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.

[A Troubled Man]

Hmmm. Problems like these have always confused me, math or no math. For example, the two ships leaving the space station in opposite directions at speed of .4 C and then returning would be symmetrical in relation to the space station, but they have been moving at .8 C in relation to each other, so the time difference between the two ships would be quite different than that between each ship and the space station?

Even if both ships went in opposite directions, as long as they accelerate, decelerate and travel at the same velocities and timeframes, they should be almost identical regarding how much time has dilated. It is when the other ships accelerate and decelerate to a different velocity do we need to calculate separately and transform them for comparison.

Also, most of the time would be spent in accelerating and decellerating, which I understand is quite different than motion at a constant speed.

Absolutely. They are key factors in calculating time dilation.

[arian]

[Replying to post 174 by arian]
Arian, your sample problem involving multiple spaceships moving at different speeds and in different directions is too complicated for my feeble brain to tackle at the moment. I will leave it to some of the geniuses here in the forum. Besides, it involves acceleration, speeding up and slowing down, turning around, etc. That completely screws up the relatively simple math of motion at constant speeds, and requires more math than I have. It would involve General Relativity math, not just Special Relativity, and even Einstein needed help with that.

Thanks again

I believe A Troubled Man also agrees with me when I say that none of the acceleration/deceleration would matter since they are all doing it at the same rate.

What I see is a paradox created in a 'shared inertial frame of reference' when using Time Dilation in the Theory of Relativity.

Besides the complicated math to calculate the relativistic effects, your example involves some practical engineering problems. Accelerating at a rate tolerable to humans, a spaceship would have to fire its rockets continuously for several months to reach a speed of .8 C, and the same again for slowing down. By that time, the ship would not only be far beyond the space station, it would be completely out of the Solar System and on its way to the stars.

Again, I don't see how any of that would effect my proposal? Besides, I believe I can make my Inertial Frame of Reference as large as I want, .. don't you agree?

Also, chemical rockets can carry enough fuel to fire their rockets for only a few minutes, certainly not for several months. Even if we developed fusion drives, there would still be the problem of carrying reaction mass. I am afraid it will be some time before your hypothetical problem becomes a real problem.

Well if it doesn't work as I stated it, it wouldn't work in mathematics either. And if it doesn't work on paper, .. then we already have a real problem!?

Again I thank you.

[arian]

Yes JohnPaul time slowing down would make perfect sense as you explained above. I have no problem in understanding that.
Only for some reason, .. for now, with all the experiments I have done in my head regarding time dilation, I just cannot see TIME slowing down as we travel faster. and here is one example why; (there is more)

Time does not slow down for us as we travel faster, our clocks tick as normally as if we were at rest. It is the clocks that are at rest or moving at different velocities from us that are observed to tick slower.

Thanks 'A Troubled Man', and yes I understand that, but the fact remains that less time would pass for the one traveling faster within the Inertial Frame of Reference I described (well, according to how I understand you guys explaining it to me anyways)

Look;

* take two ships facing opposite directions, and make the Space-station as our starting point, as our inertial frame of reference.

* Now let both ships accelerate to 0.4 C in a straight line going the opposite direction, OK?

* After about a light month, they both stop and return to the space station.

Now what is the age, or time difference between each ship? There is none, right? Why? It is because of the symmetry of acceleration, both ships would have aged the same.

That is correct.

Great, .. so here is what happens next, let's call one 'event A', and the other 'event B'

OK, now lets do this again and add two more ships, but this time let's add a shuttle facing backwards onto one of the LEFT moving ships traveling right towards the Space Station, and we have another ship coming in from the RIGHT of the space station, ..all traveling at 0.4 C.

Now once they reach the Space Station, the LEFT ship carrying the shuttle looses the shuttle and continues to travel the same direction to the right at 0.4 C past the space station,
and the RIGHT ship continues in the same direction passing the space station to the left. (they pass each other going opposite directions), BUT back at the same inertial frame right at the space station the shuttle launched from the LEFT ship and started heading left at 0.8 C.

