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.

[JohnPaul]

Let me offer a few comments here. The effects of Einsteinian Relativity become significant only at speeds approaching that of light, but the concept of a "frame of reference" has been understood for centuries and is not unique to Einsteinian Relativity. It applies to any differences of motion.

Perhaps it would be helpful to point out that an observer's own "frame of reference" is always moving with him, so the observer is always stationary WITHIN HIS OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE, no matter how he seems to be moving relative to other observers in their own separate frames of reference. The statement that there is no universal frame of reference simply means that no one observer's frame is superior to any other. An observer who stands motionless on the earth and claims that his "motionless" frame is universal is talking nonsense, because the earth is rotating at several hundred miles per hour around the center of the earth, the earth is revolving around the sun at about 19 miles per second, the sun is revolving around the center of the galaxy about once every 250 million years, the galaxy itself is moving relative to other galaxies, etc, etc.

Examples using speeds as low as a "running man" do not illustrate frames of reference well. Let me try a couple of examples of higher speeds. You have probably heard it said that if you fire a rifle horizontally over the flat ground in front of you, and at the same instant drop another bullet from your hand to fall to the ground at your feet, both bullets will strike the ground at the same instant. You can claim that the bullet dropped from your hand travelled in a straight line to the ground, but from the moving frame of reference of the rifle bullet, that bullet also travelled in a straight line to the ground, which was moving under it.

Another similar example. Imagine you are standing "motionless" on the ground while a jet plane swoops down and passes you at about the speed of sound, 1100 feet per second. At the instant the plane passes you, you fire a rifle in the same direction as the plane, so that your bullet travels close beside the plane. Say you are using a .22 caliber rifle which fires a bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 1100 feet per second, the same speed the plane is travelling. To the pilot, the bullet will seem to be floating motionless in the air beside him. From his frame of reference, he could reach out, grab the floating bullet, pull it in and lay it in his lap with little effort. He would pull it in in a straight line relative to himself, but from your frame of reference back on the ground, the path of the bullet would seem to curve gradually into the plane while it travelled perhaps a mile over the surface of the ground. Which frame or point of view is correct?

Don't say that your point of view motionless on the earth is superior or universal, because an observer on Mars would likely disagree with you. The motions would be highly variable as seen from different frames of reference, but WITHIN each frame of reference, the bullet would be following the same natural laws.

[arian]

It's a statement; "a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on?" I asked that you (or anyone) could explain to me which frame of reference this would be true in?

You said that I already defined the reference frame, 'man and the ground he is walking on', .. correct?

Nope, I didn't say that. I said, "In your question, you define the reference frame yourself: a man moving at 3 mph relative to the ground. That means the man is moving at 3 mph in the reference (rest) frame of the ground." The reference frame in your statement is the ground, not the man and the ground he is walking on, whatever that means.

But Bust Nak mentioned at one point regarding the moving sidewalk that in the mans reference frame he is not moving!?!

Quite correct.

You then said that from the rest frame of the ground, the man is moving, and the rest frame of the man the ground is moving.

From the rest frame of the man, the ground is moving, yes.

My question is; Which frame of reference could we observe a man walking 3 mph on the ground surrounded by a million people?

He will be seen to be walking at 3 mph in the reference frame of the ground, as you just said above. Any observer who is motionless in that rest frame -- anyone who is standing still on the ground -- will see him moving at 3 mph relative to that observer. Anyone who is walking will see him moving with respect to that observer at a different speed.

So there is no reference frame where we can observe a man walking 3 mph AND see the million people going about their business at the same time?

So you are saying that all the other million people on the ground would agree that the man IS walking 3 mph, .. correct? Or that it doesn't matter what they claim, the man IS walking 3 mph, .. period?

First, it doesn't matter whether they are on the ground or in the air or in space; what matter is whether they are moving compared to the ground or not. If they are maintaining the same distance from a spot on the ground, then they are at rest with respect to the ground, and are therefore observing from the same rest frame as someone standing motionless on the ground.

Second, even someone who is moving relative to both the ground and the walking man will still say that the man is walking at 3 mph compared to the ground. All they have to do is measure how far he moves on the ground and the time it takes him. (This is the part that breaks down at high velocities.)

Thank you, that is what I wanted to hear, that it IS possible to be in a reference frame where we can see a million people, and still figure out ONE man amongst them walking at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on. We can be floating in a hot air balloon and observe the million people, and could pick out that one man and time him as you said, correct?

