The Theory of RELATIVITY

[arian]

[center]Relativity - 101 Grade school - High school version I've been told, and that this has been known and taught for over a hundred years![/center]

Relativity
Physics - the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, esp. regarding the nature and behavior of light, space, time, and gravity.

OK, .. so there seems to be a various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed object, even I have noticed this phenomena, it is somewhat a different perspective going 150mph on a motorcycle vs standing still and watching someone pass me by doing 150 mph on a motorcycle.

This states that all motion is relative and that the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed.
E=MC^2 - where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Thus, Einstein stated that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. The formula is dimensionally consistent and holds true irrespective of which system of measurement units is used.

All motion is relative, got it, but why ‘state’ that “the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed� .. and then go and square the speed of light in the equation E=MC^2?
OK, so this equation states that ‘C’ is Speed of Light which has a constant value of 186,282 miles / s.
Now squaring a speed that which nothing can exceed gives us a somewhat faster than ‘C’ speed of light, ... about 186,282 times faster because C squared is 34,700,983,524 miles / second.

Fine, let’s use that value of 34,700,983,524 miles / second to figure out the effects, or the relativity to T (time) on M (mass) when it is in motion at given V (velocity)?

- Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens, as its speed increases;

OK, so the Mass of a body increases with speed, another word something with let’s say a mass of 50lb. becomes heavier and heavier as it goes faster and faster. So any mass reaching the assumed speed of light squared (34,700,983,524 miles / s) would become infinitely heavy, .. is this correct?

.. and ALSO, it’s length in the direction of the motion shortens, which I understand that at the speed of C^2 (34,700,983,524 miles / s) the Mass (any mass) would become the size of this universe (since they don’t consider anything outside the universe), meaning infinitely heavy and infinitely big .. is that correct?

- Holding true more generally, any body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction; the term matter has no universally-agreed definition under this modern view.

Continuing with the Energy=Mass C^2, what I’m understanding is (since ‘infinite’ is not imaginable for them in this universe, we’ll just stick with the size of the universe (whatever that may be?) .. so Mass at the speed of light squared, would become as ‘heavy’ as the entire universe, and as big as the universe since as stated; “the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases� meaning that the leading end of the mass going at 34,700,983,524 miles / s would get shorter and shorter until it reached its trailing end, and since mass and energy is equal, it would all be one huge mass of energy (only this would happen at just past the speed of light, the effects of mass moving 186,282 times the speed of light would be much different effect) ... do I have this right?

But that is not all, they say that at the speed of light (especially at speeds C squared), Time would also slow down to a stop. Now if all the IFF’s are true, that would make sense since Mass and Weight would reach infinite, it would engulf the entire universe including time & space, thus everything would become an enormous gravitational Mass void of space, time or light ... am I close?

Is this what they call a ‘Gravitational Singularity’?

Question; to get to this point, don’t we need space and time where mass, any mass could have room to accelerate to reach the speed of light squared?

Let’s move on with relativity to how things 'might' appear by different observers at speed of light at 186,282 miles per second, or squared at 34,700,983,524 miles / second;

- the time interval between two events occurring in a moving body appears greater to a stationary observer; and mass and energy are equivalent and interconvertible.

As I understand and some of it based on - Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases that if somebody was traveling near the speed of light for millions of years would have experienced only days, or just minutes vs the man standing would have been long gone and vanished millions of years ago,
also if a man traveling at the speed of light was able to look over at the watch of a man standing still, it would be flying by years not minutes, while his at the speed of light would be standing still, or stopped.

How close am I to understanding the Theory of Relativity as described by Einstein's equation of E=MC^2? And what parts am I misunderstanding?

Here are some doubts about Einstein's (that is if it's truly Einstein's idea?) Theory of Relativity, so the question for the Original Post is: 'Am I wrong, and if so, where am I wrong?'

1. 'C'^2 is 186,282 times faster than the assumed speed of light in a vacuum. How can Mass move so fast, and where is it moving IN? (not the universe we know, because there is a 'speed-limit' in our universe as defined by Einstein, which is mutually agreed upon, .. right?)

2. it is claimed that; nothing is faster than the speed of light, yet they assume that on the outer-skirts of our expanding fabric-of-space lies entire galaxies that are expanding ten times the speed of light, AND still emitting light at the speed of light both in the direction of the expansion, and leaving a trail behind?

