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.

[Star]

[Replying to post 398 by Star]

In Science fiction there is a device coined by Ursual Le Guin called the ansible that allows for instant communication while physical objects are still limited to less than C. What would communication be like at significant relativistic speeds over the ansible? Would they both hear each other as speaking slowly?

Yes, although of course, relativity says such a device isn't possible. Information can't propagate faster than light. Here is a good article on how it would really look like. It discusses the Twin Paradox, where one twin leaves another twin on Earth and then comes back, which is similar to our two ships scenario.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... vity-theor

[Star]

The guy in the rocket would show one second traveled between the two poles on his clock also, because for the guy in the rocket relative to himself time passes the same, correct?

The rate of time is perceived to pass at a regular rate locally to observers. In your rocket, going near speed of light (let's say 0.9999c) time would be moving very slowly relative to the stationary observers. At this velocity, time is slowed to 1.41%. Therefore, the man on the rocket will experience only 0.0141 seconds for every one second stationary observers experience.

But now you say that when the guy comes out of the ship, his clock would suddenly go backwards and show less than one second, .. far less. HOW and WHY? So the guy in the ship who timed one second on his atomic clock between the poles, steps out of his rocket and his clock would go back one second? Showing no time passed? But he seen it with his own eyes at the same time the observer seen his own clock. This is one event observed by two observers, one stationary and the other traveling 186,282 m/p/s

Huh? Ridiculous stuff like this expose your severe lack of knowledge and understanding on this subject. No clocks go backwards. Time is just slowed relatively. You must understand that a very small decimal number (such as 0.0141) is not the same as a negative number.

Not only that, but you guys say that because of his speed, once he got out of his ship after passing the 186,282 mile mark and walked over to the observer, the observer would have aged weeks or maybe even months?

Wow, really Arian? Give the strawmen a rest.

It's very simple: The stationary observers will have aged 1 second. The man on your rocket will have aged 0.0141 seconds. Keep in mind, one second will still feel like one second to him locally, even though at this velocity, he will have traveled nearly 71 light seconds (1 / 0.0141). Length contraction will make destinations appear closer. One light year would appear to be only 5.15 light days away (365.25 * 0.0141). This is how light speed remains a constant to all observers.

Look again .. the observer sees the rocket at a distance passing from one telephone pole and reaching the other at 186,282 miles away in one second (as timed by the sensors mounted on the two telephone poles)
One second passed for the observer.
The guy in the rocket has his clock running too, and he sees one second pass as he reaches the other telephone pole, correct?

No, the man on the rocket experiences 0.0141 seconds pass between poles assuming 0.9999c. Because of length contraction, one light second relative to stationary observers appears as 0.0141 light seconds to him.

So what Einstein is saying is that once the guy gets out of his rocket, the observer would age weeks, while the rocket guys clock would show zero time passed. I say that is a fairytale time traveling sci-fi delusion. the guy in the rocket 'timed' his travel between the two poles, and he seen the atomic clock with its billionth of a second come to a stop at exactly one second. So once he gets out of his ship, time, and his clock does a trick on him?

More feckless strawmen. Einstein didn't say anything of the sort, and neither did we. You are confused still.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 392 by arian]



As for "winning" the debate, congratulations you get to remain ignorant about relativity!

Moderator Comment

You could have made your point without this final, personal comment.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 398 by Star]

In Science fiction there is a device coined by Ursual Le Guin called the ansible that allows for instant communication while physical objects are still limited to less than C. What would communication be like at significant relativistic speeds over the ansible? Would they both hear each other as speaking slowly?

Depends on what kind of magic you mean by "instant." I remember reading a story years ago involving the ansible, but I don't remember that any technical details were given, nor that any relativistic effects were considered.

The concept of "instant" would depend on how "simultaneous" is observed and interpreted by different moving observers. Ultimately, there is no such thing as simultaneous events for differently moving observers. The observed timing of distant events can by changed simply by changing the observer's motion.

However, if the signals were carried by radio or any other form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, I believe that the voices would be slowed, just as the time signals from satellites used by GPS systems are slowed. These signals still travel at the speed of light, of course, but the slowing does not occur during the travel of the signal from the satellite to earth. It occurs because of time dilation at its source in the satellite itself, before it is imposed on the carrier signal.







s

[arian]

Again, .. ship A is 0.8 C relative to the Platform and the other shuttle B is 0.4 relative to the space station. Both ships can be seen from the space station traveling neck to neck. The claim is that ship A will age less, .. much less.

The two ships would essentially be travelling away from each other at 0.4c.

Exactly, by observing individual frames of references no one really knows what is happening out there. I gave you the scenario, it consist of shared frames of reference where two ships are traveling at different speeds. It is this theory that made the rules of 'individual frames of references' not me. I mean in the future, .. how will you guys measure how many 'light-years' you traveled using relativity rules??