It is THIS "Birds Eye View" that I have been trying you guys to admit to.

Now let me ask you, .. does this rule apply when we are working on Einstein's relativistic frames of references, or not? Another word, does the "Birds Eye View" break the laws of Einstein's physics, or does he see a universe where only "individual Frames of References" exist?

Now what if this man walked off into space, .. relative to the ground, or earth, he would continue to travel through space at 3 mph indefinitely, correct?

If he keeps walking at 3 mph in the same direction, then yes, he will keep walking at 3 mph in the same direction.

Thank you.

Are you standing on what you just said here, or would you like to make some adjustments, or clarifications?

[arian]

(And this still has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity; what you're talking about here is usually called "Galilean relativity".)

We're only on page 30. We're working up to Einstein gradually.

lol.. hey keithposer3, .. I mean we have to get the basics, the groundwork ironed out first, .. right? We wouldn't want a simple error sneaking in when we start speeding up to near-light speeds that's for sure.

[arian]

Let me offer a few comments here. The effects of Einsteinian Relativity become significant only at speeds approaching that of light, but the concept of a "frame of reference" has been understood for centuries and is not unique to Einsteinian Relativity. It applies to any differences of motion.

Hello JohnPaul, and thanks.

Yes I realize that. What we seem to have a disagreement on is my definition of a Universal Frame of Reference, .. a Birds Eye View if you will, .. where we can observe multiple events happening at the same time, and still be able to figure out their relative speed within their own reference frame. Another word, .. without us leaving this "Birds Eye View".

Perhaps it would be helpful to point out that an observer's own "frame of reference" is always moving with him, so the observer is always stationary WITHIN HIS OWN FRAME OF REFERENCE, no matter how he seems to be moving relative to other observers in their own separate frames of reference. The statement that there is no universal frame of reference simply means that no one observer's frame is superior to any other.

Thank you for that clarification, .. and yes to what you just said, that is NOT how I understand a Universal Frame of Reference, but as a Birds Eye View where I can see multiple objects doing all kinds of different speeds.

An observer who stands motionless on the earth and claims that his "motionless" frame is universal is talking nonsense, because the earth is rotating at several hundred miles per hour around the center of the earth, the earth is revolving around the sun at about 19 miles per second, the sun is revolving around the center of the galaxy about once every 250 million years, the galaxy itself is moving relative to other galaxies, etc, etc.

Yes I agree, and I wouldn't claim something like that. I understand there is really nothing standing still in this universe, .. well not from a physical perspective anyways, especially with adding time and space and other dimensions into it.

But in the spiritual sense, I do see a universe that is static.
Actually, it is in this STATIC universal view that I call the Universal Frame of Reference. It is this 'freeze-frame' of the entire universe where we can roam around in and take our time measuring different events. Here both space and time stops, and only I'm moving.
Actually we all do that and use it all the time, only we haven't identified it yet, .. well not here, or not yet anyways.

Examples using speeds as low as a "running man" do not illustrate frames of reference well. Let me try a couple of examples of higher speeds. You have probably heard it said that if you fire a rifle horizontally over the flat ground in front of you, and at the same instant drop another bullet from your hand to fall to the ground at your feet, both bullets will strike the ground at the same instant. You can claim that the bullet dropped from your hand travelled in a straight line to the ground, but from the moving frame of reference of the rifle bullet, that bullet also travelled in a straight line to the ground, which was moving under it.

A good example of two identical objects traveling for the same duration, yet much farther distance, which also creates a paradox, no? I mean an object traveling so much faster than another identical object, shouldn't the faster one fall to the ground first? You know, time dilation; the faster something travels, the less time passes by for it, so it should hit the ground in less time than the other!?

Another similar example. Imagine you are standing "motionless" on the ground while a jet plane swoops down and passes you at about the speed of sound, 1100 feet per second. At the instant the plane passes you, you fire a rifle in the same direction as the plane, so that your bullet travels close beside the plane. Say you are using a .22 caliber rifle which fires a bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 1100 feet per second, the same speed the plane is travelling. To the pilot, the bullet will seem to be floating motionless in the air beside him. From his frame of reference, he could reach out, grab the floating bullet, pull it in and lay it in his lap with little effort. He would pull it in in a straight line relative to himself, but from your frame of reference back on the ground, the path of the bullet would seem to curve gradually into the plane while it travelled perhaps a mile over the surface of the ground. Which frame or point of view is correct?

