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.

[help3434]

OK here, .. let's take a picture of each frame of reference, and label them:

A = Platform/shuttle frame of reference where the shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C .. correct?

Hold on here. The frame of reference of the platform and shuttle are different. From the frame of reference of the platform the shuttle is traveling .8 C. From the frame of reference of the shuttle, the shuttle is not moving relative to itself. This may be where much of your confusion about frame of reference comes from.

[arian]

OK here, .. let's take a picture of each frame of reference, and label them:

A = Platform/shuttle frame of reference where the shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C .. correct?

Hold on here. The frame of reference of the platform and shuttle are different. From the frame of reference of the platform the shuttle is traveling .8 C. From the frame of reference of the shuttle, the shuttle is not moving relative to itself. This may be where much of your confusion about frame of reference comes from.

(LOL, .. I doubt the Captain, or the people in the shuttle are that ignorant even when they loose the sight of the platform and no longer feel the acceleration. I believe that in their 'Universal Reference Frame' they KNOW they are the ones moving away from the platform at 0.8 C.)

Sorry but no. I labeled a FRAME of reference called; Platform/shuttle, where we can see in our 'universal frame of reference' that they are moving apart by a velocity of 0.8 C.

This is how I understand a 'Universal Frame of Reference', .. it includes every reference frame that becomes known to us at the SAME TIME, or within the moment we are observing it. Just like science identifies our universe by what they know, or what they can observe (the Known Universe), admitting that the universe may be infinite for all they know, or that there may be infinite number of universes (bubble within a bubble). But since something that cannot be observed, cannot be measured, so we cannot include what 'may be', .. or 'what may seem like' into 'what IS'.

So with this scenario we are only concerned with what is relevant, and in this case, the Platform, and a Shuttle taking off from it. The shuttle is the one speeding away from the platform, and the crew on the shuttle are not dumb, .. they know they are the ones leaving the Platform, .. just like a hundred years ago the people on the train knew they were moving/traveling, even though they were just sitting there, .. correct?

Remember that we are observing things and calculating what becomes known to us in the present, .. in the now.

Now you say that in the people in the/shuttle reference frame the people are not moving, .. correct? That was NOT part of our universal reference frame, but that too can be added in quite easily, including if someone was running back and forth IN the shuttle. Would you like to add that too into our 'universal frame of reference? You may do that, and a million other little-frames of references because our 'universal frame of reference is infinite. So just mention it and we can figure it all out the good old classical way without Einstein's delusions.

For instance, ... why do we say the platform is traveling at 0.4 C? In this case it is relative to the US Space station 113 since nothing else was mentioned. So like I said, .. our universal reference frame is what is relevant for NOW, .. not in the past, or not considering other things like the speed of the Space Station that may be orbiting our solar system.

Yes the Concord could take off from New York and arrive in LA California in no time at all if we look at the the arrival time in L.A, .. but in our 'Universal Frame of Reference we can figure out what we want, if flying time, we know it took the Concord 4 hours, and we know the time difference between N.Y and L.A is 4 hours, so the people getting off the plane didn't really lose any time, they still got all day in LA as if they never traveled.

Like I said, .. if you wish to add more to our 'Universal Reference Frame' like the speed the earth was spinning and moving in space relative to the sun, add to this the speed and direction our sun is moving within our galaxy, and how fast our galaxy is moving towards/away from another near by galaxy at the time the Space station was launched, or the platform was launched from wherever it was launched off of ten or whatever years ago we say it was launched at, .. we can do that, and figure it all out in our Universal Reference Frame.