We have to have a Birds-eye view, or a universal frame where everything in question (all individual frames within a universal frame) can be calculated.

Here is the equation:



So, the calculation would be…

40 to the power of 2 is 1600, then divide that by 100 to the power of 2, or 10,000, to get 0.16.

Now, subtract that from 1 to get 0.84. Get the square root of that, which is 0.9165, rounded. Multiply this by 100 for the percentage.

So at 0.4c, time on Ship A is moving at only 91.65% relative to Ship B, and vice versa. This seems like a paradox, but once Ship A arrives at the destination, they then move towards each other at 0.4c, breaking symmetry. This is how one ship can age less than the other.

LOL .. seem like a paradox? You have to be kidding me. Hey, remember I'm the dumb one here, are you guys trying to out-do me?

Here are a range of velocities with their respective time dilation expressed in percentages, where 100% is the rate of time relative to the non-moving frame, and 1c is light speed.

0.1c – 99.4987%
0.2c – 97.9796%
0.4c - 91.6515%
0.6c - 80%
0.8c - 60%
0.9c – 43.59%
0.9999c – 1.41%

Yes thank you, a very important note to take on your next 5-year space exploration mission Captain.

How about you guys answering my questions in my previous posts? Never mind, you may be experiencing time dilation, so I'll just wait.

[Star]

Exactly, by observing individual frames of references no one really knows what is happening out there. I gave you the scenario, it consist of shared frames of reference where two ships are traveling at different speeds. It is this theory that made the rules of 'individual frames of references' not me. I mean in the future, .. how will you guys measure how many 'light-years' you traveled using relativity rules??

You still don't understand. Once the faster ship reaches its destination, they begin moving towards each other at 0.4c. This is necessary if they ever want to see each other again, so the symmetry must be broken. The net result is Ship A ages slightly less. I can show you the math if you aren't going to be silly.

We have to have a Birds-eye view, or a universal frame where everything in question (all individual frames within a universal frame) can be calculated.

Assuming the platform they left from isn't moving in relation to the space station they're headed to, and we're third party observers not moving either, this becomes the local stationary frame. The only objects moving in this scenario are the two ships. There is no universal frame beyond this.

Here is the equation:



So, the calculation would be…

40 to the power of 2 is 1600, then divide that by 100 to the power of 2, or 10,000, to get 0.16.

Now, subtract that from 1 to get 0.84. Get the square root of that, which is 0.9165, rounded. Multiply this by 100 for the percentage.

So at 0.4c, time on Ship A is moving at only 91.65% relative to Ship B, and vice versa. This seems like a paradox, but once Ship A arrives at the destination, they then move towards each other at 0.4c, breaking symmetry. This is how one ship can age less than the other.

LOL .. seem like a paradox? You have to be kidding me. Hey, remember I'm the dumb one here, are you guys trying to out-do me?

How rude. Instead of insinuating we're dumb, you should articulate exactly what doesn't make sense to you. Check out these links or do a search for the "Twin Paradox", which is similar to our ship scenario. The paradox is avoided because they change frames and break symmetry. Although they're only moving in relation to each other, each ship does something different within their local frame that the other doesn't.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... radox.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... vity-theor
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/p ... dox-1.html

Yes thank you, a very important note to take on your next 5-year space exploration mission Captain.

It's already important for space technology. Your GPS wouldn't even work without knowing this calculation, since it must be accurate within milliseconds. Clocks on space shuttles run slower than ours, and clocks on GPS run faster (Ashby, 2003). This requires calibration.

Neil Ashby, “Relativity in the Global Positioning System�, Living Rev. Relativity, 6, (2003), 1. [Online Article]: cited [1/8/2014], http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1

How about you guys answering my questions in my previous posts? Never mind, you may be experiencing time dilation, so I'll just wait.

What questions haven't been answered yet? Summarize them precisely and concisely.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 405 by arian]

arian wrote:

How about you guys answering my questions in my previous posts? Never mind, you may be experiencing time dilation, so I'll just wait.

Exactly which question has not been answered? I have been following this thread since its beginning, and I have not seen any of your questions not answered. Have you skipped some posts, or simply ignored them?

And it is probable that all of us are experiencing time dilation. Clocks are good enough now to measure time dilation at speeds as low as 35 kilometers per hour. Traffic on our freeways moves at least three times that fast, so you can jump on your motorcycle and test it for yourself.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... hest-speed

[arian]

[Replying to post 398 by Star]

In Science fiction there is a device coined by Ursual Le Guin called the ansible that allows for instant communication while physical objects are still limited to less than C. What would communication be like at significant relativistic speeds over the ansible? Would they both hear each other as speaking slowly?

