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.. 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.

Bad radar gun, Einstein would not like the radar gun because it only tells us what it seems like in OUR reference frame, not what it actually IS in its own reference frame, which is 8 mph. Remember he said there is NO Universal Frame of Reference, and you agree. This is why we are debating this, because I say Einstein is wrong in stating that there is no universal reference frame.

* 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.

But I am still in the Hall Reference Frame A!
I moved in running-mans reference frame to do a measurement to prove what I already know, that running-man is running at 8 mph.

OK, fine, .. Running man is a health nut and always keeps a track of how many miles he walked/ran a day, so he is rigged with a walking-meter. From our Reference frame A I yell over to running-man and ask him: "Sir, .. you over there on the moving sidewalk, how fast are you traveling?"

Running-man proudly yells back: "According to my little speedometer, a steady 8 mph! puf.. puff.. Why?"

"Well because you don't seem to be moving any faster than the gentleman you are shaking hands with, and we clocked him at only 4 mph."

Running man: "I'm surprised you can't see the moving sidewalk I am running against? Look, .. see the sidewalk? .. see it moving? .. see me running against it? OK then, puff, .. puff .. sheesh, .. try to use your Gods-eye view!"

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."

Nice try, .. lol,

No, .. actually, now we KNOW that running man is traveling at 8 mph, without a doubt. We measured him, asked him, and both match .. he is traveling at 8 mph.

Let's ask Einstein: "What is the speed of Running-man in his reference frame Mr. Einstein?" (remember there is no universal frame of reference for Mr. Einstein)

Einstein: "Since there is no Universal Frame of Reference, what Bust Nak is measuring is from his universal view, bad Bust Nak, breaking my rule, and that is why he is getting an erroneous velocity of 4 mph. But that is not correct in running mans frame of reference, you are correct because you asked running man and he told you that he is running at 8 mph, AND you verified this by going into his reference frame and measured it with your radar gun at 8 mph, and both match, .. running-man is actually traveling at 8 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.

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

No, .. I am in Reference frame A, I only have verified Running-mans velocity of 8 mph in reference frame B, which by the way happens to be in our universal frame of reference A.

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.

No, .. you even said that 'in Reference frame A there are many reference frames' remember?
So even according to you, in our Universal Frame of Reference 'A' there are many reference frames of different speeds, and if there were other people there in our Universal Reference Frame A, there would be many different directions also, .. isn't that right?
For now we are observing two individual reference frames within our universal reference frame 'A', .. and it is walking-man, and running-man.

What I believe Einstein meant (which I believe was perverted just as other studies of science have been) was that; 'Within our Universal Frame of Reference (Gods eye view) we must take each reference frames position to figure out its velocity from it's original object it left from,
the direction it is heading relative to itself,
any deviation in its speed, or from its own direction, to be able to make sense out of everything that is going on in our universe.

Once we know everything there is to know of these individual frames of references within our Universal Reference Frame, we can predict future events, and time these events will happen.

Jumping from reference frame to reference frame to determine what is happening in our universe, we get things that SEEM-LIKE, .. like time dilation and length contraction, and other confusing nonsense that create nothing but paradoxes.

In reference B both are moving at 8 mph.

See what I mean, .. it becomes all confusing my friend, you are confusing yourself because you don't want to accept a Universal Frame of Reference.

In reference frame B (running-mans point of view), both are moving 4 mph relative to the ground (on which the moving-sidewalk is traveling 4mph) and the wall in the hall which is all in the universal reference frame 'A'.

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?

OK, .. my question was based on what that professor on Einstein's relativity in that YouTube video was saying to the class. He opened his hands and said that each person in the room, from their own respective reference frames would have a different POV dependent on where each one was sitting.

* As I understand, a student sitting 10 feet to the side in-line with both the professors hands, where one was blocking his view of the other, he couldn't measure a distance between his hands. They may as well be together for all he knew.

* Another student sitting ten feet in front of the professor would see that his hands ARE apart, only he couldn't tell exactly how far apart from this distance (like I said the sun looks 10 inches in diameter from here on earth)

He then said that each student would have a different perspective with his hands apart like that, .. until (then he slapped his hands together) "two objects meet and share the same place, at the same time". He said that this was the only time that all other reference frames would have to agree on. That no one could say it didn't happen.