3. Why is it that at these speeds distance would be shorter, not the time it takes to get to these distances? Matter of fact, they claim 'time would stop' at 186,282 miles per second. This can only mean one thing; that once these expanding galaxies passed the speed of light, they are actually coming behind us, or as we see ourselves in the mirror, we behold our face from the back. That what we see out there is US passing through us?

But that can happen only UP-TO twice the speed of light, because three times the speed of light would pass through the 'twice the speed of light', and if Einstein is right about squaring 'C', we are actually seeing 186,282 TIMES the outskirts of our universe passing through us! That would be like taking a mirror and looking back INTO a mirror, ... our universe creating infinite universes... or am I missing something?

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 200 by A Troubled Man]
You don't even have to go back to school. These days entire college courses, and more basic high-school courses, are there for the asking, free of charge, on the internet. You just have to look a matter up, struggle with it, discuss it with people who have some knowledge of the subject, and pay attention when they try to explain stuff!.
I've already (earlier in this thread) pointed Arian in the direction of some excellent resources, which he obviously hasn't managed to grasp. I can see his difficulty, but there isn't anything more that can be done about it.
The first thing anyone has to do, to understand the ToR, is accept, as shown by countless experiments, that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.
This is the one thing ISTM, that Arian cannot manage to grasp; the counter-intuitive, baffling statement that has been tested and verified in every suitably-equipped physics lab in probably every country in the world, across the last 100 years.
It is certainly a difficult thing to accept, and it is quite possible that no physics student ever accepts it without very close examination. Every first-year student of physics, I would guess, tries to question this statement; because it is very difficult to believe. But every scientist IN THE WORLD now recognises that this is a FACT.
Arian might not like it; he might not be able to believe it; and if that is the case then he will not be able to understand any of the theory.
But it is probably the most carefully and frequently tested statement in all of modern science.
If you and I are moving at some speed relative to each other, but when we each measure the speed of a photon relative to ourselves we get the same value, then there is no other conclusion possible; we must be measuring time and/or space differently. Accept that, and you will be able to follow all the arguments that follow from it. To reject this, you have to ignore all the evidence of all of physics over the past century, including the day-to-day operation of GPS; and then you can continue to say 'I can't understand the ToR, therefore it must be wrong.'

[pjnlsn]

All one needs to know to understand relativity in this context is that if, say, a ship takes off from a space station, immediately accelerating to .4c for the sake of simplicity, and travels, for example, 1 light year, and then turns around, immediately changing it's velocity to 0.4c back in the direction of the space station and then docks some time later, how much less time has passed for the crew of the ship compared to the inhabitants of the space station is given by the distance they travelled at the speed they did, reduced by the factor by which time is dilated for them during the journey compared to the reference frame where everyone eventually meets up (at rest, on the space station).

If that's a bit of a mouthful, it's basically like this:

As you correctly figured, time is passing at .92 of normal (at least, the space station's 'normal') on the ship as they travel at .4c. Given thier travel time of 1 light year then and back, that's:
(1 light year / .4c) * 2 = 5 years (space station's ref. frame) * 0.92 = 4.6 years (ship's reference frame)

So if two friends who are both exactly 20 years, having just had their birthdays which they are lucky enough to have on the same date, and one of which embarks on the ship and the other which stays on the space station, meet up again afterwards, the one from the ship will think (and be right) that he is 24, nearing but not quite at his 25th birthday, and the one who stayed on the station will think (and be right) that he is exactly 25 years old, and that today is his birthday.

More precisely, one will be 24.6 years old and the other will be 25 years old.

Basically, if two people are in a reference frame, and one leaves to go into a different reference frame and then comes back to the previous, he will have aged that much less than the one he left behind to the exact amount predicted by Relativity.

There is no privileged reference frame (no reference frame is above another), but if someone leaves a reference frame and comes back to it, everything will have happened according to the perspective of the original reference frame.

Surely it can only apply if the original reference frame is never returned to. The 25yrs is a measure of the time elapsed in the original reference frame, when Joe returns from his sojourn the time elapsed between his birth and his return is still 25yrs in that reference frame. If Joe continues his sojourn and never returns to the original reference frame then the account can make sense, but not once he returns. He cannot have been born 3mths after his birth and that is what a birthday means. In the original reference frame it is 25yrs since his birth.
To clarify: my ignorance of the ToR, general or otherwise, is only surpassed by my stupidity so please don't punch too hard.