See the speed paradox

I see no "speed paradox" at all, what exactly are you referring?

Sorry, I was thinking ahead. I explain this speed paradox in my very next sentence, that; <quote> in the same inertial frame we have the RIGHT ship that just passed the space station traveling left at 0.4 C, side by side with the shuttle (that launched off of the LEFT ship) traveling at 0.8 C the same direction side by side for the duration of a light month.[/quote]

the time paradox follows:

* So in the same inertial frame we have the RIGHT ship that just passed the space station traveling left at 0.4 C, side by side with the shuttle (that launched off of the LEFT ship) traveling at 0.8 C the same direction side by side for the duration of a light month.

* In the opposite direction we also have two ships traveling at 0.4 C, one of them is the ship the shuttle launched off from, .. and at exactly one light month they all turn around and they all arrive at the space station.

In the two shared inertial frames that arrived at the space station, the shuttle aged less then the other ships.

Not necessarily, the shuttle was traveling faster than the other ships, hence the time dilation calculations must be derived separately based on the changes in velocity. Doubling the speed does not mean we double the dilation.

I understand that, but the two reference frames are within 'ONE' which I am describing to you.

As I am observing this right in front of me, I see;

* the space station
* three ships and a shuttle where two ships are traveling to the right of the space station at 0.4 C
* At the left of the space-station a ship and the shuttle going LEFT X- direction 'side by side' for the duration, yet I know they have two different speeds, the shuttle a speed of 0.8 C, and the ship above it continues at .4 C.

Note: Remember that the shuttle launched at 0.8 C 'the opposite direction' off of the ship that continues traveling RIGHT at 0.4 C.

Another word, lets say if earth was flying through space to the right, or X+ of our inertial frame of reference at 0.4 C, and we would have two rockets launching, one from one side of the earth, the direction the earth is traveling, or X+ direction at 0.8 C, .. and the other rocket launching at the other side of the earth at 0.8 C at X- direction. They BOTH would be traveling at 0.8 C in this Inertial Frame I just described, .. right?

OK, so in our frame of reference we have two rockets traveling the opposite directions at 0.8 C, but what we didn't notice till now is that the ship USS Enterprise was passing by earth at 0.4 C traveling LEFT, or X- direction, and this happened just as our X- direction rocket launched from earth at 0.8 C

What we see happening in the X- direction is two objects; a rocket and our spaceship USS Enterprise traveling side by side, .. 'seemingly' the same speeds, but in reality the USS Enterprise is traveling at 0.4 C, and the rocket is traveling at 0.8 C side by side in the same direction indefinitely.

Thank you again JohnPaul. Please don't take this as arrogance on my part, but I understand all the concepts of quantum physics I have read, heard and seen so far, but the mathematical part I couldn't even start without taking grade school Algebra, Geometry, (I know Trigonometry pretty good) but would definitely need a few years of physics. So far there has been no philosophical, or scientific concept that I could not understand

And yet, to actually gain full understanding of those physics concepts, one must indeed understand the math. It simply doesn't work with mere layman's terms.

Please forgive me, but I have to disagree, because I still cannot figure out the side I want on a triangle, .. but I still was able to figure out some very complex trigonometry problems that surprised even a Professor of Trig of a well known University. Even after I explained to him how I did it, he could not understand how I got that last triangle (of the multiple triangles that took to solve the problem)

This is very similar in that I can describe the problem in layman's terms and even give you the numbers associated with the problem and show you where is the error, but you will have to do the math yourself.

The error is that there is a shuttle and a spaceship traveling side by side, while the shuttle is traveling at twice the speed of the ship. Actually, I don't think anyone could really explain this situation in purely mathematical terms!? Of course I could be wrong since I'm very new at this higher level of physics, and as critical as it is, I acknowledge that my explanations of these concepts, are poor.

I pray this helps, and again I thank you for considering this A Troubled Man.