Now what I am referring to is that we have two different objects with two verified different speeds shaking hands, sharing the same space at the same time. This would be an Einstein problem because he claims there is no Universal Frame of Reference. I so, that we only have individual frames of reference to figure all this out by, then in one frame we have running man doing 8 mph, and in another we have walking-man doing 4 mph shaking hands with running man.

"Hi, .. puf, .. puf, .. I'm running man, .. I'm doing 8 mph, puff, .. puff, .. nice to meet you!" shakes hands with the guy walking at 4 mph next to him.

Another word EVERYTHING that happens in our universe, happens in our Universal Frame of Reference. Whether we want to figure out the relation between a girl on a roller-coaster flying on a 30 deg angle at 60 mph relative to her boyfriend who is a 100 feet away riding the Ferris-wheel at 20 rpm (just a rough description) we can figure it out in our universal frame of reference, .. I mean how else could we figure this out from any single frame of reference? I just can't see it?

Your opinion PLEASE?

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."

Let's not move to the sidewalk, but as I said above, where running man has a walking-speedometer and can tell us his actual speed, or we could build in a speed sensor on the bottom of the moving sidewalk, or set our radar gun '0' mph to the floor of the moving sidewalk like when cops are moving and still clock cars moving the opposite direction by calculating out his speed one way and the other cars the other.

The running man could be walking at only 4 mph opposite the moving sidewalk, and would look like he was standing still right? But if another lady was standing still on the moving sidewalk, the running-man would be the one actually running into her, .. right?

In our universal view, we would blame running man for running into her, not the poor woman who was standing still properly using the airports moving sidewalk.
But in court you could be a witness and say: "No, .. I seen the whole thing. This lady slammed into ruunning-man who was just standing still."

See the problems and injustice that could arise by ignoring Gods Eye View, or the Universal Frame of Reference? It spells "chaos", like Freud's idea where if we were to take the 'individuals point of view' no one could be really blamed for any crime.

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?

No, not quite.

Do you mean standing with our radar gun 'on the moving sidewalk'? There we would clock running-man at 8 mph.

When we stand on the hall carpet, we would clock walking-man at 4 mph.

If you clocked me standing in the hall next to you, I would be moving '0' mph.

I'm sorry let me clear that up. When I said 'glanced', I meant with our minds, that we glanced/jumped from reference frame to reference frame since you claim there is no Universal Frame of Reference. I was explaining that we could never figure everything out from any One Individual reference frame. We could never get the whole picture. We need a Universal Reference frame to figure each individual reference frames actions out.

In the Running-man moving sidewalk frame of reference, I am running at 8 mph, that is what my walk-o-meter is telling me, and I am shaking hands with another guy next to me. I also see that I am moving relative to the hall towards the exit, approximately half the speed I am actually running at. I then figure that walking-man must be going at half my speed, or about 4 mph and that is why we were traveling head and head and were able to shake hands and talk to each other.

So each individual reference frame must be identified individually, everything that IT experiences, then we compare it to what's happening in each and every other frame of reference, then in our Gods Eye View (Universal Frame of Reference) using classical physics we can predict future events, like any meteors that enter into our universal view, and what future impact it may have with our other individual frames of references.

OK, .. gotta run.

I am eagerly waiting for your response.

Thanks again.

[Bust Nak]

Bad radar gun, Einstein would not like the radar gun because it only tells us what it seems like in OUR reference frame, not what it actually IS in its own reference frame, which is 8 mph.

No. He is stationary in his own reference frame, not 8 mph. He is not moving at all relative to himself.

Remember he said there is NO Universal Frame of Reference, and you agree. This is why we are debating this, because I say Einstein is wrong in stating that there is no universal reference frame.

Why would you imaging Einstein would not like reference frame A? What you said here doesn't tell me why you think using reference frame A would be problematic to there not being an universal reference frame?

Finally, and repeatly, we are still talking about classical Newtonian physics here. Nothing about time dilation or length contraction. You are not ready to talk about what Einstein would agree or disagree.

But I am still in the Hall Reference Frame A!

No you are not. As I said, when you got on the moving sidewalk, you are no longer in reference frame A, but reference frame B - the sidewalk.

I moved in running-mans reference frame to do a measurement to prove what I already know, that running-man is running at 8 mph.

Look carefully at what you wrote - you "moved in running-mans reference frame." Besides, in running-mans reference frame, he is moving at 0 mph.

OK, fine, .. Running man is a health nut and always keeps a track of how many miles he walked/ran a day, so he is rigged with a walking-meter. From our Reference frame A I yell over to running-man and ask him: "Sir, .. you over there on the moving sidewalk, how fast are you traveling?"