But if you wish to use Einstein's Universal speed limit of 299,792,458 meters /p/s, .. time dilation, length contraction, then expect some ridiculous paradoxes, because there are plenty out there. I myself have some, like that if there was a Big-Bang, and the universe became this big (as we observe it today) in minutes, from NOTHING, and having 'nothing' below the fabric of space and 'nothing' above it, .. with no Universal Frame of Reference, .. another word viewing all this from the 'nothing' perspective, then we are like a nonexistent (because something from nothing leaves nothing) bug that just hit the windshield of a speeding semi-truck... looking at the universe through its butt-hole.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 262 by arian]

Acceleration? You didn't say that the shuttle was still accelerating when it passes the space station. That changes the whole problem. Also, like I said before you can't just mash together multiple frames of references and then claim it is a universal frame of reference. That gives you nonsense like a shuttle going .8 C and a spaceship going .4 C traveling neck and neck.

[arian]

[Replying to post 262 by arian]

Acceleration? You didn't say that the shuttle was still accelerating when it passes the space station. That changes the whole problem.

I never said it was accelerating when it passed the space station, .. read it again.
And you are right, acceleration creates whole new problems/paradoxes in this Relativity theory.

Also, like I said before you can't just mash together multiple frames of references and then claim it is a universal frame of reference. That gives you nonsense like a shuttle going .8 C and a spaceship going .4 C traveling neck and neck.

Not 'mashing them together' but viewing them in a universal frame of reference. I'ts the ONLY way that it can make sense, where we can figure out how one relates to the other, .. otherwise it becomes a Relativity mush.

A shuttle traveling at 0.8 C neck and neck with a spaceship traveling at 0.4 C is nonsense to you?
What if you were at the airport and seen a man running at 8 mph opposite direction of a moving-sidewalk that was going 4 mph, and was head and head with another man walking 4 mph next to the moving-sidewalk? That is not nonsense my friend, it is fact and ONLY makes sense when viewing it within a universal frame of reference.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 264 by arian]

My mistake, I misread the acceleration part. But just because one person can see and describe multiple frames of references, that doesn't mean there is a universal frame of reference.

[olavisjo]

.

My mistake, I misread the acceleration part. But just because one person can see and describe multiple frames of references, that doesn't mean there is a universal frame of reference.

I wonder if the quantum vacuum is in motion relative to us, if it is, could this be the aether that has not yet been detected. If it is not in motion relative to us, then it may be a property of us, or it may be a constant property like light, that appears the same to all observers. Either way has rather profound implications.

[Bust Nak]

(LOL, .. I doubt the Captain, or the people in the shuttle are that ignorant even when they loose the sight of the platform and no longer feel the acceleration. I believe that in their 'Universal Reference Frame' they KNOW they are the ones moving away from the platform at 0.8 C.)

How is it "universal" if it is "theirs"?

What if you were at (A) the airport and seen (B) a man running at 8 mph opposite direction of (C) a moving-sidewalk that was going 4 mph, and was head and head with (D) another man walking 4 mph next to the moving-sidewalk? That is not nonsense my friend, it is fact and ONLY makes sense when viewing it within a universal frame of reference.

1) From the reference frame of A. A is stationary, B is running at 4 mph, C is moving at -4 mph, D is walking at 4 mph.
2) From the reference frame of B. A is moving at -4 mph, B is stationary, C is moving at -8 mph, D is stationary.
3) From the reference frame of C. A is moving at 4 mph, B is running at 8 mph, C is stationary, D is walking at 8 mph.
4) From the reference frame of D. A is moving at -4 mph, B is stationary, C is moving at -8 mph, D is stationary.

There is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. In every frame of reference, B and D are at the same speed.

The only way one can say B is going at 8 mph and D is going at 4 mph, is to mix and match two different frames of reference (1 and 3 in this case).

Fix your misconception before going any futher. This is basic stuff, you can't dive into time dilation before you get this right.

[DanieltheDragon]

ac.[Replying to post 267 by Bust Nak]

I agree, you can't just start making up stuff about physics and jamming it in there and expecting it all to still work because it won't.

Here is an example that should make it easier to understand:


A speaker is playing a sound at 100 decibels you are 100 yards away and you hear it but only at 75 decibels. The speaker is point A you are point b if you compare the frame of reference for sound at each point they will have completely different measurements.

[arian]

[Replying to post 264 by arian]

My mistake, I misread the acceleration part. But just because one person can see and describe multiple frames of references, that doesn't mean there is a universal frame of reference.