[pjnlsn]

I will try a couple of answers. "Why" is a very deep question. Science tries to explain "how" things work, but often cannot explain the deeper question of "why." The speed of light at 186,282 mps is one of the many constants of nature which we find in the universe around us. Call it a whim of God if you like. Some people talk about the "permeability of space" limiting the speed of light, but that only pushes the question back a step. What and why is permeability?

Hey thanks again JohnPaul.

Yes, I can see that permeability would seem to explain a speed limit on light, I kind of visualize this as friction on a book sliding on a desk, or actually water seeping through a vey fine strainer. I imagine pouring a gallon of water in a big bowl fine gradient strainer where the water would permeate through the strainer (matter) at a constant. But it's not a strainer, because they say that the slowing process of light in matter is thought to result not from actual slowing of particles of light, but rather from their absorption and re-emission from charged particles in matter.

But what is the substance that light permeate through absorption and re-emission in space to keep it at this speed limit? If it's not some substance in space, then what, some magnetic flux?
Or is it gravity of space? Is the entire space in the universe made up of some sort of constant gravity acting like a strainer that limits light to this constant? Actually I could see that, and it would explain a lot of things.

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

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

It's rather interesting actually, it's been found that more and more phenomena, and some of the Fundamental Forces can actually be explained in more detail by the actions of these so called virtual particles.

[JohnPaul]

Hmmm. Problems like these have always confused me, math or no math. For example, the two ships leaving the space station in opposite directions at speed of .4 C and then returning would be symmetrical in relation to the space station, but they have been moving at .8 C in relation to each other, so the time difference between the two ships would be quite different than that between each ship and the space station?

Even if both ships went in opposite directions, as long as they accelerate, decelerate and travel at the same velocities and timeframes, they should be almost identical regarding how much time has dilated. It is when the other ships accelerate and decelerate to a different velocity do we need to calculate separately and transform them for comparison.

Also, most of the time would be spent in accelerating and decellerating, which I understand is quite different than motion at a constant speed.

Absolutely. They are key factors in calculating time dilation.

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

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

[arian]

I will try a couple of answers. "Why" is a very deep question. Science tries to explain "how" things work, but often cannot explain the deeper question of "why." The speed of light at 186,282 mps is one of the many constants of nature which we find in the universe around us. Call it a whim of God if you like. Some people talk about the "permeability of space" limiting the speed of light, but that only pushes the question back a step. What and why is permeability?

Hey thanks again JohnPaul.

Yes, I can see that permeability would seem to explain a speed limit on light, I kind of visualize this as friction on a book sliding on a desk, or actually water seeping through a vey fine strainer. I imagine pouring a gallon of water in a big bowl fine gradient strainer where the water would permeate through the strainer (matter) at a constant. But it's not a strainer, because they say that the slowing process of light in matter is thought to result not from actual slowing of particles of light, but rather from their absorption and re-emission from charged particles in matter.

But what is the substance that light permeate through absorption and re-emission in space to keep it at this speed limit? If it's not some substance in space, then what, some magnetic flux?
Or is it gravity of space? Is the entire space in the universe made up of some sort of constant gravity acting like a strainer that limits light to this constant? Actually I could see that, and it would explain a lot of things.

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

Hey thanks pjnlsn, and welcome to the forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's rather interesting actually, it's been found that more and more phenomena, and some of the Fundamental Forces can actually be explained in more detail by the actions of these so called virtual particles.

Yes I am beginning to see that too, so now I am actually beginning to see Gods invisible properties through science. Please don't take that as a religious remark, it's not. It is my recent unquenchable desire to know the truth, or as science might say; "to find the answer to EVERYTHING"?

I thank you for your response and hope to hear a lot more from you my friend, it is all very interesting, and hey, .. it gives you some 'brushing up' time too, right?

[10CC]

[Replying to post 186 by arian]

And does that help you understand why this god would want to burn anyone who doesn't believe in it for eternity?

[arian]

Hmmm. Problems like these have always confused me, math or no math. For example, the two ships leaving the space station in opposite directions at speed of .4 C and then returning would be symmetrical in relation to the space station, but they have been moving at .8 C in relation to each other, so the time difference between the two ships would be quite different than that between each ship and the space station?