Well, perhaps we shouldn't say that his birthday has actually been changed, for it seems that when we refer to dates we always refer to the current reference frame.

However, time dilation is indeed real, having been experimentally verified on more than one occasion.

I earlier mentioned an old experiment wherein an atomic clock was flown around the earth at high speed while a similar clock was left behind on the planet, and when the two were compared it was found that the clock which had been in orbit lagged behind the other by an amount predicted by Relativity.

So it is real and indeed, as TheTroubledMan points out, it is the basis of new work into physics, with the work being done in various particle accelerators around the world, particularly of collisions of particles at high speeds, and none of it would be possible without ToR - The existence of time dilation is confirmed by them every single day, or whereabouts.

So as I was saying perhaps it's not linguistically correct to say that the friend who embarks on the spacecraft (Joe, as you say)....perhaps it's not correct to say Joe's birthdate is changed, but he will indeed be younger than his friend when he returns. Where previously they were the same age, Joe would be 24.6 years old and his friend would indeed be 25.

--------------------------------------------------------

Of course, as an addendum, there is something of a paradox in the situation.

For as many of us have realized, to refer to the previous hypothetical, observers on the space station will see that time is passing 92% of their normal on the ship, so leading to the different ages of the two friends. However, by the same equations, observers on the ship will notice that time is passing 92% of their normal on the space station as well.

And so we might assume that when both meet back up, nothing will be changed, because both observed in each other the exact same effect. And yet we also know that one *will* be changed from the other, by experiment.

And therein lies the paradox, which is given the label the "Twin Paradox."

[pjnlsn]

[Replying to post 200 by A Troubled Man]
You don't even have to go back to school. These days entire college courses, and more basic high-school courses, are there for the asking, free of charge, on the internet. You just have to look a matter up, struggle with it, discuss it with people who have some knowledge of the subject, and pay attention when they try to explain stuff!.

Indeed!

I myself have no formal schooling in the subject but have maintained an interest over the years and over time developed a useful understanding.

[pjnlsn]

It's been a while since i've thought about these kinds of things, but as far as possible charged particles in vacuum for a beam of light to interact with in accordance with permeability, there is actually what are called virtual particles, which IIRC are charged particle pairs which in effect are winking in and out of existence (or just what we can see of it), even in vacuum.

Hey thanks pjnlsn, and welcome to the forum.

Yes, I heard these virtual particles mentioned before. I just started to look deeper into these things, so I don't know much about them.

So do you think in what I imagined above actually makes some sense, .. you know that these particles could theoretically have a 'straining or controlled effect' on the speed of light?

I do indeed!

I also recall that a peculiar phenomena called the Casimir Effect, which is a resistive force which will occur even between two uncharged metallic plates, and even in vacuum. It is a very small force but it occurs in situations where ordinary physics would say there should be no force at all. And it has been found that it results from virtual particles, which appear (iirc) everywhere, including vacuum.

Yes I just read a little about this Casimir effect and it is truly fascinating, .. makes me wish I went to school because I really enjoy this stuff. I do see that what we call the 'vacuum of space' as filled with something, and I know we have light everywhere in space since suns are round balls, and they are everywhere, so light whether traveling or constant should be everywhere in our universe. So my question is; 'How does sunlight (or light) travel in light?

Another word I can shine a bright flashlight on a shaded part of my fence in broad-daylight and see it, so here I have light-traveling in light, right? So how would this Casimir effect (photons carrying electromagnetic force between electrons) work on light-within-light since these 'virtual photons' are being emitted and absorbed by electrons everywhere in the vacuum of space?

I know, I know, ... I have to study and understand at least the basics of everything they recorded about light so far to be able to make predictions or ask coherent questions, but as I read all these studies that have been done, immediately I get these 'doubts' in my mind, .. that if all this knowledge about atoms and electrons are true, and that 45 years ago, back in 1968 a particle accelerator named ADONE accelerated electrons and positrons in opposite directions, effectively doubling the energy of their collision when compared to striking a static target with an electron .. how the hell do we still have an energy crisis, .. you know what I mean? They can harness this incredible destructive energy of the atom in a little bomb which they can use to detonate EXACTLY where they want to, .. but they can't use it to help us out at the pumps?

