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.

[pjnlsn]

[Replying to post 212 by arian]

Offhand, there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the ToR in this post.

I myself had until recently a misunderstanding about adding velocities in certain reference frames, but you're being (obviously) rather exceptionally juvenile about the whole thing.

I described the situation clearly in my past post to JohnPaul, and in many consecutive posts, and everyone so far understood it, except it still seems you, .. so I AM being exceptionally juvenile?

I have no problem in calculating velocities in different reference frames, nor the elapsed-time differences no matter what and how many individual or shared reference frames you provide, .. try me?

As far as misunderstanding of the ToR, join the millions who have given up and simply (as you put it previously to me) accepted it, since they won't be using it anyways, ... ever, except in sci-fi movies/documentaries.

I don't believe we are allowed to quote articles we ourselves don't understand, .. I'm just saying. It's not debating, you know what I mean?

Thank you my friend, and no hard feelings. I enjoy debating with you and looking forward for many more debates.

Obviously there's juvenility woven through a great deal of your writing. Beyond that, I've basically answered all your questions in the thread, some to you and other people, some just to other people. Given that the answers to all your questions are already contained in the thread, and yet you're asking them in posts woven through with juvenility is a sign, to put it one way. There's a difference between debate and provoking an argument. By all that you've written, you likely want the latter more than the former.

[otseng]

but you're being (obviously) rather exceptionally juvenile about the whole thing.

Obviously there's juvenility woven through a great deal of your writing.

Moderator Comment

Please do not accuse others of being juvenile.

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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Right, but this is a secondary issue with measuring the speed of light - bear in mind that with Romer's observation, we are talking about the frequence of Io's movement, the frequence of Io's appearance and disappearance, not the frequence of lightwaves (i.e. that red shift I mentioned before.)

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

Same principle applies. The speed is proportional to the distance and inversely proportional to the time delay. Speed is distance over time.

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?

No, the same thing applies to light, and anything that travels for that matter. That water can travel at different speed depending the water gun and pressure, air resistence and so on, does not change how we measure the speed of something one bit. This is just simple classical mechanics, we haven't even gone into relativity yet.

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?

Yes, the car 10 miles away, would appear to cross the finishing line ever so slightly later than the car close to us, even though they physically crossed the finishing line at exactly the same time.

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

Correct. At only 10 miles apart, the delay would only be around 0.00005 second.

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?

That's right. The opposite is also true, if the water gun is moving towards the target the frequency would increase.

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?

Your first experiment has already shown that frequency doesn't change based on distance, but does change based on movement, i.e. a change in distance.

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.

I've already mentioned this multiple times. We are dealing with classical mechanics here. We need to sort out the basics before we move onto Einstein's theories of Relativity.

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?

Quite simply because that's the result they got from their measurements. I don't even understandy why you are asking this question. Why would anyone say light travels at 35mph when they measured it at 186282 mps?

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?

Well, Romer were out by a fair bit but it's still an achievement for settling the question on whether light was instant or not. Read this for more detail.

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!

Try sticking to one thing at a time then build up. Don't jump in the deep end until you are confident with the basics.

[arian]

[Replying to post 212 by arian]

Offhand, there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the ToR in this post.

I myself had until recently a misunderstanding about adding velocities in certain reference frames, but you're being (obviously) rather exceptionally juvenile about the whole thing.

I described the situation clearly in my past post to JohnPaul, and in many consecutive posts, and everyone so far understood it, except it still seems you, .. so I AM being exceptionally juvenile?

I have no problem in calculating velocities in different reference frames, nor the elapsed-time differences no matter what and how many individual or shared reference frames you provide, .. try me?

As far as misunderstanding of the ToR, join the millions who have given up and simply (as you put it previously to me) accepted it, since they won't be using it anyways, ... ever, except in sci-fi movies/documentaries.

I don't believe we are allowed to quote articles we ourselves don't understand, .. I'm just saying. It's not debating, you know what I mean?

Thank you my friend, and no hard feelings. I enjoy debating with you and looking forward for many more debates.

Obviously there's juvenility woven through a great deal of your writing. Beyond that, I've basically answered all your questions in the thread, some to you and other people, some just to other people. Given that the answers to all your questions are already contained in the thread, and yet you're asking them in posts woven through with juvenility is a sign, to put it one way.

Thanks again pjnlsn, but no one has really answered my question regarding the two objects; one ship and the other a shuttle traveling side by side, head to head yet one is traveling at 0.4 C and the other at 0.8 C where one ages less?

In the 'Old Way', as they say, this is NOT a problem, because even me with a juvenile amount of schooling could figure that out, and I did to JohnPaul. My (as I believe JohnPaul's) remaining and unanswered question was not that one ship is going 0.4 C relative to the space station neck to neck with a shuttle traveling at 0.8 C relative to the ship it launched off of heading the other direction, but a claim in these Relativistic Effects specifically 'Time Dilation'; that if a ship travels at 0.8 C in a shared frame of reference with a ship traveling at 0.4 C, the 0.8 C ship would have aged less.

