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.

[Joman]

Why would planes be referenced to each other?

for example, in an emergency without any objective reference available.
My point is that the real world doesn't work that way.
Einstein's imaginary universe does work that way at high speeds.

Remember how Einstein said a accelerating elevator simulated gravity so well that no one on the elevator could tell the difference between the elevator acceleration as opposed to gravitational acceleration?
Well, in our real world you can tell.
But, not in the Einsteinian mythological world.
In that world you're not allowed to reference to anything but your feeling about acceleration.
The relativity theories are a hoax. And real scientists know it.

Choosing to reference an object for a specific purpose does not make it an absolute frame of reference.

Who thinks it does?
But, there isn't any absolute references to anything in our finite world.
What we do is practical and real science not imaginary science.
So what do we do?
We find and use well regulated natural references (as imperfect as it is) to reference all measurements to it.
In the same way, we note that the speed of light isn't absolute at all except in the pristine world of imaginary science.
Which is why I reminded readers that like the calculus' lack of absoluteness the need for absoluteness is null and void by the ability to measure as accurately as needed.
Theoretical absolutes are ficticious.
The most accurate things are natural things but, no natural thing is absolute.
That is the real world.

Please at least learn what the definition of these terms are before you try to argue against the theory.

Ok.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 334 by arian]

arian wrote:

Thanks again JohnPaul, .. but don't you think motion relative to another object is still motion in space? If they are moving apart in a V formation, measuring their relative speed to each other is meaningless.

Your concept of motion seems to be hopelessly stuck on the idea of motion relative to some larger constant surrounding background. How can you describe two objects as moving in a V formation if there is absolutely nothing anywhere around them to compare it to? A V formation relative to what? Relative to each other, the two objects are simply moving away from each other in a straight line.

In your example of the shuttle launched from the 747, the shuttle breaks the sound barrier because of its speed relative to the surrounding air. The motion, or even the existence of the 747 is completely irrelevant to this.

All relativistic effects are relative only to other moving objects, not inherent in a single moving object itself.

[JohnPaul]

Why would planes be referenced to each other?

for example, in an emergency without any objective reference available.
My point is that the real world doesn't work that way.
Einstein's imaginary universe does work that way at high speeds.

Remember how Einstein said a accelerating elevator simulated gravity so well that no one on the elevator could tell the difference between the elevator acceleration as opposed to gravitational acceleration?
Well, in our real world you can tell.
But, not in the Einsteinian mythological world.
In that world you're not allowed to reference to anything but your feeling about acceleration.
The relativity theories are a hoax. And real scientists know it.

Choosing to reference an object for a specific purpose does not make it an absolute frame of reference.

Who thinks it does?
But, there isn't any absolute references to anything in our finite world.
What we do is practical and real science not imaginary science.
So what do we do?
We find and use well regulated natural references (as imperfect as it is) to reference all measurements to it.
In the same way, we note that the speed of light isn't absolute at all except in the pristine world of imaginary science.
Which is why I reminded readers that like the calculus' lack of absoluteness the need for absoluteness is null and void by the ability to measure as accurately as needed.
Theoretical absolutes are ficticious.
The most accurate things are natural things but, no natural thing is absolute.
That is the real world.

Please at least learn what the definition of these terms are before you try to argue against the theory.

Ok.

Everything you have written here shows only a total lack of comprehension of Relativity, so I suppose it is useless to challenge any of your rantings, but I do challenge you to name even one "scientist" with credentials beyond grade school who thinks Relativity is a hoax. Well? I am waiting!!! Relativity is said to be the most thoroughly tested of any scientific theory, and is part of routiine engineering technology now. I suggest you learn a little about it before you attempt to comment on it.

[Joman]

Everything you have written here shows only a total lack of comprehension of Relativity, so I suppose it is useless to challenge any of your rantings, but I do challenge you to name even one "scientist" with credentials beyond grade school who thinks Relativity is a hoax. Well? I am waiting!!! Relativity is said to be the most thoroughly tested of any scientific theory, and is part of routiine engineering technology now. I suggest you learn a little about it before you attempt to comment on it.

Off topic. Merely opinionative.

[arian]

Thanks again JohnPaul, .. but don't you think motion relative to another object is still motion in space? If they are moving apart in a V formation, measuring their relative speed to each other is meaningless.

Why meaningless? The velocity vectors of the two objects can be calculated even if they are traveling at an angle away from each other.

Sure, but tell me when does time dilation, length contraction and weight gain take effect, if let's say two ships are traveling at 0.8 C (not relative to each other) but in a V formation?

A. When they reach 0.99 C relative to each other

B. When they reach 0.99 C on the trajectory they are on?

Look my friend, if a 747 was carrying a shuttle close to the speed of sound (but not quite the speed of sound) the shuttle would be standing still relative to the 747, right? Now if the Shuttle took off let's say 25 mph from the 747, it could break the sound barrier, correct?

So is it possible for an aircraft to break the sound barrier going at 25mph?? That is what 'relative to' means, .. the Shuttle relative to the 747, correct?

The shuttle breaks the sound barrier because it is traveling faster than the speed of sound relative to the air that it is traveling in.

Very good, .. have you heard of the Fabric of Space? Great, so let us now go into space and using the same analogy, please tell me when does length contraction and time dilation start;

A ship is carrying a shuttle at 0.8 C, drops the shuttle and the shuttle fires up his engines and takes off. When will the shuttle reach length contraction and time dilation and all those other stuff?