How can they be thinking of traveling to Mars, when we don't have enough affordable energy for me and my family to drive back East for a visit? See what causes my doubts about all this?

Besides those doubts, .. I have other nagging questions, about optics and light; 'like why does the sun seem so small, yet the light emanating from it all around us is 109 times the size of earth?' I mean even if this Casimir effect has an effect on the speed light traveling through space, what is causing this optical illusion of us seeing the sun only about 10 inches in diameter? Or any object shrinking in the distance?

It is sadly true that while we make these brilliant scientific discoveries that any new knowledge is never put to use in bettering the lives of the people. Indeed, assuming you speak of the US, upwards wealth and income inequality has been on the rise since the late 70's - the cost of products in almost all sectors rises and yet the workers producing them have not their pay increased in accordance with this, and indeed sometimes wages fall while prices rise.

Though I suppose that's for another thread.

As far as light-within-light and such things, firstly a small thing: The Casimir Effect is but a specific consequence of the existence of virtual particles and so when speaking in general or about a different possible effect, one should just refer to virtual particles themselves.

What you say is still quite possible (that in some manner virtual particles interact with light so as to limit their speed to the now familiar denoted by 'c'., even within beams of light within other beams of light). It would perhaps be a matter of the virt. particles being so very much smaller than photons.

(though i'm not sure i describe that altogether correct, if someone else sees a mistake)

[pjnlsn]

Surely it can only apply if the original reference frame is never returned to. The 25yrs is a measure of the time elapsed in the original reference frame, when Joe returns from his sojourn the time elapsed between his birth and his return is still 25yrs in that reference frame. If Joe continues his sojourn and never returns to the original reference frame then the account can make sense, but not once he returns. He cannot have been born 3mths after his birth and that is what a birthday means. In the original reference frame it is 25yrs since his birth.
To clarify: my ignorance of the ToR, general or otherwise, is only surpassed by my stupidity so please don't punch too hard.

Actually, I may have misread this, or at least this should be clearer:

If you just meant that time is unchanged in the station's reference frame, so that the day Joe returns is still his birthday, according to the calendars (or whatnot) on the station, this is true.

I was just pointing out in the previous post that 5 years will not have passed for him on the ship, and his age will be about 24 and 2/3 years, unlike his friend.

Though it's mostly a semantic difference (nothing to do with ToR), but I perhaps should've been clearer when I wrote all of the stuff about birthdays.

[arian]

[Replying to post 200 by A Troubled Man]
You don't even have to go back to school. These days entire college courses, and more basic high-school courses, are there for the asking, free of charge, on the internet. You just have to look a matter up, struggle with it, discuss it with people who have some knowledge of the subject, and pay attention when they try to explain stuff!.

Thanks Jack Agnesson, so I guess it doesn't show that I have been searching the internet, .. including the sites you so kindly provided for me? Well, I'll just keep on trying then, and I do pay attention when people explain stuff, but that doesn't mean I HAVE to accept it. Besides your opinions, I can reason too you know! Or is that something that is not allowed when studying the ToR? Because I am actually beginning to see that. It seems that *you guys provide an 'Inertial Frame of Reference' for Relativity where no outside reasoning is allowed.

I've already (earlier in this thread) pointed Arian in the direction of some excellent resources, which he obviously hasn't managed to grasp. I can see his difficulty, but there isn't anything more that can be done about it.
The first thing anyone has to do, to understand the ToR, is accept,

Exactly, I call that indoctrination.

The first thing anyone has to do, to understand the ToR, is accept, as shown by countless experiments, that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

And I call that Universal Frame of Reference, but then you guys start splitting up reference points like a butcher, .. just as you guys do with the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution. This is done very carefully, so you can screw peoples mind up so bad in one fairytale theory, that they will accept anything you say in the other. Your next statement is an example:

This is the one thing ISTM, that Arian cannot manage to grasp; the counter-intuitive, baffling statement that has been tested and verified in every suitably-equipped physics lab in probably every country in the world, across the last 100 years.