Another good example, sounds pretty cool too and could actually happen. But again, what you just presented would only make sense in a universal frame of reference where we can see the whole thing, .. that is each individual frame of reference coming together and end up sharing the others frame.

But those are equal velocities, 1100 feet per second, right? But what if we gave the guy with a much more powerful gun, let's say 2000 feet per second and still have the guy in the plane traveling only 1100 f/p/s grab it and put it on his lap?

That's easy right? We'll just have the guy with the gun ride a train 900 m/p/s the opposite direction and then shoot the gun.

Don't say that your point of view motionless on the earth is superior or universal, because an observer on Mars would likely disagree with you. The motions would be highly variable as seen from different frames of reference, but WITHIN each frame of reference, the bullet would be following the same natural laws.

I agree, and again that is not what I am saying. What I'm saying is a reference point where i could see all these things happening to all kinds of different objects.

Thanks JohnPaul, now you gave me a lot more to consider.

[arian]

The place you standing physically, where you do the analyzing, is not reference frame at all, let alone a universal one. The entity you are discribing here, does not fit the definition of reference frame you gave earlier (and again here).
Think of a new term, reference frame is already defined as a system of geometric axes in relation to which measurements of size, position, or motion can be made. Your confusion is caused by using the same term to talk about two different things.

And I understand it, and visualize it where? In reference frame A.

No, you understand it and visualize it in the airport. It makes no sense to say you understand it and visualize it relative to the airport. It doesn't even make sense to say you are standing relative to the airport. It only make sense to talk about size, position, or motion relative to something.

< I answered all your comments up to here, and now I had to delete it all because of what you just said above clicked. Thank you >

OK, .. let me see it again

universal
adjective
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases

I think I see what you mean, .. I believe I am referring to the same term, but talking about two different things.

I was referring to the universe as a universal frame of reference (a birds eye view) where we can observe everything IN, .. not that the universal frame of reference is applicable TO all cases to all other frames of references as the definition states.
Misunderstanding can be such a waste of time!?

OK, .. so what changed? Oh yea, .. one, I have to stop referring to a universal view as a universal frame of reference, .. that's what. Thank you Bust Nak.

Two, I have to re-calubrate my thinking and how I express things regarding frames of references.

In Reference frame A I see a man walking and shaking hands with running man, and they are traveling what seems like the same speed, head and head. But upon examination of what we call reference frame B, running man is actually traveling at 8 mph. So in our universal frame of reference we have two guys at different speeds, traveling 'what seems like' head and head the same speed.

In light of what I said here. Let me rephase your statement:
While standing in the airport I see a man walking and shaking hands with running man, and they are actually traveling the same speed, head and head. But upon examination of what we call reference frame B, we can measure that both running man and walking man are actually traveling at 8 mph. So in every frame of reference we have two guys travelling head and head at the same speed.

I understand and agree. Now I have to rethink the entire shuttle to ship to space-station time dilation paradox. I just hope this universal frame of reference didn't damage my brain too much., .. I can't afford any more dame bramage, ..

If I remain in reference frame A, are you saying I couldn't see the other reference frames and what they seem-like in relation to me in A, and then figure out what each actually IS?

All you have to do is switch reference frames.

OK, .. so let me ask you with this fresh mindset, .. so even if I call and ask each guys speed, and each one would give me their actual speed (running man 8 mph and the walker his 4 mph) yet I see them walking head and head shaking hands, wouldn't their different speed reports create a paradox?

The 'runners own reference frame he is not moving at all'? Please explain since I don't get it?

How do you get the speed of something? By measuring the change in distance over time. If you measure the distance from the runner to the runner at time zero, what is the distance? And when you measure the distance the runner to the runner at time zero + 10 sec, what is the distance? How about at time zero + 1 minute?

The distance from the runner to the runner is zero, at all times. Meaning his speed is zero relative to himself. In other words in the runner's own reference frame he is not moving at all.

Yes you are correct. I was thinking something else when I asked that, but now I will have to rethink everything without a universal reference frame. Thanks

From the runners point of view, or another objects POV there is no reference frame. Don't we have to have another object to refer to?

That object is the runner when you say his frame of reference.

Of course.