Running-man proudly yells back: "According to my little speedometer, a steady 8 mph! puf.. puff.. Why?"

"Well because you don't seem to be moving any faster than the gentleman you are shaking hands with, and we clocked him at only 4 mph."

Running man: "I'm surprised you can't see the moving sidewalk I am running against? Look, .. see the sidewalk? .. see it moving? .. see me running against it? OK then, puff, .. puff .. sheesh, .. try to use your Gods-eye view!"

This is where I would yell back and tell him, "there is no one universal view, but as many views as there are observers."

No, .. actually, now we KNOW that running man is traveling at 8 mph, without a doubt. We measured him, asked him, and both match .. he is traveling at 8 mph.

Only in reference frame B.

Let's ask Einstein: "What is the speed of Running-man in his reference frame Mr. Einstein?" (remember there is no universal frame of reference for Mr. Einstein)

Einstein: "Since there is no Universal Frame of Reference, what Bust Nak is measuring is from his universal view, bad Bust Nak, breaking my rule, and that is why he is getting an erroneous velocity of 4 mph. But that is not correct in running mans frame of reference, you are correct because you asked running man and he told you that he is running at 8 mph, AND you verified this by going into his reference frame and measured it with your radar gun at 8 mph, and both match, .. running-man is actually traveling at 8 mph"

No, only the Einstein you imagine would say that. Enistein would tell you "the speed of the runner in his reference frame is exactly zero. Since there is no Universal Frame of Reference, what Bust Nak is measuring is from reference frame A, and that is why he is getting the actual velocity of 4 mph. And that does not match the what the runner measures or what a person standing of the sidewalk measures exactly because there is no one universal reference frame."

No, .. I am in Reference frame A, I only have verified Running-mans velocity of 8 mph in reference frame B, which by the way happens to be in our universal frame of reference A.

It's not universal, that's the point of calling it "A." It is just one of many. He is moving at 4 mph in reference frame A and 8 mph in reference frame B.

No, .. you even said that 'in Reference frame A there are many reference frames' remember?

No. I don't remember saying that at all. That's because I didn't say it.

So even according to you, in our Universal Frame of Reference 'A' there are many reference frames of different speeds, and if there were other people there in our Universal Reference Frame A, there would be many different directions also, .. isn't that right?

For now we are observing two individual reference frames within our universal reference frame 'A', .. and it is walking-man, and running-man.

Wrong. There are many reference frames. None universal.

What I believe Einstein meant (which I believe was perverted just as other studies of science have been) was that; 'Within our Universal Frame of Reference (Gods eye view) we must take each reference frames position to figure out its velocity from it's original object it left from,
the direction it is heading relative to itself,
any deviation in its speed, or from its own direction, to be able to make sense out of everything that is going on in our universe.

Once we know everything there is to know of these individual frames of references within our Universal Reference Frame, we can predict future events, and time these events will happen.

Jumping from reference frame to reference frame to determine what is happening in our universe, we get things that SEEM-LIKE, .. like time dilation and length contraction, and other confusing nonsense that create nothing but paradoxes.

Seriously, forget about relativity. You are not ready to talk about that when you are wrong about classical Newtonian physics.

See what I mean, .. it becomes all confusing my friend, you are confusing yourself because you don't want to accept a Universal Frame of Reference.

In reference frame B (running-mans point of view), both are moving 4 mph relative to the ground (on which the moving-sidewalk is traveling 4mph) and the wall in the hall which is all in the universal reference frame 'A'.

You might be confused, I am not. Reference frame B is the sidewalk. I've clearly labelled it as such. From the runner's own reference frame he is not moving at all.

OK, .. my question was based on what that professor on Einstein's relativity in that YouTube video was saying to the class...

This would be an Einstein problem because he claims there is no Universal Frame of Reference...

"Hi, .. puf, .. puf, .. I'm running man, .. I'm doing 8 mph, puff, .. puff, .. nice to meet you!" shakes hands with the guy walking at 4 mph next to him.

How is that a problem?

Another word EVERYTHING that happens in our universe, happens in our Universal Frame of Reference. Whether we want to figure out the relation between a girl on a roller-coaster flying on a 30 deg angle at 60 mph relative to her boyfriend who is a 100 feet away riding the Ferris-wheel at 20 rpm (just a rough description) we can figure it out in our universal frame of reference, .. I mean how else could we figure this out from any single frame of reference? I just can't see it?

