveling away from the earth at 0.4c, light will propagate past you with an apparent speed of 0.6c. Not true! The light still passes you at 3*10^8 m/s from your viewpoint!

I've always had trouble wrapping my mind around this one. It just doesn't seem to make sense. So let's say I could travel at the speed of light (or very near to it) and I was one light year away from earth. If I started traveling back toward earth at close to c and the front of my ship had a light on it, when would I arrive at earth in relation to the light my ship is outputting? Because if light still moves ahead of my at c, then it seems like observers on earth should see the light long before I arrived... but that would mean that to the observers on Earth the light would have had to have traveled at nearly 2c. I need someone to explain how this works...

Light always travels at c in every reference frame. What is no longer valid are the classical Galilean transformations that we perform between reference frames. Instead, we use the Lorentz transformations. Time dilation and length contraction work together to cause a nonlinear velocity addition rule. The fact is, time will pass differently between the observers on Earth and the observer in the spacecraft. In addition, the distances parallel to the dimension of motion will experience contractions depending upon the observer. So for the observer in the spacecraft, while they are traveling at relativistic speeds, they will observe a shorter distance between themselves and the Earth than those on Earth will. In addition, the observer in the spacecraft will experience a slower rate of the passage of time than the observers on Earth.

All of this remains in agreement because the factors by which we make measurements undergo the same transformations. That is, if you were on a spacecraft at rest on Earth, and you took your meter stick and measured the length of the room, it will be the same length when you measure again inside the craft while it moves at relativistic speeds because the meter stick will contract by the same factor as the spacecraft. And observers on Earth that measure the length of the room while it is in motion get contracted length due to the relative nature of simultaneity. The end result is that the observer on the spacecraft will see the observer on Earth make an incorrect measurement and vice-versa. But the measurements are correct in their respective reference frames and you can account for the differences through proper application of the Lorentz transformations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DIREWOLF75

envy me

Golden Member
Nov 5, 2005
1,000
0
0

So it is possible for light to travel in multiples of c based on your viewpoint???

If an observer on earth saw a ship fly around at the speed of light, and then a person inside the craft was circling the room of the craft at the speed of light, to an observer on earth, the person circling inside the craft would be going at c^2????

 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
No, to people on earth the person on the ship would stíll be going at a speed lower than c.
SR ie easy once you understand that whatever you do you will ALWAYS measure a speed of c (for light) or lower. Once you understand that time- and lenght dilation sort of follows naturaly.

 

Born2bwire

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2005
9,840
6
71
Originally posted by: f95toli
No, to people on earth the person on the ship would stíll be going at a speed lower than c.
SR ie easy once you understand that whatever you do you will ALWAYS measure a speed of c (for light) or lower. Once you understand that time- and lenght dilation sort of follows naturaly.

In addition, we can no longer use the Galilean velocity addition rules. If I am traveling at 3c/4 and fire a bullet that will travel c/2 in the direction of my motion, the bullet's velocity is not going to be 1.25c, but rather some velocity less than c. The actual velocity depends on what reference frame you are observing in. The point is, due to the length contraction and time dilation, we can no longer use the classical transformations.
 

Trevorsouter

Junior Member
Sep 11, 2006
17
1
0
Originally posted by: msparish

You're actually wrong on most of that. If you were to travel to a planet 25000 light years away, at the speed of light, it would appear to you that you reached the planet instantaneously. Not even a second would have passed according to your watch; however, 25000 years would have passed on earth.

What you've written seems to state that you think if you are traveling away from the earth at 0.4c, light will propagate past you with an apparent speed of 0.6c. Not true! The light still passes you at 3*10^8 m/s from your viewpoint!

hmm ok.
how is it though that light itself or anything physical (i.e US) can be linked to time... time itself is merely a concept of our own creation, how can the speed we travel at affect THE timeline that is not apart of teh physical universe. What makes my watch stop or freeze? If im travelling at lightspeed for a distance of 25000 lightyears, im going to be dead long b4 i even cover a fraction of teh distance.... how can it seem instantaneous? id still be eating drinking sleeping a thoussand times b4 i carck it and still only be a 1000th of teh way there.

also if 25000 years have passed on earth wouldnt 25000 years also have passed on planet X? how can 2 things be on seperate timelines? or is tehre another explanation..?