In our Universal reference frame we have many objects relative to other objects...

Hopefully we have cleared that up. What you are calling the "Universal reference frame" is not "a system of geometric axes in relation to which measurements of size, position, or motion can be made" but some sort of mind's eye.

Yes, .. I am beginning to understand it better now. It still comes up though because I keep seeing myself at some point in space, so I find it hard to remove the idea that this point I'm in is a big frame in which I see the other frames.

What do we call this, .. a total view, a birds eye view, .. what? Is there a name for this?

Two objects sharing the same space at the same time that have two different velocities.

That would indeed be a problem. But luckly that cannot happen. Two objects going head to head would always be at the same velocity in EVERY reference frame.

Well here is what I don't get, .. let's say if I am at an angle viewing them pass me by. Let's say they are shaking hands with their bodies three foot apart, .. about ten feet in front of me. As they pass me from my right to my left, the guy closer to me will visibly seem to pass the other guy, correct? The only thing that we would see at the same velocity would be their hands together.

So is the guy closer to me moving faster? Or does it just seem like?

You mean running-man relative to the moving sidewalk, correct? Just making sure. But we could say; 'running-man relative to the hall floor, .. or hall wall, right? Now would that be another frame of reference, or still B?

I mean any and everything relative to the moving sidewalk when I say reference frame B. And when the way relative to the hall floor or hall walls, those are not B anymore, but you know "relative to the hall floor" and "relative to the hall walls."

Yes, ... I understand. Now I just have to iron out a few hundred things, especially if i visualize this in space, the two guys separated will seem to move at different speeds for different reference frames except their hands that are together, what is real and what is actual speeds, ... but for now I will work on it in my mind, and I will get back to you.

I mean this can get very difficult, I have so many questions already? Thank you again, you are one intelligent, smart man, .. not to mention patient.

[Bust Nak]

< I answered all your comments up to here, and now I had to delete it all because of what you just said above clicked. Thank you >

OK, .. let me see it again

universal
adjective
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases

I think I see what you mean, .. I believe I am referring to the same term, but talking about two different things.

I was referring to the universe as a universal frame of reference (a birds eye view) where we can observe everything IN, .. not that the universal frame of reference is applicable TO all cases to all other frames of references as the definition states.
Misunderstanding can be such a waste of time!?

OK, .. so what changed? Oh yea, .. one, I have to stop referring to a universal view as a universal frame of reference, .. that's what. Thank you Bust Nak.

Two, I have to re-calubrate my thinking and how I express things regarding frames of references.

I understand and agree. Now I have to rethink the entire shuttle to ship to space-station time dilation paradox. I just hope this universal frame of reference didn't damage my brain too much., .. I can't afford any more dame bramage, ..

Yep, have a think about this, come up with a new term to use for this bird's eye view.

OK, .. so let me ask you with this fresh mindset, .. so even if I call and ask each guys speed, and each one would give me their actual speed (running man 8 mph and the walker his 4 mph) yet I see them walking head and head shaking hands, wouldn't their different speed reports create a paradox?

Their speed is the same in every reference frame, what you are calling their actual speed, is measured from two seperate reference frames. It's not a paradox unless you managed to get them to be head to head, at difference speed in one single reference frame. i.e it's only problematic if the running is running at 8 mph relative to the airport, AND the walker is walking at 4 mph also relative to the airport to be head to head. I think you would agree that the runner in this case, is actually running at 8mp relative to the sidewalk but not the airport.

Yes you are correct. I was thinking something else when I asked that, but now I will have to rethink everything without a universal reference frame. Thanks

...

Yes, .. I am beginning to understand it better now. It still comes up though because I keep seeing myself at some point in space, so I find it hard to remove the idea that this point I'm in is a big frame in which I see the other frames.

What do we call this, .. a total view, a birds eye view, .. what? Is there a name for this?

I don't think there is a term scientists use for this. Birds eye view is fine.

Well here is what I don't get, .. let's say if I am at an angle viewing them pass me by. Let's say they are shaking hands with their bodies three foot apart, .. about ten feet in front of me. As they pass me from my right to my left, the guy closer to me will visibly seem to pass the other guy, correct? The only thing that we would see at the same velocity would be their hands together.

So is the guy closer to me moving faster? Or does it just seem like?