Yes, although of course, relativity says such a device isn't possible. Information can't propagate faster than light. Here is a good article on how it would really look like. It discusses the Twin Paradox, where one twin leaves another twin on Earth and then comes back, which is similar to our two ships scenario.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... vity-theor

Thank you Star for debating again, and for this article.

As the traveler reaches the star he reads his clock at eight years as mentioned, but he sees the homebody's clock as it was six years ago (the amount of time it takes for the light from the earth to reach him), or at four years (10-6). So the traveler also views the homebody's clock as running half the speed of his clock (4/8).

There are a lot of assumptions in this article, and one is that he 'tells us' what each brother would see. A hypothesis cannot prove a theory, can it?

* I mean we cannot travel near the speed of light,

* the two brothers couldn't possibly see inside the others ship or view each others clocks at these speeds,

* And another very important thing is that; if the homebody brother watched (with telescope or whatever) his traveling brothers ship (more reasonable than watching his clock in the ship) the entire time, slept by his telescope or recorded every moment through his telescope, and they planned for him to travel let's say an 8-light year trip, 4 there and 4 back, then the home-boy could see him reach his brothers destination at 4-light years, turn around and head back.
He could see his brother closing in, .. 3 years, .. 2 years, .. 1 year, .. 1 month, .. one week, .. one day, .. and then at the last hour as he sees him enter the atmosphere he would get the champagne bottle chilled and ready to celebrate his twin brothers arrival, .. correct?
* 8-year trip as planned, and home in 8 years just as they planned it, .. correct?

So once his brother lands, he gets out of his ship walks over to his twin and ... please tell me what happens?

On the trip back, the homebody views the traveler?s clock going from eight years to 16 years in only four years' time, since his clock was at 16 years when he saw the traveler leave the star and will be at 20 years when the traveler arrives back home (event 3). So the homebody now sees the traveler's clock advance eight years in four years of his time; it is now twice as fast as his clock. On the trip back, the traveler sees the homebody?s clock advance from four to 20 years in eight years of his time. Therefore, he also sees his brother?s clock advancing at twice the speed of his. They both agree, however, that at the end of the trip the traveler?s clock reads 16 years and the homebody?s 20 years. So the traveler is four years younger. The asymmetry in the paradox is that the traveler leaves the earth?s reference frame and comes back, whereas the homebody never leaves the earth. It is also an asymmetry that the traveler and the homebody agree with the reading on the traveler?s clock at each event, but not vice versa. The traveler?s actions define the events.

The Doppler effect and relativity together explain this effect mathematically at any instant. The interested reader will find the combination of these effects discussed in The Fundamentals of Physics, by David Halliday et al. (John Wiley and Sons, 1996). Paul Davies also does a nice job explaining the Twin Paradox in his book About Time (Touchstone 1995, ppf 59.) My explanation follows Davies?s closely; I hope my graph adds further clarity. The reader should also note that the speed that an observed clock appears to run depends on whether it is traveling away from or toward the observer. The sophomore physics problem, mentioned earlier, is a special case as it applies only when the motion of the traveler passes the observer?s reference frame with no separating distance in the direction of motion.

Too many assumptions, and it uses time dilation as fact. I can make up my own rules traveling too and come up with all sorts of formulas to explain it down to the Nano-second. Please explain to me how the traveling twin aged less all while his brother, or let's say they both were able to see each other the entire trip.

The traveling brother started from earth, went the distance of 4 light years from earth, watched each other for another 4 years as he arrived back to earth, so 8 years later he is back on earth exactly as planned. Please tell me other then the fairytale sci-fi hypothesis of time dilation, why one aged more then the other?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 408 by arian]

I agree at least partly with arian on this one. The URL account of time dilation and the Twin Paradox is enough to confuse anyone, partly because it lumps the effects of time dilation together with the asymmetry of acceleration, deceleration and change of direction, and partly because of its disorganized writing style which throws numbers around in an almost random way.

Sorry I cannot suggest a better account at the moment, but this one lacks clarity, to say the least.

[arian]

Exactly, by observing individual frames of references no one really knows what is happening out there. I gave you the scenario, it consist of shared frames of reference where two ships are traveling at different speeds. It is this theory that made the rules of 'individual frames of references' not me. I mean in the future, .. how will you guys measure how many 'light-years' you traveled using relativity rules??

You still don't understand. Once the faster ship reaches its destination, they begin moving towards each other at 0.4c. This is necessary if they ever want to see each other again, so the symmetry must be broken. The net result is Ship A ages slightly less. I can show you the math if you aren't going to be silly.

Here is my math, simple and clear;
* A platform is going to the right of your screen at 0.4 C.