 

msparish

Senior member
Aug 27, 2003
655
0
0
Originally posted by: Trevorsouter
hmm ok.
how is it though that light itself or anything physical (i.e US) can be linked to time... time itself is merely a concept of our own creation, how can the speed we travel at affect THE timeline that is not apart of teh physical universe. What makes my watch stop or freeze? If im travelling at lightspeed for a distance of 25000 lightyears, im going to be dead long b4 i even cover a fraction of teh distance.... how can it seem instantaneous? id still be eating drinking sleeping a thoussand times b4 i carck it and still only be a 1000th of teh way there.

also if 25000 years have passed on earth wouldnt 25000 years also have passed on planet X? how can 2 things be on seperate timelines? or is tehre another explanation..?

First, clear up the writing and punctuation.

Second, time is not a human construct. It is a fundamental dimension that cannot be separated from the normal space dimensions when working with relativity. Relativity itself deals with the relationship between time and space. It isn't an intuitive concept at first, because we have no experience with it in normal life.

As a background to relativity, no matter how fast you are moving, light always approaches you at the speed of 3.0*10^8 m/s, and travels away from you at the same speed. Suppose you are moving with a velocity of 0.5c: light approaching you still approaches at c, and light traveling away from you leaves at speed c. This has been proven by several experiments.

The consequences of this phenomenon result in seemingly strange effects. One of them being that the faster an object moves, the slower that time passes for it. For example, assume that an astronaut leaves his twin to go to a distant star system. He travels very quickly and then returns to earth. Depending on the velocities involved, when the astronaut gets home he will be younger than his twin. Not only will each of the twins watches have measured different times for the journey, but the astronaut will be physically younger. In other words, from the perspective of the twin you stayed on earth, the journey may have taken his twin 30 years; however, from the perspective of the astronaut the trip may have only taken 20 years. The watch of the twin on earth will read a time of 30 years, the watch of the astronaut will read 20 years. The twin on earth will be 30 years older, the astronaut will be 20 years older.

It may seem strange at first, but it is true! Although humans can travel no where near the speed of light, this effect is actually observable with things like satellites. In addition, the effects are readily apparent in the lab when dealing with highly energetic particles that travel near the speed of light. For example, assume we know the lifetime of a certain particle and we know the velocity. Thus, it should seem like an easy calculation to determine how far the particle will travel. However, if the particle is traveling at relativistic speeds, it will travel much further than the simple calculation would leave us to believe because the lifetime of the particle appears to increase. This is because time moves more slowly in the particle's reference frame (the reference frame which governs the decay) than in the laboratory reference frame.
 

Trevorsouter

Junior Member
Sep 11, 2006
17
1
0
ok im starting to understand now.

but that point u made on time being a funadmental dimension.
Laws of physics operate independantly of time, they work jsut aswell backwards as they do forwards.

I read about this topic in a book by bob berman called "cosmic adventure".
There was one area where he was explaining teh age of the universe and the longest single event to ever occur and also the shortest. I cant rember what the specific events were. however there was one interesting fact on the shortest event. That was if the event were any shorter it would be impossible to tell what happend first, the beggining or the end... This makes me wonder. by this reasoning you would expect an imortal being to have no concept of time, things would just "happen". Also, would that event where we could not seperate the beggining from the end be notable by a being that lives for a fraction of a second?

Whilst he dosnt go to deeply into the ancient debate of whether time actually exists or not he does raise another interesting point. Time appears to be indispensable in just one area, thermodynamics, whose second law has no meaning at all without the passage of time. Without time, entropy cannot happen or even make sense.

I do understand how forward time travel is possible after sitting here and reading what you've said a dozen times ;). Traveling down teh highway at 99% light speed for 1 year would mean 7 years ahve passed for the people hitchiking. Still hard coming to grips with it though, its really quite amazing.
 

Lord Banshee

Golden Member
Sep 8, 2004
1,495
0
0
Originally posted by: msparish
Originally posted by: Trevorsouter
hmm ok.
how is it though that light itself or anything physical (i.e US) can be linked to time... time itself is merely a concept of our own creation, how can the speed we travel at affect THE timeline that is not apart of teh physical universe. What makes my watch stop or freeze? If im travelling at lightspeed for a distance of 25000 lightyears, im going to be dead long b4 i even cover a fraction of teh distance.... how can it seem instantaneous? id still be eating drinking sleeping a thoussand times b4 i carck it and still only be a 1000th of teh way there.

also if 25000 years have passed on earth wouldnt 25000 years also have passed on planet X? how can 2 things be on seperate timelines? or is tehre another explanation..?