The guy is not moving any faster, the way I have been using the term "seems like" or "appears to be" is synonymous with "measured to be." Remember when I said something like "what seems like is what actually is?" If you actually measured their speed, you would get the result that their are actually moving at the same speed. I would say they seems like they are moving at the same speed, or they appear to be moving at the same speed; I would not say the closer guy seem like he was faster, no matter what it visibly looks like. So again, it's a confusion that is caused by the choice of terms.

Yes, ... I understand. Now I just have to iron out a few hundred things, especially if i visualize this in space, the two guys separated will seem to move at different speeds for different reference frames except their hands that are together, what is real and what is actual speeds, ... but for now I will work on it in my mind, and I will get back to you.

I mean this can get very difficult, I have so many questions already? Thank you again, you are one intelligent, smart man, .. not to mention patient.

I was patient only because I was pretty sure I could change your mind. I am less so when I think my opponent is set in their ways. Hence the difference in attitude between here and the political forum.

[arian]

< I answered all your comments up to here, and now I had to delete it all because of what you just said above clicked. Thank you >

OK, .. let me see it again

universal
adjective
of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases

I think I see what you mean, .. I believe I am referring to the same term, but talking about two different things.

I was referring to the universe as a universal frame of reference (a birds eye view) where we can observe everything IN, .. not that the universal frame of reference is applicable TO all cases to all other frames of references as the definition states.
Misunderstanding can be such a waste of time!?

OK, .. so what changed? Oh yea, .. one, I have to stop referring to a universal view as a universal frame of reference, .. that's what. Thank you Bust Nak.

Two, I have to re-calubrate my thinking and how I express things regarding frames of references.

I understand and agree. Now I have to rethink the entire shuttle to ship to space-station time dilation paradox. I just hope this universal frame of reference didn't damage my brain too much., .. I can't afford any more dame bramage, ..

Yep, have a think about this, come up with a new term to use for this bird's eye view.

Thanks again.
I am glad you acknowledge this 'view' which can be anywhere and observe anything in space. For instance the space station-ships-shuttle paradox, we can see and explain everything that's going on, yet we are not part of any frame of reference, .. isn't that correct??

So would it be OK to name it a 'Birds Eye View' (BEV)?

Here is my headache, .. please help me out here; From our 'birds eye view' BEV we see a space station.
We also see a ship and a shuttle traveling head to head as they pass the space-station.
The shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C (launched from a platform going the opposite direction at 0.4 C) Would we call the shuttle; "Shuttle traveling at 0.8 C", or would we say "Shuttle traveling at 0.4 C"? .. and why?

The ship is traveling relative to the space-station at 0.4 C, head and head with the shuttle which in its own reference frame is traveling at 0.8 C. I understand the mechanics why they are traveling next to each other (from the space station reference frame both are at .4 C and from the platforms frame both are traveling at 0.8 C, .. but we are standing at a Birds Eye View, ..

1. shouldn't we interpret each vehicles speed from it's own original frame of reference?

2. How did Einstein, Lorentz and the other geniuses view this when determining time dilation? Was it from the BEV accepting each vehicles original reference frames velocity, or as they relate to new objects they pass by?

Time dilation:
The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways

So here is how I understand this (please correct me if I'm wrong)

* If the shuttle 0.8 C, and the ship 0.4 C traveling head and head turn around and continue head and head eventually land on the space-station, neither would have aged less because relative to the space station both were traveling at 0.4 C, .. correct?

* Now what if they don't stop but keep on going head and head 0.4 C relative to the space-station to try to catch up with the Platform? Will they catch up at the same time?
Won't the shuttle that was traveling off the Platform at 0.8 C, then turns around with the same velocity be going 0.8 C relative to the platform still? (Which is now actually catching up with the Platform at 0.4 C)

But the ship that was traveling relative to the space station at 0.4 C and turns around at the same velocity could never catch up with the Platform!?

Remember we are viewing this from Birds Eye View!

OK, .. so let me ask you with this fresh mindset, .. so even if I call and ask each guys speed, and each one would give me their actual speed (running man 8 mph and the walker his 4 mph) yet I see them walking head and head shaking hands, wouldn't their different speed reports create a paradox?

Their speed is the same in every reference frame, what you are calling their actual speed, is measured from two seperate reference frames. It's not a paradox unless you managed to get them to be head to head, at difference speed in one single reference frame. i.e it's only problematic if the running is running at 8 mph relative to the airport, AND the walker is walking at 4 mph also relative to the airport to be head to head. I think you would agree that the runner in this case, is actually running at 8mp relative to the sidewalk but not the airport.