Thanks again help3434

To answer that, I ask you; "Why not"? How else can he describe multiple reference frames with any accuracy other than using a universal frame of reference?

We always have the universe as our "Universal Frame of Reference" even if we are just passengers in a spaceship. Example; we know we are leaving spaceport and soon will reunite with old friends back on earth, .. right? This is our spaceport/earth reference frame. Then we ask the space attendant; "How fast are we traveling?" Now this ADDS the spaceship/spaceport reference frame with e velocity and distance between the two.
We can keep adding infinite amounts of reference frames, all depends on how much information is required to answer our question.

We don't just describe the frame of reference we occupy at the moment. We don't say: "I am sitting motionless in a spaceship" (period).
Nor do we say: "For my friends back on earth, my time seems to go a lot slower with me traveling at 0.8 C." and expect to arrive on earth with my friends much, much older than me. Well leave that in the Particle accelerators quantum world and take their word for it, .. that's about all we can do.

[arian]

(LOL, .. I doubt the Captain, or the people in the shuttle are that ignorant even when they loose the sight of the platform and no longer feel the acceleration. I believe that in their 'Universal Reference Frame' they KNOW they are the ones moving away from the platform at 0.8 C.)

How is it "universal" if it is "theirs"?

Everyone within this universe can use the "Universal Frame of Reference", it's not like anyone has a patten on it.

What if you were at (A) the airport and seen (B) a man running at 8 mph opposite direction of (C) a moving-sidewalk that was going 4 mph, and was head and head with (D) another man walking 4 mph next to the moving-sidewalk? That is not nonsense my friend, it is fact and ONLY makes sense when viewing it within a universal frame of reference.

1) From the reference frame of A. A is stationary, B is running at 4 mph, C is moving at -4 mph, D is walking at 4 mph.
2) From the reference frame of B. A is moving at -4 mph, B is stationary, C is moving at -8 mph, D is stationary.
3) From the reference frame of C. A is moving at 4 mph, B is running at 8 mph, C is stationary, D is walking at 8 mph.
4) From the reference frame of D. A is moving at -4 mph, B is stationary, C is moving at -8 mph, D is stationary.

And how did you figure this out?

Was it standing still in 'A' brain dead? Or was it observing everything that is presented before you? Putting each frame of reference in perspective and viewing it within the "Universal Frame of Reference", .. like you just did above?

There is no such thing as a universal frame of reference. In every frame of reference, B and D are at the same speed.

How can you say that? If we took a radar gun that measures the speed relative to the car and the road right below it, (not relative to the other cars) and used it to clock the man 'B' running, what would we get?
We would get a man running at 8 mph.

Now we point it at man 'D' (who is walking head to head with running man 'B') what would we get?
We would get a man walking at 4 mph.
It is ONLY in the 'Universal Frame of Reference' where we can figure out and understand why these two men with two different speeds can be traveling head to head.
The universal answer?
There are two reference frames, where in 'B' a man is running opposite a moving sidewalk clocked at 8 mph,
and in another reference frame a man is clocked walking at 4 mph the same direction as the man 'B' is running. The reason they are head to head is because IN OUR Universal Reference frame we see TWO shared reference frames.
You could not observe this in any ONE reference frame because things would seem very different than what it really IS.

If you disagree, by all means please show me where I am wrong?

The only way one can say B is going at 8 mph and D is going at 4 mph, is to mix and match two different frames of reference (1 and 3 in this case).

Mix and matching is ONLY in Einstein's Relativity where they throw in time dilation and length contraction along with single frame reference views and what MAY SEEM like for one frame looking into the other, and they blend this all up and tell people; "Here drink this, it's from Einstein, trust us it will make you wise!"

Fix your misconception before going any futher. This is basic stuff, you can't dive into time dilation before you get this right.

Please show me my misconception of a 'Universal Frame of Reference' first, before I show you the misconception of 'time dilation' and 'length contraction'.

Thanks