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.

[olavisjo]

.

This is getting tedious. Again, I ask if you are joking? I completely agree with everything you wrote in your description of your experiment, EXCEPT you completely ignored any mention of the whole point of this discussion, the measurement of the speed of the water as it moves between the hose nozzle and the target. Its back-and-forth motion is irrelevant. To measure this speed, we must know the distance between the nozzle and the target, and also a way of comparing the exact times at which the water leaves the nozzle and the time at which it strikes the target. That was the whole point of Roemer's observation. How did you miss it?

I think that you missed it too.

The experiment has nothing to do with the speed, time or distance it left the hose (Jupiter) till it got to the garage door (Earth).
The experiment is better described as a constant pulsating beam of water shot at a moving car (Earth).
When the car is going toward the hose it will hit rapidly ta-ta-ta, but when the car is going away it will hit slower pahdah-pahdah-pahdah. Then if you know the distance the car traveled during the pulse of water, then the difference in time of the two pulses hitting the car and the distance the car traveled will allow you to calculate the speed of the water.

[A Troubled Man]

.

This is getting tedious. Again, I ask if you are joking? I completely agree with everything you wrote in your description of your experiment, EXCEPT you completely ignored any mention of the whole point of this discussion, the measurement of the speed of the water as it moves between the hose nozzle and the target. Its back-and-forth motion is irrelevant. To measure this speed, we must know the distance between the nozzle and the target, and also a way of comparing the exact times at which the water leaves the nozzle and the time at which it strikes the target. That was the whole point of Roemer's observation. How did you miss it?

I think that you missed it too.

The experiment has nothing to do with the speed, time or distance it left the hose (Jupiter) till it got to the garage door (Earth).
The experiment is better described as a constant pulsating beam of water shot at a moving car (Earth).
When the car is going toward the hose it will hit rapidly ta-ta-ta, but when the car is going away it will hit slower pahdah-pahdah-pahdah. Then if you know the distance the car traveled during the pulse of water, then the difference in time of the two pulses hitting the car and the distance the car traveled will allow you to calculate the speed of the water.

But, the point is that water does not behave the same way as light. For example, with light, the car will be hit exactly the same (ta-ta-ta) whether it is at rest or moving fast, the light will not hit it slower (pahdah-pahdah-pahdah) as would the water. Huge difference.

[A Troubled Man]

My experiment proves three things,
1. that Roemer could never have measured any speed, much less the speed of light with any accuracy by his observation of Jupiter's moon,

2. That 'C' has nothing to do with 186,282 m/p/s and that both are useless in calculating ANYTHING meaningful,

3. That Einstein's Theory of Relativity along with this pagan symbolic equation E=MC^2 is a useless hoax to keep the Big-bang Evolution theory alive.

My experiment works and is legit. I went over it many times for months and considered every word you guys said, and so far it only reinforced my theory which is that Einstein's Theory of Relativity with its signature E=MC^2 is a cultic devious hoax with a conspiracy to confuse and keep people ignorant of their Creator.

Sorry, but your experiment is seriously flawed because the speed of light is not affected in any way by the motion of objects, it is affected only by the permittivity and permeability of space. No matter whether an object is at rest or moving at great speeds, one will always measure the speed of light at 186,282 m/p/s from any reference frame.

However, admitting to everyone here that the speed of light is some sort of conspiracy theory against your belief system speaks volumes of your motives not to want to understand this.

[olavisjo]

.

P.S. Perhaps I should apologize for berating you too harshly for your misunderstanding of Roemer's method of measuring the speed of light from observations of Jupiter's moon Io. It seems that a French reporter in 1676 also misunderstood it and totally garbled his report of it in Paris. So you are not the first to misunderstand it, and I apologize.

But, the point is that water does not behave the same way as light. For example, with light, the car will be hit exactly the same (ta-ta-ta) whether it is at rest or moving fast, the light will not hit it slower (pahdah-pahdah-pahdah) as would the water. Huge difference.

A French reporter, JohnPaul and now A Troubled Man all misunderstood it.

Read it again, it is not rocket science (or is it?)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B ... d_of_light

[micatala]

.. And then you leave logic and return back to your reasoning through indoctrinations, things your Zionist influenced sci-fi books dictate.



To answer what I underlined you said above: Same rate gives us the same time, except when considering this SYMBOLIC ZIONIST E=MC^2 which is no different than the Eye of Horus, the Yin-Yang, the Pyramids, the Ankh and the tens of thousands of other symbols these people use.

Moderator Comment

There does not seem to be any reason for inserting the 'Zionist' adjective here other than to be uncivil and disparaging.



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]

.