By switching between reference frame on the fly obviously. Using phases such as "relative to the ground," "relative to the plane" or "from a moving sidewalk."

Let's not move to the sidewalk, but as I said above, where running man has a walking-speedometer and can tell us his actual speed, or we could build in a speed sensor on the bottom of the moving sidewalk, or set our radar gun '0' mph to the floor of the moving sidewalk like when cops are moving and still clock cars moving the opposite direction by calculating out his speed one way and the other cars the other.

It's not where you are physically, it is which reference frame you are measuing from. The walking-speedometer is measuring from the sidewalk, so is a speed sensor on the moving sidewalk measuring from the sidewalk, as well as the radar gun compensated for the movement of the sidewalk. They are all in reference B.

The running man could be walking at only 4 mph opposite the moving sidewalk, and would look like he was standing still right? But if another lady was standing still on the moving sidewalk, the running-man would be the one actually running into her, .. right?

Right, as measured from two seperate reference frame.

In our universal view, we would blame running man for running into her, not the poor woman who was standing still properly using the airports moving sidewalk.

It's not univesal, you simply are jumping from one frame to another.

But in court you could be a witness and say: "No, .. I seen the whole thing. This lady slammed into ruunning-man who was just standing still."

Now why would I be using the running man as the reference frame when I can use the sidewalk as the reference frame?

See the problems and injustice that could arise by ignoring Gods Eye View, or the Universal Frame of Reference? It spells "chaos", like Freud's idea where if we were to take the 'individuals point of view' no one could be really blamed for any crime.

You can't ignore something that doesn't exist. Reference frame B is just one of many.

Do you mean standing with our radar gun 'on the moving sidewalk'? There we would clock running-man at 8 mph.

Yes. That is reference frame B - relative to the sidewalk.

When we stand on the hall carpet, we would clock walking-man at 4 mph.

Where as that would be reference frame A - relative to the airport.

If you clocked me standing in the hall next to you, I would be moving '0' mph.

Correct, in reference frame A.

I'm sorry let me clear that up. When I said 'glanced', I meant with our minds, that we glanced/jumped from reference frame to reference frame since you claim there is no Universal Frame of Reference. I was explaining that we could never figure everything out from any One Individual reference frame. We could never get the whole picture. We need a Universal Reference frame to figure each individual reference frames actions out.

I didn't need one. No body needs one. We can simple jump from one to another.

In the Running-man moving sidewalk frame of reference, I am running at 8 mph, that is what my walk-o-meter is telling me, and I am shaking hands with another guy next to me. I also see that I am moving relative to the hall towards the exit, approximately half the speed I am actually running at. I then figure that walking-man must be going at half my speed, or about 4 mph and that is why we were traveling head and head and were able to shake hands and talk to each other.

See, you've intuitively jumped from reference frame B the sidewalk, to reference frame A the airport with zero difficulty, all without a universal reference.

So each individual reference frame must be identified individually, everything that IT experiences, then we compare it to what's happening in each and every other frame of reference, then in our Gods Eye View (Universal Frame of Reference) using classical physics we can predict future events, like any meteors that enter into our universal view, and what future impact it may have with our other individual frames of references.

But you DIDN'T refer to any Universal Frame of Reference, but two seperate frames, A and B.

[arian]

Bad radar gun, Einstein would not like the radar gun because it only tells us what it seems like in OUR reference frame, not what it actually IS in its own reference frame, which is 8 mph.

No. He is stationary in his own reference frame, not 8 mph. He is not moving at all relative to himself.

Thanks again Bust Nak, .. but I still can't figure out 'From Where' we are to view the universe and the things happening in it by your explanations?

We could have a million people walking all over the place in one reference frame let's say 'Z' yet not one is actually moving relative to themselves, correct?

So does that mean in Reference frame 'Z' nobody is really moving?
You would say: "relative to themselves, .. yes, nobody is moving", correct?

The only way you admit that anyone is really moving is to create another reference frame within Z, the person and relative what he is moving to and call this something else besides Z .. correct?

So if man#100 is moving 3mph relative to the ground, from WHERE am I observing this from? If I say 'Z', you'll say that is relative to me, NOT 'his relation to the ground'.

If I jump in there with him, I create another reference frame between either me and him, or me and the ground. Again I couldn't determine, or say with a certainty that he is traveling 3 mph, or that it is the ground under him that is moving.