I'm sure machining Aircraft impellers and other Aircraft-Space Shuttle parts on 5-axis Milling machines is old school by now, as is calculating Trigonometry problems on paper, but doing that for 22 years did teach me a lot in 'perspectives'.

Show me how this 'Inertial Frame of Reference' has been tested in every suitably-equipped physics lab?

It is certainly a difficult thing to accept, and it is quite possible that no physics student ever accepts it without very close examination.

Same problems arise with people being indoctrinated into the Satanic cults, but after they are introduced to some 'dark-secrets', .. many still bend to the pressure. I just seen Miley Sirus/Lady Gaga last performance on YouTube, which proves that *their tentacles are not reserved only for Big-bang Evolution. Six, six, six to you too little Miley!

Every first-year student of physics, I would guess, tries to question this statement; because it is very difficult to believe. But every scientist IN THE WORLD now recognises that this is a FACT.

Yes it's all FACT now, because 'theory' is just so, .. so old and outgrown, and we all must submit to CHANGE, or what is that other word, .. oh yeah it's on T-shirts and hats, .. 'O-B-E-Y!'.

Arian might not like it; he might not be able to believe it; and if that is the case then he will not be able to understand any of the theory.
But it is probably the most carefully and frequently tested statement in all of modern science.

You mean; "The most frequently STATED statement in all of modern science"! As I said before, it's a symbol just like the Jewish 666 number on the Monster power drink. Oh, .. it's nothing really!

If you and I are moving at some speed relative to each other, but when we each measure the speed of a photon relative to ourselves we get the same value, then there is no other conclusion possible; we must be measuring time and/or space differently.

Come on Mr. Agnesson, you know very well that an atom is spread out all over the place until a conscious observer takes a look at it. What if there are much more things going on here then meets the eye? Doesn't it seem as if it's the observation or the measurement that creates reality? I mean only conscious beings can be observers right?
Think about it, the electron is not anywhere until we look, .. and when we look, the electron decides to be somewhere as long as we're looking. When we stop looking, the electron is everywhere again.
So when we really dial down deeply enough in the nature of matter, everything we know of the everyday world dissolves. There seems to be no locality anymore, .. no time anymore.
This is what fascinated me about quantum theory! It is as of God is revealing Himself not only in the Grand scheme of things, like the seemingly infinite Universe, but in the microcosm/ the quantum too!

Accept that, and you will be able to follow all the arguments that follow from it. To reject this, you have to ignore all the evidence of all of physics over the past century, including the day-to-day operation of GPS; and then you can continue to say 'I can't understand the ToR, therefore it must be wrong.'

Look, I had a rough life, I have been through and seen things with my own eyes that defies reality and logic as we know it many, many times over, .. and it all remained within ONE reference frame which is this Universe. I have struggled with demons and men, with principalities and powers that I doubt you'll ever see through a microscope.
I have listened to Diviners most of my life and observed them demolish the Words in the Good Book called the Bible for their own agenda. Now you going to tell me that I MUST believe everything about this Theory of Relativity as fact? You continue to underestimate me friend.

I have no doubt, .. not even the slightest doubt that Time Dilation is a senseless hoax, and until I have the time to study more and prove the other related FACTS .. as you guys put it, errors within this ToR, I leave it with a reasonable doubt, .. very reasonable,

... doubt.

[pjnlsn]

Accept that, and you will be able to follow all the arguments that follow from it. To reject this, you have to ignore all the evidence of all of physics over the past century, including the day-to-day operation of GPS; and then you can continue to say 'I can't understand the ToR, therefore it must be wrong.'

Look, I had a rough life, I have been through and seen things with my own eyes that defies reality and logic as we know it many, many times over, .. and it all remained within ONE reference frame which is this Universe. I have struggled with demons and men, with principalities and powers that I doubt you'll ever see through a microscope.
I have listened to Diviners most of my life and observed them demolish the Words in the Good Book called the Bible for their own agenda. Now you going to tell me that I MUST believe everything about this Theory of Relativity as fact? You continue to underestimate me friend.

I have no doubt, .. not even the slightest doubt that Time Dilation is a senseless hoax, and until I have the time to study more and prove the other related FACTS .. as you guys put it, errors within this ToR, I leave it with a reasonable doubt, .. very reasonable,

... doubt.