Got it, .. I understand, but once they shake hands, the two different speeds become one reference frame, no? What I mean is 'individually' they are two different speeds, sharing a new reference frame "head to head".

I guess what I am getting at would make more sense in space as we originally started with the space-station/shuttle examples. I understand the slower walking reference frames much better now.

Yes you are correct. I was thinking something else when I asked that, but now I will have to rethink everything without a universal reference frame. Thanks

...

Yes, .. I am beginning to understand it better now. It still comes up though because I keep seeing myself at some point in space, so I find it hard to remove the idea that this point I'm in is a big frame in which I see the other frames.

What do we call this, .. a total view, a birds eye view, .. what? Is there a name for this?

I don't think there is a term scientists use for this. Birds eye view is fine.

great, so we'll use BEV, thanks.

Well here is what I don't get, .. let's say if I am at an angle viewing them pass me by. Let's say they are shaking hands with their bodies three foot apart, .. about ten feet in front of me. As they pass me from my right to my left, the guy closer to me will visibly seem to pass the other guy, correct? The only thing that we would see at the same velocity would be their hands together.

So is the guy closer to me moving faster? Or does it just seem like?

The guy is not moving any faster, the way I have been using the term "seems like" or "appears to be" is synonymous with "measured to be." Remember when I said something like "what seems like is what actually is?" If you actually measured their speed, you would get the result that their are actually moving at the same speed. I would say they seems like they are moving at the same speed, or they appear to be moving at the same speed; I would not say the closer guy seem like he was faster, no matter what it visibly looks like. So again, it's a confusion that is caused by the choice of terms.

Yes I agree.. choice of terms, and to me these are still a problem; time-dilation, length-cotraction, and mass getting heavier and heavier as it nears light speed.

OH... man as if that wasn't bad enough, I just visualized the pendulum example I seen a while ago, .. even though the pendulum 'seemed' to go in curves, the sand flowing from it was actually making straight lines. I realize I am very ill equipped for proper choice of terms. This is why I over-explain myself to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. I guess you do because you are correcting me at the same places.

Yes, ... I understand. Now I just have to iron out a few hundred things, especially if i visualize this in space, the two guys separated will seem to move at different speeds for different reference frames except their hands that are together, what is real and what is actual speeds, ... but for now I will work on it in my mind, and I will get back to you.

I mean this can get very difficult, I have so many questions already? Thank you again, you are one intelligent, smart man, .. not to mention patient.

I was patient only because I was pretty sure I could change your mind. I am less so when I think my opponent is set in their ways. Hence the difference in attitude between here and the political forum.

I hope that will not change your attitude towards me personally, I'm sure you know how religion and politics get the worst out of people

Just remember that I always love you and appreciate you. I do have problems expressing myself, so when I'm sure I know something and debating such smart people as yourself, I tend to get more emotional in my responses when it comes to religion and politics. I don't trust either of them!

I mean I'm sure you agree that the expression of someone getting beat up and all bruised up would be very different from the doctors description, right? I mean the doctor could probably explain the extent of the broken nose, the concussion, the broken ribs at a much greater accuracy, but that don't mean I don't know what I'm talking about from my all bruised up POV, .. right?

Thank you my friend.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 307 by arian]
The problem as I see it is that you are thinking of speed as if it were a real property possessed by an object within itself. This is incorrect. Speed does not exist except in relation to something else. Speed ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS exists only relative to something else. It is meaningless to say that an object has a speed unless you specify (or imply by context) what that speed is relative to. It is common to say, for example, that an automobile is moving with a speed of 60 mph, but it is always understood that that "speed" is relative to the road and the surrounding earth, not a property which the automobile possesses within itself alone.

Thus, an object can simultaneously have as many different "speeds" as there are objects in the universe for it to be moving relative to. No one of these speeds is any more real than any other. All are relative, and do not exist by themselves alone. With your "birds-eye view," you should be able to see all these different speeds, and see that they are all illusions, not real properties of an object. A speed appears to be real only within a particular frame of reference, which you are free to choose for yourself, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you.