So what I am saying is that if we don't admit to and use a Universal Frame of Reference to distinguish what is really happening out there in the universe, HOW do we make sense of anything?

So please explain to me like to a child how a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on? Please give me the reference frame you are observing this from?

[sfs]

So please explain to me like to a child how a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on? Please give me the reference frame you are observing this from?

You're making this much more complicated than it really is. In your question, you define the reference frame yourself: a man moving at 3 mph relative to the ground. That means the man is moving at 3 mph in the reference (rest) frame of the ground. In the rest frame of the man, the ground is moving at 3 mph. The other crowd of people are completely irrelevant for describing the motion of the man. The physics of the situation will be exactly the same, regardless of which of the two reference frames you choose for describing it. (And this still has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity; what you're talking about here is usually called "Galilean relativity".)

[keithprosser3]

(And this still has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity; what you're talking about here is usually called "Galilean relativity".)

We're only on page 30. We're working up to Einstein gradually.

[sfs]

(And this still has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity; what you're talking about here is usually called "Galilean relativity".)

We're only on page 30. We're working up to Einstein gradually.

If you view it from the right reference frame, it's only two pages long.

[arian]

Remember he said there is NO Universal Frame of Reference, and you agree. This is why we are debating this, because I say Einstein is wrong in stating that there is no universal reference frame.

Why would you imaging Einstein would not like reference frame A? What you said here doesn't tell me why you think using reference frame A would be problematic to there not being an universal reference frame?

Because A is a universal view where I can determine walking-mans relation to the ground, running-mans relation to the moving sidewalk, running-mans relation to walking-man, running-mans relation to us standing in A, and so on.. and figure anything and everything we want to know within this universal view.

Finally, and repeatly, we are still talking about classical Newtonian physics here. Nothing about time dilation or length contraction. You are not ready to talk about what Einstein would agree or disagree.

So was it Newton who said; "there is no universal Reference point"? Or was it Einstein?

But I am still in the Hall Reference Frame A!

No you are not. As I said, when you got on the moving sidewalk, you are no longer in reference frame A, but reference frame B - the sidewalk.

.. where running man is standing still, .. got it, only it doesn't make any sense.

I moved in running-mans reference frame to do a measurement to prove what I already know, that running-man is running at 8 mph.

Look carefully at what you wrote - you "moved in running-mans reference frame." Besides, in running-mans reference frame, he is moving at 0 mph.

Again, .. I got it, only staying there it doesn't make any sense. Before it makes any sense, I have to go back to A, my universal frame of reference.

OK, fine, .. Running man is a health nut and always keeps a track of how many miles he walked/ran a day, so he is rigged with a walking-meter. From our Reference frame A I yell over to running-man and ask him: "Sir, .. you over there on the moving sidewalk, how fast are you traveling?"

Running-man proudly yells back: "According to my little speedometer, a steady 8 mph! puf.. puff.. Why?"

"Well because you don't seem to be moving any faster than the gentleman you are shaking hands with, and we clocked him at only 4 mph."

Running man: "I'm surprised you can't see the moving sidewalk I am running against? Look, .. see the sidewalk? .. see it moving? .. see me running against it? OK then, puff, .. puff .. sheesh, .. try to use your Gods-eye view!"

This is where I would yell back and tell him, "there is no one universal view, but as many views as there are observers."

And I would yell back to him: "How do you know that?"

No, .. actually, now we KNOW that running man is traveling at 8 mph, without a doubt. We measured him, asked him, and both match .. he is traveling at 8 mph.

Only in reference frame B.

But you just said above: < quote> Look carefully at what you wrote - you "moved in running-mans reference frame." Besides, in running-mans reference frame, he is moving at 0 mph < >

Let's ask Einstein: "What is the speed of Running-man in his reference frame Mr. Einstein?" (remember there is no universal frame of reference for Mr. Einstein)

Einstein: "Since there is no Universal Frame of Reference, what Bust Nak is measuring is from his universal view, bad Bust Nak, breaking my rule, and that is why he is getting an erroneous velocity of 4 mph. But that is not correct in running mans frame of reference, you are correct because you asked running man and he told you that he is running at 8 mph, AND you verified this by going into his reference frame and measured it with your radar gun at 8 mph, and both match, .. running-man is actually traveling at 8 mph"

No, only the Einstein you imagine would say that. Enistein would tell you "the speed of the runner in his reference frame is exactly zero. Since there is no Universal Frame of Reference, what Bust Nak is measuring is from reference frame A, and that is why he is getting the actual velocity of 4 mph. And that does not match the what the runner measures or what a person standing of the sidewalk measures exactly because there is no one universal reference frame."