As many have already said, and however unintuitive it may be, it really just is true. That's to say, the existence of time dilation has been experimentally verified and is now a firm basis in further experimentation in physics, particularly, as someone else pointed out, every day in particle accelerators around the world.

It's got nothing to do with freedom of thought; It's not philosophy or politics or religion, and nothing involved with the topic will give you either the status of being an indoctrinated person, or that of an unindoctrinated one.

That you perhaps have some lingering unease or sense of your own powerlessness in your personality makeup has nothing to do with it (or an effect on it), nor is that an issue that people here are equipped or would be inclined to help you with. Offhand, I would suppose the person around whom such thoughts revolve would be the person to "work it out" with.

In any case, you can call everything a Revelation of God if you like, but there's no reason why one can't also call the nature of space-time and light (specifically in the phenomena of time dilation) also a Revelation of God and be done with that, rather than not. In any case, it doesn't effect that the thing in question (time dilation) is verified.

[arian]

EXACTLY!
You see there is only ONE clock, and it is a UNIVERSAL one. Nobody ages less by going faster than the other person, and I know you see this JohnPaul, and I'm sure so do our fellow Genius Friends.

I have used similar examples before but were ignored, but here is another one:

Two ships take off from earth on a trip to Mars and back. One traveling 10,000 miles an hour and the other goes up to 186,282 m/p/s, or the assumed C, ... now what Theory of Relativity do we need to figure out that the guy traveling at C would be there and back in minutes (too sleepy to do the math now) and be enjoying drinking Pina Coladas at his pool for weeks waiting for his buddy to reach Mars, touch off and return.

Once his friend returns, BOTH have aged the exact same time. Only the guy traveling at C had more time on earth drinking Pina Coladas. I mean come on my friends, stop falling for the magic tricks no matter how convincing it may seem, or sound like.

The 'speed of light' is a little more difficult to figure out, and until I learn more about light and its properties, by the explanations I have read so far I do see several possibilities that it may have a speed.
But I am assuming a lot, and no one out there has a definite answer, or nothing that I can accept yet, so for now the magic trick looks convincing.

I rather think calling it a 'magic trick' is a bit degrading, especially given your reference to God. Should we lambast the concept of a deity similarly?

So you think calling it a magic-tric is degrading? But that's exactly what it is, don't just look at this conversation but the whole concept of ToR. The Time Dilation is the Magic, and making you believe it is the trick.

As far as 'lambasting the concept of a deity', be my guest, I do it all the time since there are so manny of them. But our Creator God as described in the Bible is another story, .. and He is not one of those deities that religious people worship. It is HE who really bothers our Big-bang Evolutionists.

However, the topic is of course interesting and of some importance in that it pertains to things so beyond our ordinary understanding, and I rather think that the shared interest the posters of this thread have will sustain us in equanimity.

I agree my friend, this CAN be fun. But I have stated example after example that the basis of Time dilation is wrong. There is only ONE reference point to observe all the other Inertial Frames of References, and that is the UNIVERSE.

No matter which inertial frame of reference I'm in, and no matter how many other things are happening around me, above me, next to me, or far from me, I can calculate it all out by observing everything that's happening in the UNIVERSAL Frame of REFERENCE.

The atomic-clocks on the plane can be set to get the desired results and the clock will keep that time setting accurately. I know, you'd say: "scientists would never do that!"
True, but these are not scientists but sci-fientists like Stephen Hawking. I mean sure I enjoyed the Documentary movie 'Alien Planet', but I'm not going to accept it as real, or FACT.

Anyway, the concept of time dilation itself is quite unintuitive, and indeed as I was considering JohnPaul's latest post earlier and reacquainting myself with Special Relativity and even though in SR all reference frames are equal, none superior to the other, I found myself unconsciously considering the whole thing from the assumed at-rest perspective...

However, the paradox in SR arises not because some of it isn't true, but rather because parts of SR are experimentally verified, but contradict the common conceptualizations of older physics.

Exactly, .. as you said it 'contradicts common conceptualizations of older physics', which should raise a big RED flag.

You can create as difficult picture as you wish, with as many 'inertial frames of references' as you want, .. with no at-rest perspective (because there really IS NO at rest IN our universe), but we must view the UNIVERSE AS at-rest, .. and I can trig out any circumstance and tell you the location relative to whatever you want, and the time in each IFR's

For example, IIRC true time dilation was confirmed by the flying of an atomic clock at high speed around the earth, and comparing the results to a similar clock which had been left back on the planet, and in the finding that the one which had been flown lagged behind the other in time by an amount predicted by Relativity.