First, clear up the writing and punctuation.

Second, time is not a human construct. It is a fundamental dimension that cannot be separated from the normal space dimensions when working with relativity. Relativity itself deals with the relationship between time and space. It isn't an intuitive concept at first, because we have no experience with it in normal life.

As a background to relativity, no matter how fast you are moving, light always approaches you at the speed of 3.0*10^8 m/s, and travels away from you at the same speed. Suppose you are moving with a velocity of 0.5c: light approaching you still approaches at c, and light traveling away from you leaves at speed c. This has been proven by several experiments.

The consequences of this phenomenon result in seemingly strange effects. One of them being that the faster an object moves, the slower that time passes for it. For example, assume that an astronaut leaves his twin to go to a distant star system. He travels very quickly and then returns to earth. Depending on the velocities involved, when the astronaut gets home he will be younger than his twin. Not only will each of the twins watches have measured different times for the journey, but the astronaut will be physically younger. In other words, from the perspective of the twin you stayed on earth, the journey may have taken his twin 30 years; however, from the perspective of the astronaut the trip may have only taken 20 years. The watch of the twin on earth will read a time of 30 years, the watch of the astronaut will read 20 years. The twin on earth will be 30 years older, the astronaut will be 20 years older.

It may seem strange at first, but it is true! Although humans can travel no where near the speed of light, this effect is actually observable with things like satellites. In addition, the effects are readily apparent in the lab when dealing with highly energetic particles that travel near the speed of light. For example, assume we know the lifetime of a certain particle and we know the velocity. Thus, it should seem like an easy calculation to determine how far the particle will travel. However, if the particle is traveling at relativistic speeds, it will travel much further than the simple calculation would leave us to believe because the lifetime of the particle appears to increase. This is because time moves more slowly in the particle's reference frame (the reference frame which governs the decay) than in the laboratory reference frame.

Yep this is all correct :)

I am taking modern Physics in College for Fun right now and it is quite an interesting class, but very mind puzzling.
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Originally posted by: Trevorsouter
Laws of physics operate independantly of time, they work jsut aswell backwards as they do forwards.

That is not necessarily true. It is correct in classical physics but we know that classical physics is "wrong" at some level where e.g. quantum mechanical effects become important. It is therefore possible that there really IS an "arrow of time" (i.e. the entropy of a closed system would then increase as you go forward in time because of some "fundamental" reason). We really don't know.

Now, you also mention thermodynamics. It is important to understand that we are ALWAYS implicitly using the laws of thermodynamics; this is true also in classical physics regardless of the problem.
If you write down a set of equations which are "reversible" (which we do all the time) you are necessarily making an approximation since in any real system there are always effects such as friction which are "irreversible" and will cause the entropy to increase.

Hence, there is an "arrow of time" even in classical physics despite the fact that all the laws are reversible. The second law of thermodynamics was "added" to classical physics because it agrees with experiments despite the fact that no one at the time new its origin.

As I noted above it is possible that this "arrow of time" is really more fundamental and will appear "naturally" in any problem that is treated quantum mechanically, you then would not need to "add" the second law.

edit:spelling
 

Jdog1718

Member
Jan 11, 2006
32
0
0
[/quote]

First, clear up the writing and punctuation.

Second, time is not a human construct. It is a fundamental dimension that cannot be separated from the normal space dimensions when working with relativity. Relativity itself deals with the relationship between time and space. It isn't an intuitive concept at first, because we have no experience with it in normal life.

As a background to relativity, no matter how fast you are moving, light always approaches you at the speed of 3.0*10^8 m/s, and travels away from you at the same speed. Suppose you are moving with a velocity of 0.5c: light approaching you still approaches at c, and light traveling away from you leaves at speed c. This has been proven by several experiments.