What you call my desire to 'argue' really is the cause of the Theory of Relativity where X and Y coordinates are allowed to be freely exchanged, and even MIXED in with 't' and 'v' on a Euclidean 'chart' along with Newtonian mechanics.
Where relativity assigns unrealistic VALUES like 'May Seem like' to common sense things we can measure and trig out the 'old fashioned way' with minimal effort.

There's a difference between debate and provoking an argument. By all that you've written, you likely want the latter more than the former.

That is a common feeling for all of us 'debaters' when our intelligence is being threatened, especially in cases like protecting our god or gods in religion, just as this Theory of Relativity that has created its own unintelligible and senseless laws of physics. Do you begin to see the relation between this and all those other ideas created by religion?

Welcome to the 'real debates' my friend, because here you will go through a lot of different emotions, the trick is to control them! The tougher the Debaters, the easier for us to loose it, and I doubt anyone here could claim they haven't. So welcome to the club.

[arian]

The first thing anyone has to do, to understand the ToR, is accept, as shown by countless experiments, that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

And I call that Universal Frame of Reference, but then you guys start splitting up reference points like a butcher

Then, it would appear you don't know the definition of a reference frame, which is one of the reasons you're so confused.

Is this a fair brief 'definition' of reference frames in the ToR?

Wikipedia on ToR - This theory has a wide range of consequences which have been experimentally verified, including counter-intuitive ones such as length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity.
It has replaced the classical notion of invariant time interval for two events with the notion of invariant space-time interval. Combined with other laws of physics, the two postulates of special relativity predict the equivalence of mass and energy, as expressed in the mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, where c is the speed of light in vacuum

Because I understand the definition, only I don't agree with all of its claims on length contraction, time dilation and relativity of simultaneity, for the reasons I have explained before.

So before I go into the paradoxes of length contractions, I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation of 'time dilation' for the 'shuttle' and the 'ship' traveling neck to neck, one at 0.8 C and the other at 0.4 C as to how and why one ages less than the other?

I have no doubt, .. not even the slightest doubt that Time Dilation is a senseless hoax

And, while you sit their in doubt, your GPS will work to get show you how to get from one place to another, utilizing Relativity, despite your doubts.

I could say the same thing to you about our Creator, while you sit their in doubt, He continues to shine the sun and bring the rain for our sustainability at any rate, for any amount of people on earth. And that is a fact that you will never be able to contradict with the claims in this Theory Of Relativity. Actually in a sense, most of it proves Gods power and His ability to sustain not only seven billion people he created on earth, but all the trillions upon trillions of galaxies too.

remember; E=MC^2, .. where Everything is Energy, and we need energy to exist.

But let's not forget that no one has given me a reasonable explanation how 'atomic clocks' keeping time on GPS Satellites has anything to do with trigging out my position on earth? In your own words please? You may use references, but NOT JUST references. You know, ... just like us Believers are not allowed to quote the Bible (because it says so) as an answer to Unbelievers. I mean fair is fair, .. right?

Thanks again ATroubledMan!

[A Troubled Man]

Is this a fair brief 'definition' of reference frames in the ToR?

Uh, you need to look up "reference frames".

[pjnlsn]

[Replying to post 212 by arian]

Offhand, there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of the ToR in this post.

I myself had until recently a misunderstanding about adding velocities in certain reference frames, but you're being (obviously) rather exceptionally juvenile about the whole thing.

I described the situation clearly in my past post to JohnPaul, and in many consecutive posts, and everyone so far understood it, except it still seems you, .. so I AM being exceptionally juvenile?

I have no problem in calculating velocities in different reference frames, nor the elapsed-time differences no matter what and how many individual or shared reference frames you provide, .. try me?

As far as misunderstanding of the ToR, join the millions who have given up and simply (as you put it previously to me) accepted it, since they won't be using it anyways, ... ever, except in sci-fi movies/documentaries.

I don't believe we are allowed to quote articles we ourselves don't understand, .. I'm just saying. It's not debating, you know what I mean?

Thank you my friend, and no hard feelings. I enjoy debating with you and looking forward for many more debates.

Obviously there's juvenility woven through a great deal of your writing. Beyond that, I've basically answered all your questions in the thread, some to you and other people, some just to other people. Given that the answers to all your questions are already contained in the thread, and yet you're asking them in posts woven through with juvenility is a sign, to put it one way.

Thanks again pjnlsn, but no one has really answered my question regarding the two objects; one ship and the other a shuttle traveling side by side, head to head yet one is traveling at 0.4 C and the other at 0.8 C where one ages less?