[Bust Nak]

I am glad you acknowledge this 'view' which can be anywhere and observe anything in space. For instance the space station-ships-shuttle paradox, we can see and explain everything that's going on, yet we are not part of any frame of reference, .. isn't that correct??

So would it be OK to name it a 'Birds Eye View' (BEV)?

That's fine. We'll use this term from now on.

Here is my headache, .. please help me out here; From our 'birds eye view' BEV we see a space station.
We also see a ship and a shuttle traveling head to head as they pass the space-station.
The shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C (launched from a platform going the opposite direction at 0.4 C) Would we call the shuttle; "Shuttle traveling at 0.8 C", or would we say "Shuttle traveling at 0.4 C"? .. and why?

We could do either, all we would be doing is switch from "relative to the platform" to "relative to the space station." Either one is fine as long as you make it clear what that speed is relative to / what frame of reference you are using.

The ship is traveling relative to the space-station at 0.4 C, head and head with the shuttle which in its own reference frame is traveling at 0.8 C. I understand the mechanics why they are traveling next to each other (from the space station reference frame both are at .4 C and from the platforms frame both are traveling at 0.8 C, .. but we are standing at a Birds Eye View, ..

1. shouldn't we interpret each vehicles speed from it's own original frame of reference?

You could do that, as long as you clearly label each of your frames of reference. There is no definite "should" when it comes to choosing frames of reference. I would however warn you that if you switch around too much, you would likely introduce confusion. Why not pick one in advance and stick to it?

As an aside, like I said earlier, if you are using the object itself as a frame of reference to measure its speed, you would always get zero, because a man is stationary relative to himself. The distance from the man to himself is always zero. It's never very useful to use the object itself as it's frame of reference. So we better clear up what you mean by "its own original frame of reference" first before we move on...

[arian]

[Replying to post 307 by arian]
The problem as I see it is that you are thinking of speed as if it were a real property possessed by an object within itself. This is incorrect. Speed does not exist except in relation to something else. Speed ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS exists only relative to something else. It is meaningless to say that an object has a speed unless you specify (or imply by context) what that speed is relative to. It is common to say, for example, that an automobile is moving with a speed of 60 mph, but it is always understood that that "speed" is relative to the road and the surrounding earth, not a property which the automobile possesses within itself alone.

Thus, an object can simultaneously have as many different "speeds" as there are objects in the universe for it to be moving relative to. No one of these speeds is any more real than any other. All are relative, and do not exist by themselves alone. With your "birds-eye view," you should be able to see all these different speeds, and see that they are all illusions, not real properties of an object. A speed appears to be real only within a particular frame of reference, which you are free to choose for yourself, but don't expect everyone else to agree with you.

I thank you JohnPaul, you have summed up what I have been trying to say all along regarding SPEED in our universe, as to what is actual and what is real? The only thing 'real' about speed (as you also admit) is what we decide on choosing what it is relative to, and I agree.
You also said: "we can see these different speeds, and see that they are all illusions, not real properties of an object." So what I have been asking and pointing out in many different examples throughout our debates here: "Can we put a speed limit on an illusion?"
Some other wonderful things you said: "Thus, an object can simultaneously have as many different "speeds" as there are objects in the universe for it to be moving relative to." And then you add: "No one of these speeds is any more real than any other. All are relative, and do not exist by themselves alone."

Now let's observe and analyze a LARGER "Birds Eye View" of our Space-station, Shuttle, Ship, Platform scenario:

* A planet called Krypton is being pulled into a black-hole at a calculated velocity of 0.7 C relative to the center of the Black Hole.

* To save the Kriptonians from certain impending doom, they launched a huge Spacecraft Carrier called the 'Platform' loaded up with space-shuttles from Krypton to go out and away from the center of the Black Hole, and find another habitable planet to live on. With the latest anti-gravity engines the huge Platform was able to reach 0.4 C relative to the planet in a very short time. They shut the engines off and are cruising at 0.4 C relative to their planet Krypton, scanning for habitable distant planets.

* Soon they notice a Space station in their path, at which time they get a Shuttle ready to go and warn them of the Black Hole. So as the Platform pass the Space Station it launches a Shuttle, and again designed with the newest anti-gravity engines they launch opposite the direction of the Platform and reach 0.8 C relative to the Platform in a short time.
- The Shuttle shows that they are approaching the Space-station at 0.4 C.