The consequences of this phenomenon result in seemingly strange effects. One of them being that the faster an object moves, the slower that time passes for it. For example, assume that an astronaut leaves his twin to go to a distant star system. He travels very quickly and then returns to earth. Depending on the velocities involved, when the astronaut gets home he will be younger than his twin. Not only will each of the twins watches have measured different times for the journey, but the astronaut will be physically younger. In other words, from the perspective of the twin you stayed on earth, the journey may have taken his twin 30 years; however, from the perspective of the astronaut the trip may have only taken 20 years. The watch of the twin on earth will read a time of 30 years, the watch of the astronaut will read 20 years. The twin on earth will be 30 years older, the astronaut will be 20 years older.

It may seem strange at first, but it is true! Although humans can travel no where near the speed of light, this effect is actually observable with things like satellites. In addition, the effects are readily apparent in the lab when dealing with highly energetic particles that travel near the speed of light. For example, assume we know the lifetime of a certain particle and we know the velocity. Thus, it should seem like an easy calculation to determine how far the particle will travel. However, if the particle is traveling at relativistic speeds, it will travel much further than the simple calculation would leave us to believe because the lifetime of the particle appears to increase. This is because time moves more slowly in the particle's reference frame (the reference frame which governs the decay) than in the laboratory reference frame.[/quote]



Nice explanation msparish. I think this finally set everyone straight. That was how I was taught the concept. Of course many many years from now, I'm sure all of this will be pointless and we will prove all our current theories as wrong as the geocentric theory.
 

Trevorsouter

Junior Member
Sep 11, 2006
17
1
0
Originally posted by: Jdog1718




Nice explanation msparish. I think this finally set everyone straight. That was how I was taught the concept. Of course many many years from now, I'm sure all of this will be pointless and we will prove all our current theories as wrong as the geocentric theory.


Yeh but tis nice to think that we are right.

as u woulda heard before;
"there was a time when we KNEW the earth was teh centre of the universe, we KNEW the earth was flat, we KNEW women were inferior hold on... juries still out on that one :D jkz :D:D:D"

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
19
81
Originally posted by: RossGr
Why in the world would you think that a Star Trek epsode would need a physical basis?

One episode of TNG, with The Traveller, they went some insane distance in a few minutes, well beyond The Milky Way. No time effects were reported. Yet, Star Trek IV - old Klingon Bird of Prey manages to go fast enough to travel back to (conveniently) the same year in which the movie was made.
Let us just go with the standard cop-out: Q did it.
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
However, to be fair the warp drives in Star Trek are suppose to work by "warping spacetime" which in it self would not cause any time dilation ("time travell") since you are not actually moving the ship.

Hence, it might indeed be possible to go some insane distance in a few minutes (the time it would take and the distance you travelled would not even necessarily be correlated).
At the moment we don't know if warp drives are possible or not. However, we do know that if they can be built they would require an insane amount of energy.

edit: Perhaps I should also mention that IF it turns out to be possible (in principle) to build warp drives then it should be fairly easy to go back in time; the limiting factor being that you could only go as far back as to the time the "hole in spacetime" was created.

 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
While not contributing anything, I thought it was kinda nifty in Futurama when the kid figures out how the Planet Express ship travels. The ship doesn't move through the universe, but the engines move the universe around the ship.
 

Ronaldrc33

Junior Member
Dec 2, 2016
7
0
6
I'm a simple minded person and being so I rely on my God given common sense.

I never could wrap my head around the idea that everyone believes that time is a physical thing.


My opinion of Time is that it doesn't exist, it is only a human invention made to keep up with things happening around us.

I do not believe it is possible to go forward or backwards in time.

Ronald
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Light always travels at c in every reference frame. What is no longer valid are the classical Galilean transformations that we perform between reference frames. Instead, we use the Lorentz transformations. Time dilation and length contraction work together to cause a nonlinear velocity addition rule. The fact is, time will pass differently between the observers on Earth and the observer in the spacecraft. .

And this fact has been used to compensate for time dilation in order for GPS satellites to be accurate when used for centimeter level positions.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
More sophisticated techniques, like Differential GPS (DGPS) and Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) methods, can deliver centimeter-level positions with a few minutes of measurement. Such methods allow GPS and related satellite navigation system data to be used in precision surveying, autodrive systems, and other applications requiring greater position accuracy than achieved with standard GPS receivers.

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 [2].

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 faster than 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 somewhere up in the air many kilometers away.

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, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required [3].

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