Even if both ships went in opposite directions, as long as they accelerate, decelerate and travel at the same velocities and timeframes, they should be almost identical regarding how much time has dilated. It is when the other ships accelerate and decelerate to a different velocity do we need to calculate separately and transform them for comparison.

Also, most of the time would be spent in accelerating and decellerating, which I understand is quite different than motion at a constant speed.

Absolutely. They are key factors in calculating time dilation.

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

Hi JohnPaul, I know you are asking A Troubled Man these questions, and I too await his answer, .. but if I may answer your question, it is this;

There is a logical contradiction within the Theory Of Relativity and it is idea of Time Dilation
There is NO Time Dilation, so it is either an error, or a hoax to confuse.

There is ONLY ONE Inertial Frame of Reference, and it is the UNIVERSE.

Look at it again; the shuttle took off at 0.8 C from a ship that was traveling the other direction at 0.4 C. So 0.8-0.4 = 0.4 The shuttle in MY UNIVERSAL Reality, which is science (because science observes THIS Universe, not an imaginary one) is really traveling at 0.4 C

The ship above it is also traveling at 0.4 C in the same direction, so they are really traveling at the same speed just as we see it, that is relative to UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICS.

This Time Dilation splits each event as if they were happening in different universes with an explanation of; "IF it was possible for this guy in the ship from THIS universe to see the watch of the OTHER guy in that other universe (frame of reference) then this or that is what they WOULD see, ... We have ONE universal frame of reference, ONE time and ONE laws of mathematics with which we can figure out everything happening in this universe.

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

EXACTLY!

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

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

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

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

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

[arian]

[Replying to post 186 by arian]

And does that help you understand why this god would want to burn anyone who doesn't believe in it for eternity?

You're funny.

I love science, only I didn't have much schooling so I missed out on a lot of observations that became theories that reveal the work and design that went into creating this universe.

But there are so many 'tares' sown into these theories that it becomes tedious painstaking work to get them all out. I am NOT aiming to remove them all, because it is obvious to me that the wicked-one is busy sowing more. All I ask the Lord to help me with is to clear enough chaff so others could get to see that there is still some wheat left. The Lord, my King is coming with His Angels to do the final separation, that final cleansing.

You see friend, I KNOW something with absolute certainty, that God exists, and I also know that He is not in theology with all their god and gods. I have done a meticulous search through the rubble of the tens of thousands of religions and their gods to know He is not there. But science has evolved to where it reveals the invisible qualities of the Creator as they get away from the things they can observe only with their physical eyes. So any honest quantum Theorists will tell you that a Creator God exists.

Now if you want to debate; why this god would want to burn anyone who doesn't believe in it for eternity?, this is not the post for that, but let me know with a PM if you decide to start one.

Thanks, and take care.

[pjnlsn]

Hi JohnPaul, I know you are asking A Troubled Man these questions, and I too await his answer, .. but if I may answer your question, it is this;

There is a logical contradiction within the Theory Of Relativity and it is idea of Time Dilation
There is NO Time Dilation, so it is either an error, or a hoax to confuse.

There is ONLY ONE Inertial Frame of Reference, and it is the UNIVERSE.

Look at it again; the shuttle took off at 0.8 C from a ship that was traveling the other direction at 0.4 C. So 0.8-0.4 = 0.4 The shuttle in MY UNIVERSAL Reality, which is science (because science observes THIS Universe, not an imaginary one) is really traveling at 0.4 C

The ship above it is also traveling at 0.4 C in the same direction, so they are really traveling at the same speed just as we see it, that is relative to UNIVERSAL MATHEMATICS.

This Time Dilation splits each event as if they were happening in different universes with an explanation of; "IF it was possible for this guy in the ship from THIS universe to see the watch of the OTHER guy in that other universe (frame of reference) then this or that is what they WOULD see, ... We have ONE universal frame of reference, ONE time and ONE laws of mathematics with which we can figure out everything happening in this universe.

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

EXACTLY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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