This is getting tedious. Again, I ask if you are joking? I completely agree with everything you wrote in your description of your experiment, EXCEPT you completely ignored any mention of the whole point of this discussion, the measurement of the speed of the water as it moves between the hose nozzle and the target. Its back-and-forth motion is irrelevant. To measure this speed, we must know the distance between the nozzle and the target, and also a way of comparing the exact times at which the water leaves the nozzle and the time at which it strikes the target. That was the whole point of Roemer's observation. How did you miss it?

I think that you missed it too.

The experiment has nothing to do with the speed, time or distance it left the hose (Jupiter) till it got to the garage door (Earth).
The experiment is better described as a constant pulsating beam of water shot at a moving car (Earth).
When the car is going toward the hose it will hit rapidly ta-ta-ta, but when the car is going away it will hit slower pahdah-pahdah-pahdah. Then if you know the distance the car traveled during the pulse of water, then the difference in time of the two pulses hitting the car and the distance the car traveled will allow you to calculate the speed of the water.

I may have explained it poorly, but I don't think I missed it. You may be right about the possibility of using the difference of water pulse rate hitting a moving car to calculate the speed of the water, but that is irrelevant to both arian's water hose experiment with a stationary target, and Roemer's observation of the eclipses of the moon of Jupiter.

The important point about Roemer's observation of Io was the timing of the eclipses of Io as Io moved periodically behind Jupiter. These eclipses were very precise, regular and consistent, and occurred about every 42 1/2 hours as Io moved around Jupiter. Roemer timed the eclipses beginning when the earth was closest to Jupiter, then periodically observed them during the following months as the earth moved away from Jupiter, and found that each eclipse appeared to be slightly delayed, until after six months when the earth had reached its farthest point away from Jupiter, the eclipses were delayed about 16 minutes from their starting point six months earlier. Then as the earth continued in its orbit back toward Jupiter, the timing of the eclipses caught up again. This was explained by the fact that the light from Io to earth at its farthest point had to move the additional distance across the earth's orbit to reach earth, an extra distance of about 186 million miles which caused a delay of 16 minutes.

The back-and-forth motion of Io in its orbit was irrelevant. It was only the timing of the eclipses that mattered. The geometry of Roemer's observations was not so simple or accurate as my simplified description above, because his observations had to be made at times of year when the sun was not directly between the earth and Jupiter.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 159 by arian]
arian wrote:

I can see now that I am most definitely wasting your time friend, and you don't need to respond to my post on Relativity here any longer. I'll hope to see you in other debates though, OK? I do thank you JohnPaul, and no hard feelings.

I am truly sorry if I offended you. Your beliefs are obviously sincere, but your ideas are so extreme and contrary to anything in the real world that it is impossible for me to debate them rationally. How is it possible to debate science with someone who believes that everything learned since the Dark Ages is nothing but the lies of Satan? So I wish you well in your simplistic "God-created" universe, where you can huddle with your God in blissful ignorance of all the lies of Satan in the real world around you. Good luck!

[arian]

Again, my experiment proves that you cannot measure the speed of something coming AT YOU by observing the rotation, or the back and forth movement of that distant object...

Your experiment did no such thing. In each of the trials, the water gun is stationary relative to the door. Try moving backwards as you move your arm, the back and forth movement of the water jet hitting the foor would slow. How much it slows would tell you how fast you are moving away from the door.

You are right Bust Nak, and I was wrong, .. I keep thinking of light at a constant, then mixed in with the doppler effect of sound, then the vacuum of space and forgot about the effect of the water gun moving either towards, or away from the target.

More importantly you are missing the point of Roemer's observation. What is relevant, is the delay between the water gun being triggered, and the water hitting the door - that is how we work out the speed. The back and forth movement of the jet of water is purely a signal of when to start the stop watch to measure that delay.

Yes again you are correct about the water, but what about light traveling through the vacuum of space?

If we knew that, we would have the speed of light down to the trillionth of a second. Why would we even need to calculate the rotation of Jupiter's moon?

To time the delay between start of the water gun starting (the reflected light from Jupiter), and the water arriving at your door (when you see that light) obviously.

Yes, I see now that I shouldn't of ascribe a constant value to water in a vacuum as with light in a vacuum in my experiment. I agree that there is a huge difference once either the source or the target moves either away or closer to each other. But only with water correct?

But I still have a question (sorry), what if we draw a straight, oh let's say five foot wide line in the desert straight out in front of us for 10 miles, and another a mile to the right parallel to the other line, and have two cars, one at 10 miles out, and another just few feet front of us, with both cars crossing the first line at exactly 100 mph and maintain that speed till they both pass the second line, .. are you saying we would see, or could measure a delay in the 10 mile farther car, passing between those lines compared to the one right in front of us?