Yes there is, it is where we analyze each individual reference frame and figure out whatever we want.
In reference point A there are two things, .. what it 'seems like', and what it actually is after we analyze each relative reference frame.

From earth the sun 'seems like' 10 inches in diameter, but we figure out the distance relative to earth and get 1,391,000 km in diameter. From where? From reference frame A where we are standing on earth looking at the sun.
If I stood front of the sun, it wouldn't look 10 inches in diameter because I would be in another reference frame. But I am NOT in "front-of-the-sun reference frame", I am on earth looking at the sun reference frame, and this is my universal reference frame where I can calculate the distance and sizes of many other heavenly objects.

No, .. I am in Reference frame A, I only have verified Running-mans velocity of 8 mph in reference frame B, which by the way happens to be in our universal frame of reference A.

It's not universal, that's the point of calling it "A." It is just one of many. He is moving at 4 mph in reference frame A and 8 mph in reference frame B.

And I understand it, and visualize it where? In reference frame A.
In Reference frame A I see a man walking and shaking hands with running man, and they are traveling what seems like the same speed, head and head. But upon examination of what we call reference frame B, running man is actually traveling at 8 mph. So in our universal frame of reference we have two guys at different speeds, traveling 'what seems like' head and head the same speed.

No, .. you even said that 'in Reference frame A there are many reference frames' remember?

No. I don't remember saying that at all. That's because I didn't say it.

You did in a previous post.

If I remain in reference frame A, are you saying I couldn't see the other reference frames and what they seem-like in relation to me in A, and then figure out what each actually IS?

So even according to you, in our Universal Frame of Reference 'A' there are many reference frames of different speeds, and if there were other people there in our Universal Reference Frame A, there would be many different directions also, .. isn't that right?

For now we are observing two individual reference frames within our universal reference frame 'A', .. and it is walking-man, and running-man.

Wrong. There are many reference frames. None universal.

Universal:
Something that is universal applies to every case or individual in a class or category (a universal practice among aboriginal tribesmen; a universal truth).

Generic is often used in place of general when referring to every member of a genus or clearly defined scientific category (a generic characteristic of insects); with reference to language, it means referring to both men and women (a generic pronoun).

Common implies participation or sharing by all members of a class (: a common interest in French culture) or frequently occurring (a common complaint).

So 'All common category of reference-frames in participation or sharing by all members of a class observed in a universal frame of reference identified by where we stand, as 'A'.'

What I believe Einstein meant (which I believe was perverted just as other studies of science have been) was that; 'Within our Universal Frame of Reference (Gods eye view) we must take each reference frames position to figure out its velocity from it's original object it left from,
the direction it is heading relative to itself,
any deviation in its speed, or from its own direction, to be able to make sense out of everything that is going on in our universe.

Once we know everything there is to know of these individual frames of references within our Universal Reference Frame, we can predict future events, and time these events will happen.

Jumping from reference frame to reference frame to determine what is happening in our universe, we get things that SEEM-LIKE, .. like time dilation and length contraction, and other confusing nonsense that create nothing but paradoxes.

Seriously, forget about relativity. You are not ready to talk about that when you are wrong about classical Newtonian physics.

Einstein said there is no universal frame of reference, no? Aren't we talking about one frame of reference RELATED to another?

See what I mean, .. it becomes all confusing my friend, you are confusing yourself because you don't want to accept a Universal Frame of Reference.

In reference frame B (running-mans point of view), both are moving 4 mph relative to the ground (on which the moving-sidewalk is traveling 4mph) and the wall in the hall which is all in the universal reference frame 'A'.

You might be confused, I am not. Reference frame B is the sidewalk. I've clearly labelled it as such. From the runner's own reference frame he is not moving at all.

The 'runners own reference frame he is not moving at all'? Please explain since I don't get it?

Reference frame;
a system of geometric axes in relation to which measurements of size, position, or motion can be made.

From the runners point of view, or another objects POV there is no reference frame. Don't we have to have another object to refer to?

In our Universal reference frame we have many objects relative to other objects to refer to, which we categorize in separate reference frames.

I understand that an unrelated object is an unrelated object with no speed, or time. There is no such a thing in our universe, or before our universe was created.