Are you serious, .. and you believe them? Ask yourself, does the atom in the clock 'set the time', or do humans?

So time dilation does indeed happen, but there is also a paradox when one tries to fit the concept into other common conceptions of older physics, and the world we live in.

Time dilation doesn't create a paradox in 'older physics', it is just plain wrong and doesn't belong in physics. It belongs in science-fiction along with multi universes, bubble within a bubble, a flat expanding fabric of space and of course all them tens of thousands of black-holes they have been observing.

Thanks again my friend.

[pjnlsn]

EXACTLY!
You see there is only ONE clock, and it is a UNIVERSAL one. Nobody ages less by going faster than the other person, and I know you see this JohnPaul, and I'm sure so do our fellow Genius Friends.

I have used similar examples before but were ignored, but here is another one:

Two ships take off from earth on a trip to Mars and back. One traveling 10,000 miles an hour and the other goes up to 186,282 m/p/s, or the assumed C, ... now what Theory of Relativity do we need to figure out that the guy traveling at C would be there and back in minutes (too sleepy to do the math now) and be enjoying drinking Pina Coladas at his pool for weeks waiting for his buddy to reach Mars, touch off and return.

Once his friend returns, BOTH have aged the exact same time. Only the guy traveling at C had more time on earth drinking Pina Coladas. I mean come on my friends, stop falling for the magic tricks no matter how convincing it may seem, or sound like.

The 'speed of light' is a little more difficult to figure out, and until I learn more about light and its properties, by the explanations I have read so far I do see several possibilities that it may have a speed.
But I am assuming a lot, and no one out there has a definite answer, or nothing that I can accept yet, so for now the magic trick looks convincing.

I rather think calling it a 'magic trick' is a bit degrading, especially given your reference to God. Should we lambast the concept of a deity similarly?

So you think calling it a magic-tric is degrading? But that's exactly what it is, don't just look at this conversation but the whole concept of ToR. The Time Dilation is the Magic, and making you believe it is the trick.

As far as 'lambasting the concept of a deity', be my guest, I do it all the time since there are so manny of them. But our Creator God as described in the Bible is another story, .. and He is not one of those deities that religious people worship. It is HE who really bothers our Big-bang Evolutionists.

However, the topic is of course interesting and of some importance in that it pertains to things so beyond our ordinary understanding, and I rather think that the shared interest the posters of this thread have will sustain us in equanimity.

I agree my friend, this CAN be fun. But I have stated example after example that the basis of Time dilation is wrong. There is only ONE reference point to observe all the other Inertial Frames of References, and that is the UNIVERSE.

No matter which inertial frame of reference I'm in, and no matter how many other things are happening around me, above me, next to me, or far from me, I can calculate it all out by observing everything that's happening in the UNIVERSAL Frame of REFERENCE.

The atomic-clocks on the plane can be set to get the desired results and the clock will keep that time setting accurately. I know, you'd say: "scientists would never do that!"
True, but these are not scientists but sci-fientists like Stephen Hawking. I mean sure I enjoyed the Documentary movie 'Alien Planet', but I'm not going to accept it as real, or FACT.

Anyway, the concept of time dilation itself is quite unintuitive, and indeed as I was considering JohnPaul's latest post earlier and reacquainting myself with Special Relativity and even though in SR all reference frames are equal, none superior to the other, I found myself unconsciously considering the whole thing from the assumed at-rest perspective...

However, the paradox in SR arises not because some of it isn't true, but rather because parts of SR are experimentally verified, but contradict the common conceptualizations of older physics.

Exactly, .. as you said it 'contradicts common conceptualizations of older physics', which should raise a big RED flag.

You can create as difficult picture as you wish, with as many 'inertial frames of references' as you want, .. with no at-rest perspective (because there really IS NO at rest IN our universe), but we must view the UNIVERSE AS at-rest, .. and I can trig out any circumstance and tell you the location relative to whatever you want, and the time in each IFR's

For example, IIRC true time dilation was confirmed by the flying of an atomic clock at high speed around the earth, and comparing the results to a similar clock which had been left back on the planet, and in the finding that the one which had been flown lagged behind the other in time by an amount predicted by Relativity.