In the 'Old Way', as they say, this is NOT a problem, because even me with a juvenile amount of schooling could figure that out, and I did to JohnPaul. My (as I believe JohnPaul's) remaining and unanswered question was not that one ship is going 0.4 C relative to the space station neck to neck with a shuttle traveling at 0.8 C relative to the ship it launched off of heading the other direction, but a claim in these Relativistic Effects specifically 'Time Dilation'; that if a ship travels at 0.8 C in a shared frame of reference with a ship traveling at 0.4 C, the 0.8 C ship would have aged less.

What you call my desire to 'argue' really is the cause of the Theory of Relativity where X and Y coordinates are allowed to be freely exchanged, and even MIXED in with 't' and 'v' on a Euclidean 'chart' along with Newtonian mechanics.
Where relativity assigns unrealistic VALUES like 'May Seem like' to common sense things we can measure and trig out the 'old fashioned way' with minimal effort.

There's a difference between debate and provoking an argument. By all that you've written, you likely want the latter more than the former.

That is a common feeling for all of us 'debaters' when our intelligence is being threatened, especially in cases like protecting our god or gods in religion, just as this Theory of Relativity that has created its own unintelligible and senseless laws of physics. Do you begin to see the relation between this and all those other ideas created by religion?

Welcome to the 'real debates' my friend, because here you will go through a lot of different emotions, the trick is to control them! The tougher the Debaters, the easier for us to loose it, and I doubt anyone here could claim they haven't. So welcome to the club.

Most of this information has already been given in the thread, and the rest has been referenced. Given that the answers to all your questions are already contained or referenced in the thread, and yet you're asking them in posts woven through with a particular attitude and demeanor is a sign.

The previous and the following as already stated in one form or another, there's a difference between a debate and provoking an argument, or being purposefully obtuse. (that's to say, ignoring available information, even on these forums and even in this thread, in an apparently purposeful manner and while displaying a particular attitude). It's also a different thing from wanting people to cater to one's emotionally driven preconceptions.

Indeed I would think such is directly against the intent of this site.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 183 by arian]
arian wrote:

* 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.

Speeds are meaningless unless you specify what the speed is relative to. That is what "Relativity" means. In this case, the shuttle may have launched at .8 C relative to the ship it launched from, but it is now really moving at .8 C relative to that ship, at .4 C relative to the space station, and is stationary relative to the ship on the other side of the space station. All these speeds are equally "real." Thus, THREE different speeds and THREE different relative time dilations are in effect here.

Another question for you. You said you knew something about trigonometry? Then you may have noticed that the formula I gave in a previous post for calculating time dilation, SQR ROOT(1-v^2) is actually the equation of a circle. In other words, the time dilation ratio is the "sine" relative to the velocity as "cosine." Thus, as the velocity approaches the speed of light, the time dilation ratio approaches zero, but not linearly. My question is, is this a coincidence, or does this have some deeper meaning about the ultimate four-dimensional structure of the universe?

[A Troubled Man]

Thus, as the velocity approaches the speed of light, the time dilation ratio approaches zero, but not linearly. My question is, is this a coincidence, or does this have some deeper meaning about the ultimate four-dimensional structure of the universe?

It does indeed, it shows that the "barrier" of how fast anything can travel is based on the permittivity and permeability of that four-dimensional structure and that the speed of light traveling through it will not be affected by the speed of objects contained within it.

[arian]

As a follow up, there is in a hypothetical sense a 'universal' reference-frame, or in other words the 'perspective' of the universe, but apart from this hypothetical, a universal reference frame doesn't exist. Certainly on a mathematical level one considers problems in Relativity from an abstract perspective where each reference frame is denoted by symbols and in the manipulation of those symbols we are operating from that universal perspective.

I am sorry, but I just can't understand how you can call a universal reference frame/perspective hypothetical?

Look, .. years ago I bought my boy a huge Star Wars Lego set, but to put it together the engineers broke the assembly instructions in the assembly book (universal, or actually total perspective) down into individual sections (individual reference frames), correct?
Now I know you may say; 'But they're not moving' .. but today they can make a video assembly instructions where they could show a 360 deg rotation in every direction, or individual inertial frames.

But both the engineers that designed the ship and my son following those instructions kept a 'universal frame of reference', .. another word my boy time to time looked at the box cover picture of the total ship to keep a universal reference, as to where each individual reference frame fit in. Otherwise he would be left with individual sections sort of just floating in space, .. isn't that right?

But as mere observers it seems as though we are bound to never reach this higher plane, so to speak, but rather are subject to the distorting effects of the reference frame we occupy.

I'm sorry but I can no longer limit my perspective of the universe, or my life to such (I don't know how to describe it) such narrow and limited point of view. Wouldn't that be tunnel vision?

Why do you guys insist on limiting your perspective to what you can calculate with mathematics or through some equation? I mean I understand the practical need for that when planing to build something, but to limit the universe to what we know in mathematics is like spending your whole life in a cube.

Our mind is INFINITE, .. it is what we received from God our Creator, .. what makes man a 'living soul', a living, active, reasoning, rationalizing being (again, .. this is not meant as a religious comment)