I mean something like this could be done with extreme accuracy, at even much greater distances so we could get a better reading, right?

My experiment proves three things

The only thing it proves is frequency of something doesn't change depending on distance.

Yes, .. but wait! If the gun shooting out the water is moving away from the target, won't that effect the frequency?
I mean it would stretch that back and forth motion in our Z axis which would result a slower back and forth motion when it hit our target, .. won't it?

Ah man, .. what if we put the water gun on Io, how would you figure out if the delay is Jupiter simply being farther, or if it's Jupiter's MOVING AWAY SPEED that's causing the waters slower back and forth motion, .. just by what we see on our target?

I guess this is where something moving at a CONSTANT would help, only they didn't know of Einstein's Theory of Relativity back then. What if the speed of light varied, like down to 35 mph? How did they set the constant at exactly 186,282 m/p/s. with all the possible variables still out there, back 400 years ago?

I guess I have to learn how they figured out celestial distances with such great accuracy in a revolving solar system 400 some years ago first? Great, now I feel 400 years dumber than when I started this study. Throw in some non-Euclidean Geometry with a dash of quantum theory, then make a quick jump through a Black hole and I can finally say; "Oh yea, .. I got this!" I want my mommy!

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 168 by arian]
arian wrote:

I guess I have to learn how they figured out celestial distances with such great accuracy in a revolving solar system 400 some years ago first? Great, now I feel 400 years dumber than when I started this study. Throw in some non-Euclidean Geometry with a dash of quantum theory, then make a quick jump through a Black hole and I can finally say; "Oh yea, .. I got this!" Cool Wail I want my mommy!

You are making great progress! Some of your ideas in this thread have been quite ingenious. They were wrong only because your understanding of Relativity, the speed of light, etc, were so wrong to begin with. Once you learn a little about what you are talking about here, you are obviously smart enough to do something useful with it. I apologize for doubting you.

[arian]

.

This is getting tedious. Again, I ask if you are joking? I completely agree with everything you wrote in your description of your experiment, EXCEPT you completely ignored any mention of the whole point of this discussion, the measurement of the speed of the water as it moves between the hose nozzle and the target. Its back-and-forth motion is irrelevant. To measure this speed, we must know the distance between the nozzle and the target, and also a way of comparing the exact times at which the water leaves the nozzle and the time at which it strikes the target. That was the whole point of Roemer's observation. How did you miss it?

I think that you missed it too.

The experiment has nothing to do with the speed, time or distance it left the hose (Jupiter) till it got to the garage door (Earth).
The experiment is better described as a constant pulsating beam of water shot at a moving car (Earth).
When the car is going toward the hose it will hit rapidly ta-ta-ta, but when the car is going away it will hit slower pahdah-pahdah-pahdah. Then if you know the distance the car traveled during the pulse of water, then the difference in time of the two pulses hitting the car and the distance the car traveled will allow you to calculate the speed of the water.

You are right olavisjo, and I believe JohnPaul is right too, in my case anyways. I did not consider what would happen if my gun was either moving closer or farther AS it was shooting out water, and your pulsating water gun clearly shows what would happen. From space, as the source (which is my water gun) moved away as it was shooting, the intervals of each pulse would be farther apart, but what about light which is claimed is constant no matter how its being emitted, coming or going away from the target?

I do understand that light has to be a constant which I thought as INSTANT, but if the Jupiter's moon Io experiment was honest, then light does have a speed, and for this to work, it HAS to be constant.

But then I have to put it in such a perspective where I could visualize this. I understand what JohnPaul is saying, and according to that observation of Io, light would seem to have speed, actually in that sense it must have speed and a constant one at that. But I still have to figure it out in my own simple way to be able to see it in my own mind.

OK, if the speed limit of light in this universe is 186,282 m/p/s MAX

My biggest problem now is to understand this speed limit of light. OK, so I visualize a ship with headlights traveling let's say 170,000 m/p/s, and then turns on his headlights, so with a speed limit on light, that light coming out of the headlight, within this universe can only be 186,282-170,000=16,282 m/p/s, which keeps the light within the universal speed limit of 186,282 m/p/s.

But from my ships perspective, my frame of reference I have a light front of me and originating from me, .. a beam of light that is only traveling at a speed of 16,282 m/p/s

what is wrong with this picture?

I thought that from any source, from any perspective LIGHT is a CONSTANT?

Another word, when I asked about a sun on the outer skirts of the fabric of our universe traveling near or faster than the speed of light, what speed did the light emanating from the front of that sun travel?
I was told that 'light travels at 186,282 m/p/s no matter which direction the source (in this case the sun) was traveling'. And since the source is a sun, it is emanating light in every direction at a constant C.
How is this explained?

Thanks for anyones input.