Are you serious, .. and you believe them? Ask yourself, does the atom in the clock 'set the time', or do humans?

So time dilation does indeed happen, but there is also a paradox when one tries to fit the concept into other common conceptions of older physics, and the world we live in.

Time dilation doesn't create a paradox in 'older physics', it is just plain wrong and doesn't belong in physics. It belongs in science-fiction along with multi universes, bubble within a bubble, a flat expanding fabric of space and of course all them tens of thousands of black-holes they have been observing.

Thanks again my friend.

Well, in order from top to bottom:

1. It is degrading, yes. And the point was obviously that it is unequitable and more besides to display that attitude whilst stating that other magical things do exist.

2. To a likelihood which is infinitesimally close to 100%, you yourself have only ever been in one reference frame. In your life, reference frames and ToR don't exist. Suggesting that because Relativistic effects are not present when travelling slowly (compared to the speed of light) or when staying in the same reference frame and that therefore it never happens is to be completely ignorant of the relevant subject matter.

It's more likely that your personality leads to you declaring it a hoax rather than that it is.

3. Similarly to before, ignorance of the subject.

4. See end of No. 2

5. Again, it is somewhat unintuitive and we all know it is, but it has been experimentally verified, and is now a firm basis for further experimentation in Physics.

And as a final note, again, "It's got nothing to do with freedom of thought; It's not philosophy or politics or religion, and nothing involved with the topic will give you either the status of being an indoctrinated person, or that of an unindoctrinated one."

[JohnPaul]

No doubt my brain is asleep and I am missing something important, but I still don't see it. Using the formula SQR ROOT(1-v^2) for time dilation, where v is the relative speed as a fraction of the speed of light, I get about .92 for the ratio of time on the ships moving at 4. C to time on the space station. However, ignoring the space station and considering only the two ships moving relative to each other at .8 C, the ratio to each other is .6. I guess I don't see how the two ships can be equal from the point of view of the space station, but differ from each other and from the space station when considered alone. Tell me what I am missing!

PS - OK, after a little thought, maybe the ships see each other as differing by .6, but the space station sees them both as differing from the space station by .92. I am still thinking. What happens to these various differences in time when the ships come to rest again at the space station? What happens when the crew of the space station and the crews of the two ships get together for lunch and try to figure out who has aged more than who, and by how much?

All one needs to know to understand relativity in this context is that if, say, a ship takes off from a space station, immediately accelerating to .4c for the sake of simplicity, and travels, for example, 1 light year, and then turns around, immediately changing it's velocity to 0.4c back in the direction of the space station and then docks some time later, how much less time has passed for the crew of the ship compared to the inhabitants of the space station is given by the distance they travelled at the speed they did, reduced by the factor by which time is dilated for them during the journey compared to the reference frame where everyone eventually meets up (at rest, on the space station).

If that's a bit of a mouthful, it's basically like this:

As you correctly figured, time is passing at .92 of normal (at least, the space station's 'normal') on the ship as they travel at .4c. Given thier travel time of 1 light year then and back, that's:
(1 light year / .4c) * 2 = 5 years (space station's ref. frame) * 0.92 = 4.6 years (ship's reference frame)

So if two friends who are both exactly 20 years, having just had their birthdays which they are lucky enough to have on the same date, and one of which embarks on the ship and the other which stays on the space station, meet up again afterwards, the one from the ship will think (and be right) that he is 24, nearing but not quite at his 25th birthday, and the one who stayed on the station will think (and be right) that he is exactly 25 years old, and that today is his birthday.

More precisely, one will be 24.6 years old and the other will be 25 years old.

Basically, if two people are in a reference frame, and one leaves to go into a different reference frame and then comes back to the previous, he will have aged that much less than the one he left behind to the exact amount predicted by Relativity.

There is no privileged reference frame (no reference frame is above another), but if someone leaves a reference frame and comes back to it, everything will have happened according to the perspective of the original reference frame.

I agree with what you say about the space station and any one ship. It is easy enough to calculate the difference between any two moving observers. My confusion came from trying to deal with the two ships moving simultaneously relative to the space station at .4 C and also relative to each other at .8 C and then all returning to "rest" together at the space station.