Deep in thought of the fate of his loved ones and the billions of people still on Krypton, the Navigation officer of the Platform noticed something alarming! Immediately he calls to the Captain and reports: "Sir, .. our speed has increased dramatically even though our engines have been off since we reached 0.4 C after leaving our planet!"

- Captain: "What's our speed?"

- Nav officer Chekov: "Relative to our planet Krypton We have reached Warp speed sir, 1.2 C and climbing"

- Captain: "We are running out of time. Since we left, our planets speed towards the Black hole has increased 0.8 C. We must find a habitable planet ASAP! Chekov, increase our present speed another 0.4 C immediately!"

- Chief Engineer Scotty just out of sickbay hears Navigation officer Chekov reporting a speed of 1.2 C and now the Captain saying to increase that another 0.4 C, .. and immediately responds: "Captain, .. our engines have neverr been tested for warrp speed, I don't think I can hold them togetherrr any longerrr sir!"

- Captain:"Scotty, .. stop yelling, .. I .. can't .. concentrate. Get .. back .. to sickbay .. NOW!" (Scotty looking sick and confused returns back to sickbay)

- Chekov: "Captain, I cannot determine our acceleration, permission to switch to Space-station Platform reference frame?"

- Captain: "Granted, but check back to Krypton from time to time, and let me know what's going on!"

The Platform accelerated another 0.4 C and is now traveling at 0.8 C relative to the Space-station. They shut off the engines and cruise.
WARNING .. WARNING! There is a huge asteroid belt dead ahead, they switch on the avoidance system and it maneuvers through the belt.

Meanwhile the Navigation engineer of the Shuttle that just left the Platform realizes he is traveling at 0.8 C, then suddenly looses contact with Platform! In panic he switches to Krypton/shuttle reference frame, and realizes that he is actually moving away from Krypton at 1.1 C (Krypton now heading into the black-hole at 1.5 C - minus his speed of 0.4 C heading towards Krypton = -1.1 C) one last option, he switches to Shuttle/Space-station reference frame, and to his relief he is now moving towards the Space-station at 0.4 C.

Now in our Birds Eye View we see the Platform finally come out of the asteroid belt, and the Navigation officer immediately checks back to their Home planet reference frame Krypton, and he notices their speed of over Warp 2 (2.3 C) relative to the planet.

Question to Bust Nak (or anyone else reading this)

Realizing that it is easy for two objects in one reference frame to move much faster than the speed of light, or 186,282 m/p/s through space, how did Einstein lock in this 'speed limit' that states "Nothing in our universe could travel faster than 186,282 m/p/s"?

Now I haven't even added the speed the planet Krypton is orbiting its sun, then how the sun is swirling around the galaxy, .. these could all add to the speed of an object traveling within our universe.

This is what I have been saying, that having the Universe as our Birds Eye View, an object could over (your) billions of years be traveling ten or more times 186,282 m/p/s.

----

Let's clear space of everything, except one ball that I place there. I ask you guys; "how fast is the ball traveling?"

You guys would tell me, we don't know without having another object to clock it to? So we would agree that: "arians ball is not moving relative to itself." correct?

Now let's have JohnPaul put a green ball into space along with my ball.

We step back to our Birds Eye View and observe; As we look, all of a sudden we see the two balls pass each other at 1.8 times 186,282 m/p/s, or 335,307 m/p/s

JohnPaul threw his ball past mine at 335,307 m/p/s, it is now cruising at that speed.

So now Bust Nak throws in a ball, and it travels at 300,000 m/p/s relative to my ball which we declared at 0.0 velocity since it was the only ball in space, and we know that one ball doesn't travel relative to itself.

We take my ball out.
We now have either one ball traveling at 35,000 m/p/s, or one at 5,000 m/p/s and the other at 30,000 m/p/s, or any combination in-between.

Now what if my ball was already traveling at 20 C within the universe, only we had no way of knowing it because it was the only ball there? If speed is relative to another object, and one object would be considered just sitting there, the speed-limit law couldn't apply, could it?

The universe is infinite as far as we know, the only motion we detect is relative to something else. Now if they did time the speed of light, then fine, .. light can only travel 186,282 m/p/s relative to the source the light illuminated from. But I just can't see this be the speed limit to other objects in space, as my example above shows. Matter of fact who could tell me that our tiny 'known universe' is not traveling at Warp 9 relative to other parts of our universe we can't observe?

Thanks guys, your opinions please?