A. When it reaches 0.99 C relative to the ship?

B. When it reaches 0.19 C relative to the ship?

[Jack Stoddart]

That's why now, instead of knowing truth about the universe we ended up believing in expansion and all kinds of magical effects deemed scientific as long as one wears the relativity theory blinders with a deep commitment to absurdity.

The expansion of the universe is neither theoretical nor magical. It is an observation.

[arian]

[Replying to post 334 by arian]

arian wrote:

Thanks again JohnPaul, .. but don't you think motion relative to another object is still motion in space? If they are moving apart in a V formation, measuring their relative speed to each other is meaningless.

Your concept of motion seems to be hopelessly stuck on the idea of motion relative to some larger constant surrounding background. How can you describe two objects as moving in a V formation if there is absolutely nothing anywhere around them to compare it to? A V formation relative to what? Relative to each other, the two objects are simply moving away from each other in a straight line.

I know it's scary to think you have been wrong about this all these years, but why not accept the truth?

You want a starting point of the V formation, here, how about earth.

From earth two ships take off in a V formation. Once they reach 0.8 C they cruse at that same speed.
As they look out from their windows, they see each other distancing, moving away from each other at a speed of 0.2 C

They are traveling at 0.8 C relative to the earth, but when looking out their window, it SEEMS like they are moving away from each other. So which speed will they have to increase to in order to reach time dilation?

A. is it another 0.19 C relative to the earth?

B. Or should they continue in this same direction as they left earth, in this V formation at 0.8 C and keep speeding up till their speed relative to each other reaches 0.99 C?

I have just about exhausted every possibility over all these past posts, don't you guys think it is time to admit that all this relativity stuff is a mind game to brainwash everyone into accepting your Big-bang Evolution religion?

In your example of the shuttle launched from the 747, the shuttle breaks the sound barrier because of its speed relative to the surrounding air. The motion, or even the existence of the 747 is completely irrelevant to this.

What? Come on JohnPaul, .. are you saying now that the relativity of the shuttle to the 747 is irrelevant? So you do agree that an object traveling through the air is the only thing relevant, not the 747 it took off from! This is what I have been saying from the beginning, so I moved on, one step at a time, and like a chess game you guys are running out of spaces to move.

Nope, ... you cannot move there either because then I'll just move the 747 out into space, .. where you believe the shuttle to the 747 is the ONLY relevance.

Whether in the air, or in the fabric of space, whether it is breaking the sound barrier, or reaching where time stops, mass increases to infinity and length shrinks down to a dot, relativity must apply to both, in any medium.

Check mate.

All relativistic effects are relative only to other moving objects, not inherent in a single moving object itself.

What, .. so now you're saying that the shuttle can't break the sound barrier without the 747? I thought you just said the 747 (other object) is irrelevant?

[arian]

That's why now, instead of knowing truth about the universe we ended up believing in expansion and all kinds of magical effects deemed scientific as long as one wears the relativity theory blinders with a deep commitment to absurdity.

The expansion of the universe is neither theoretical nor magical. It is an observation.

Only if you believe in the red-shift fairytale? And according to relativity in space, you don't know whether you're coming or going? Like I said about two ships flying in the V formation, using relativity they couldn't even tell which direction they were moving? They would be expecting time dilation at another 0.8 C increase in velocity, when in reality they should achieve this in another 0.19 C.

The redshift is as accurate in measuring the age of the universe as carbon dating is in estimating the age of a live pig. They both depend on blind-faith in religion, if it differs from what it was originally believed, then the reading must be wrong and they adjust it till they get what they want.

In science we observe what is there, but in the Big bang Evolution there is this constant adding assumptions to science making it science fiction. It's what religion does, it perverts, it destroys creation itself, and through reduction tries to make it nothing. Then from nothing, it tries to redefine what is already there, only without it's Creator. As if they created the universe themselves?

This is also evident in Bio-engineering, GMO's, and in cloning, .. as if they created the sheep. Now that they think they're God, they create fear to take possession of the world (HAARP, weather modification, pollution, immorality, lawlessness etc.) and then create Agendas to decide on the fate of the entire human race.
Their conclusion, .. humans are unsustainable, (actually, there are just too many to totally control). The decision: a 95% reduction even if it takes the destruction of the whole world itself.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 348 by arian]

How is the doppler effect a fairytale? Don't you think it is ridiculous to criticize the theories of scientists when you have already shown you have holes in your knowledge of basic scientific facts?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 348 by arian]

How is the doppler effect a fairytale? Don't you think it is ridiculous to criticize the theories of scientists when you have already shown you have holes in your knowledge of basic scientific facts?

I have often observed the Doppler effect. I live near a highway on which ambulances occasionally pass with their sirens going. I can easily hear the drop in siren pitch or sound frequency as they pass by and move away from me. I suppose some here in the forum (arian?) would claim that the ambulance drivers are part of a vast conspiracy to deceive me, and have learned to recognze my house and deliberately reduce their siren's pitch as they pass by.

I also examined some spectrograms of light from distant stars in school, which clearly showed a shift in light frequency toward the red end of the spectrum. I wonder how all the professors found the time and skills to carefully edit all these spectrograms just to convince a bunch of bored students that the Red Shift exists? It is amazing that this vast conspiracy has been going on worldwide for a century or more!!! Wow!!!