* A shuttle takes off from the platform the opposite direction at 0.8 C (towards the left of your screen)

*At this same time, as they pass by a space station, another ship takes off from the space station going to the left of your screen at 0.4 C

* We now have a shuttle and a ship traveling head and head to the left of our screen, the ship traveling 0.4 C, and the shuttle at 0.8 C

*A year later they both reach the same planet, at the same time, land and meet.

Q. why should I believe you that in the one year that they traveled head and head, one aged less than the other?

(if you're going to tell me again that "Einstein said so", I will just say "prove it", and a formula, or a bunch of unrelated formulas trying to justify time dilation, length contraction is not good enough, it only proves that the formulas work in their own reference frame, .. lol and not according to my realistic example.)

We have to have a Birds-eye view, or a universal frame where everything in question (all individual frames within a universal frame) can be calculated.

Assuming the platform they left from isn't moving in relation to the space station they're headed to, and we're third party observers not moving either, this becomes the local stationary frame. The only objects moving in this scenario are the two ships. There is no universal frame beyond this.

Sure there is, I can create as big a universal frame as I desire, by zooming out and include other objects with different velocities.

I assume nothing, .. I gave you my example.
Look, I could give you this same example if I was in another galaxy, or on the other side of the universe, what difference does it make? Would the distance my question arose from have an effect on your answer because of time dilation? I just want a rational and reasonable answer. I gave you all the information, and if you need more, or want me to expand my birds-eye view to include other nearby planets, stars, other ships, .. I can do that too! I can get very creative with this, only I know I will loose you all since your universe is filled with different time-zones according to how fast each object, each planet, each galaxy is moving, and the distance of each planet could be different then what we measure because dependent on their speed, you add length contraction.
For you guys, the universe has as many time-zones as moving objects, and distances are nothing what they appear to be or what we measure either. Oh yea, .. the only thing that seems to be spot-on for you guys is the age of your expanding universe, the size of your 'known universe', and the Plank Epoch, or that exact moment of that singularity. Amazing.

If the universe is expanding, taking length contraction and time dilation into consideration, .. how in the world do they say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and so big? Our galaxy, with our solar system could be traveling near-speed of light, and if so, time could be moving at .12 % compared to the rest of the slower moving galaxies. Heck, .. we may not even have a universe out there, but just us traveling near-light speed, and the stars we see out there are just disappearing lights left over from a long vanished universe! Maybe the rest of the universe has already collapsed ready for another Big-bang??

I'm serious, do the math; 13.75 billion years of our little galaxy near-light speed? We could have had a dozen Big-bangs already. That's a scary thought, because what if we invent warp-speed and take off the opposite direction of our galaxy-expansion where the ship slow down to real-time and find out the universe is no longer there?

Here is the equation:



So, the calculation would be…

40 to the power of 2 is 1600, then divide that by 100 to the power of 2, or 10,000, to get 0.16.

Now, subtract that from 1 to get 0.84. Get the square root of that, which is 0.9165, rounded. Multiply this by 100 for the percentage.

So at 0.4c, time on Ship A is moving at only 91.65% relative to Ship B, and vice versa. This seems like a paradox, but once Ship A arrives at the destination, they then move towards each other at 0.4c, breaking symmetry. This is how one ship can age less than the other.

LOL .. seem like a paradox? You have to be kidding me. Hey, remember I'm the dumb one here, are you guys trying to out-do me?

How rude. Instead of insinuating we're dumb, you should articulate exactly what doesn't make sense to you. Check out these links or do a search for the "Twin Paradox", which is similar to our ship scenario. The paradox is avoided because they change frames and break symmetry. Although they're only moving in relation to each other, each ship does something different within their local frame that the other doesn't.
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... radox.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... vity-theor
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/p ... dox-1.html

I have seen a bunch of twin-paradox apologetics, none which I would accept, but I will check them out.

Yes thank you, a very important note to take on your next 5-year space exploration mission Captain.

It's already important for space technology. Your GPS wouldn't even work without knowing this calculation, since it must be accurate within milliseconds. Clocks on space shuttles run slower than ours, and clocks on GPS run faster (Ashby, 2003). This requires calibration.

Neil Ashby, “Relativity in the Global Positioning System�, Living Rev. Relativity, 6, (2003), 1. [Online Article]: cited [1/8/2014], http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2003-1

If you say so, or actually; 'if they say so'. I mean even a thousand year before VOR or GPS people sailed the globe, so I'll just put a pin in light speed and the GPS for now.

How about you guys answering my questions in my previous posts? Never mind, you may be experiencing time dilation, so I'll just wait.

What questions haven't been answered yet? Summarize them precisely and concisely.

Again? How about just answer this post for now?

Thank you Star

signed; Dummy