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.

[arian]

* OK, so far we have Reference frame A the hall

Yep.

* IN Reference frame A the hall we see and observe Walking man coming towards us. We take our radar gun, (which clocks any moving object relative to what it/he is moving on) and clock Walking man at 4mph relative to the same hall carpet we are standing on. (is this good so far?)

No, radar gun clocks object relative to the gun itself (i.e. Reference frame A,) not relative to what he is moving on.

Thanks again Bust Nak.

OK.. we are standing at a [strike]universal[/strike] privileged position then, where everything is 'relative' to us, .. correct?

* Also IN Reference frame A the hall we see a moving sidewalk moving 'away from us' at a preset speed of 4 mph.

Yep.

-On this moving sidewalk we see a man running towards us at 8 mph, which of course is against the direction of the moving sidewalk.
- We radar Running man and the radar indicates he is running 8 mph relative to what he is running on, in this case the moving sidewalk

Again, the radar would indicates he is running 4 mph relative to us, because the radar clocks object relative to the gun itself, not relative to what he is moving on. Only by knowing how fast the sidewalk is moving, can we work out how fast he is moving relative to the sidewalk.

OK, .. so how do we establish the running-man's speed? We see a man running his but off in the opposite direction of a moving side walk, .. we see him running, he is not doing the moon-walk, and we also notice the ground passing below him which indicates to us that he is moving about twice as fast in comparison to the ground passing below walking-man.

* I understand, with your correction (thanks) that our radar gun shows both men moving at a constant speed of 4 mph, and they are [strike]holding[/strike] shaking hands.
We say; "Hey this is weird. Look, there is one guy is running, head and head, and shaking hands with another guy walking, .. what gives?"

We could get a closer look to see if the running-man is running or not, and get on the moving sidewalk with our radar gun, stop moving and clock the guy, which would reveal 8 mph, .. correct?

So we say: "Yep, .. this guy really IS running at 8 mph."

We then go back to our spot in the hall and continue observing this.
*We are now sure tht the Running-man on our right is moving at 8 mph relative to the sidewalk he is traveling on.
We also radar timed Walking-man earlier, and we know he is moving at 4 mph, yet they are traveling head and head and shaking hands which is the two objects sharing same time and same place rule of relativity, where all other reference frames would have to agree on?

How can all reference frames agree that "two objects sharing same time and same place" when running-man is traveling at 8 mph, and walking man is traveling 4 mph in their own reference frames?

We are also watching this happening all at the same time, within our frame of reference A the hall.

Note:
I am trying to comprehend the 'rule' that "there is no universal frame of reference" Without a 'universal reference frame', we would look over to running mans reference frame and say "he is running at 8 mph", and glancing over to 'walking-man's reference frame' we would say "he is walking at 4 mph." They are shaking hands, so is that another reference frame?

Your input please?

[sfs]

0.88c

Lucky guess.

I'm intuitive that way.

[Bust Nak]

OK.. we are standing at a [strike]universal[/strike] privileged position then, where everything is 'relative' to us, .. correct?

Sure, you could say that.

OK, .. so how do we establish the running-man's speed? We see a man running his but off in the opposite direction of a moving side walk, .. we see him running, he is not doing the moon-walk, and we also notice the ground passing below him which indicates to us that he is moving about twice as fast in comparison to the ground passing below walking-man.

What's wrong with using the result establish by the radar gun? The gun says he is running his butt off at 4 mph.

* I understand, with your correction (thanks) that our radar gun shows both men moving at a constant speed of 4 mph, and they are [strike]holding[/strike] shaking hands.
We say; "Hey this is weird. Look, there is one guy is running, head and head, and shaking hands with another guy walking, .. what gives?"

We could get a closer look to see if the running-man is running or not, and get on the moving sidewalk with our radar gun, stop moving and clock the guy, which would reveal 8 mph, .. correct?

So we say: "Yep, .. this guy really IS running at 8 mph."

At which point, you are no longer in reference frame A. When you stepped onto the moving sidewalk, you are in reference frame B. Only in this reference frame, is guy running at 8 mph.

We then go back to our spot in the hall and continue observing this.

At which point you are back in reference frame A, and we say: "Yep, this guy really IS running at 4 mph."

*We are now sure tht the Running-man on our right is moving at 8 mph relative to the sidewalk he is traveling on.

An now that by saying "relative to the sidewalk" you are have switched back to reference frame B.

We also radar timed Walking-man earlier, and we know he is moving at 4 mph, yet they are traveling head and head and shaking hands which is the two objects sharing same time and same place rule of relativity, where all other reference frames would have to agree on?

In reference A both are moving at 4 mph. In reference B both are moving at 8 mph.

How can all reference frames agree that "two objects sharing same time and same place" when running-man is traveling at 8 mph, and walking man is traveling 4 mph in their own reference frames?

I am not sure what you are asking here. Perharps understanding that we are switching reference frames by stepping onto the sidewalk would help you rephase the question?

We are also watching this happening all at the same time, within our frame of reference A the hall.

Well no, we were switching between 2 different reference frame, A - "in the airport" and B - "on the moving sidewalk."

Note:
I am trying to comprehend the 'rule' that "there is no universal frame of reference" Without a 'universal reference frame', we would look over to running mans reference frame and say "he is running at 8 mph", and glancing over to 'walking-man's reference frame' we would say "he is walking at 4 mph." They are shaking hands, so is that another reference frame?

Does reference frame B - "on the moving sidewalk," answer your question?

[sfs]

How can all reference frames agree that "two objects sharing same time and same place" when running-man is traveling at 8 mph, and walking man is traveling 4 mph in their own reference frames?

The terminology being used here is a little confusing, and you haven't grasped an important point. When Bust Nak is talking about someone's reference frame, he's not talking about where he's standing; he's talking about the "rest frame" of the observer, that is, a set of coordinates in which that person is at rest. In my own rest frame, I never move. If I'm running at 8 mph, relative to the ground, then in my rest frame the earth and everything attached to it is moving at 8 mph in the opposite direction.

[help3434]

At which point you are back in reference frame A, and we say: "Yep, this guy really IS running at 4 mph."

He is moving away from us at 4 mph, but if we are talking about the exertion of the guy, we would way 8 mph, just like we would say for a guy working out on a treadmill even though he is going nowhere.

[keithprosser3]

sfs would say a guy running on a treadmill was at rest. Who says science is logical?

[sfs]

sfs would say a guy running on a treadmill was at rest. Who says science is logical?

He's at rest with respect to himself. It's a Zen thing: γνῶθι σαυτόν.

[keithprosser3]

Ζεν δεν είναι ελληνικό

[sfs]

Ζεν δεν είναι ελληνικό

Zen is not limited to one ethnicity.

[Bust Nak]

He is moving away from us at 4 mph, but if we are talking about the exertion of the guy, we would way 8 mph, just like we would say for a guy working out on a treadmill even though he is going nowhere.

Sure, as long as one understands they are switching reference frame from the airport to the moving sidewalk, or switching from the gym to the tread on a treadmill, when one says that.