OK, .. my question was based on what that professor on Einstein's relativity in that YouTube video was saying to the class...

This would be an Einstein problem because he claims there is no Universal Frame of Reference...

"Hi, .. puf, .. puf, .. I'm running man, .. I'm doing 8 mph, puff, .. puff, .. nice to meet you!" shakes hands with the guy walking at 4 mph next to him.

How is that a problem?

Two objects sharing the same space at the same time that have two different velocities.

Another word EVERYTHING that happens in our universe, happens in our Universal Frame of Reference. Whether we want to figure out the relation between a girl on a roller-coaster flying on a 30 deg angle at 60 mph relative to her boyfriend who is a 100 feet away riding the Ferris-wheel at 20 rpm (just a rough description) we can figure it out in our universal frame of reference, .. I mean how else could we figure this out from any single frame of reference? I just can't see it?

By switching between reference frame on the fly obviously. Using phrases such as "relative to the ground," "relative to the plane" or "from a moving sidewalk."

Yes, all these individual, .. what we call 'frames of references' happening in our universal frame of reference, .. correct?

Let's not move to the sidewalk, but as I said above, where running man has a walking-speedometer and can tell us his actual speed, or we could build in a speed sensor on the bottom of the moving sidewalk, or set our radar gun '0' mph to the floor of the moving sidewalk like when cops are moving and still clock cars moving the opposite direction by calculating out his speed one way and the other cars the other.

It's not where you are physically, it is which reference frame you are measuing from. The walking-speedometer is measuring from the sidewalk, so is a speed sensor on the moving sidewalk measuring from the sidewalk, as well as the radar gun compensated for the movement of the sidewalk. They are all in reference B.

Yes, we take what we find out in reference B (and whatever other references we need like walking mans or whatever) and figure all their relations to each other in our UFoR (Universal Frame of Reference).

<snip - just repeating the same thing>

See the problems and injustice that could arise by ignoring Gods Eye View, or the Universal Frame of Reference? It spells "chaos", like Freud's idea where if we were to take the 'individuals point of view' no one could be really blamed for any crime.

You can't ignore something that doesn't exist. Reference frame B is just one of many.

.. which we analyze in our UFoR.

Do you mean standing with our radar gun 'on the moving sidewalk'? There we would clock running-man at 8 mph.

Yes. That is reference frame B - relative to the sidewalk.

You mean running-man relative to the moving sidewalk, correct? Just making sure. But we could say; 'running-man relative to the hall floor, .. or hall wall, right? Now would that be another frame of reference, or still B?

When we stand on the hall carpet, we would clock walking-man at 4 mph.

Where as that would be reference frame A - relative to the airport.

But all these different references then put together and viewed within our UFoR, right?

I'm sorry let me clear that up. When I said 'glanced', I meant with our minds, that we glanced/jumped from reference frame to reference frame since you claim there is no Universal Frame of Reference. I was explaining that we could never figure everything out from any One Individual reference frame. We could never get the whole picture. We need a Universal Reference frame to figure each individual reference frames actions out.

I didn't need one. No body needs one. We can simple jump from one to another.

And where are we jumping from one frame to another IN? Or are you going to answer me the same like when I ask you "what is the universe expanding IN?", and your answer: "Nothing!" ???

In the Running-man moving sidewalk frame of reference, I am running at 8 mph, that is what my walk-o-meter is telling me, and I am shaking hands with another guy next to me. I also see that I am moving relative to the hall towards the exit, approximately half the speed I am actually running at. I then figure that walking-man must be going at half my speed, or about 4 mph and that is why we were traveling head and head and were able to shake hands and talk to each other.

See, you've intuitively jumped from reference frame B the sidewalk, to reference frame A the airport with zero difficulty, all without a universal reference.

Come on now, .. how could 'A' relate to 'B' without a UFoR?
Even if you are suggesting multi-universes, they have to have something like space between them to relate to each other, and then this 'space-between-universes' would become our UFoR.

So each individual reference frame must be identified individually, everything that IT experiences, then we compare it to what's happening in each and every other frame of reference, then in our Gods Eye View (Universal Frame of Reference) using classical physics we can predict future events, like any meteors that enter into our universal view, and what future impact it may have with our other individual frames of references.

But you DIDN'T refer to any Universal Frame of Reference, but two seperate frames, A and B.

yes, .. these two separate frames can be observed in our UFoR.

thanks again my friend.

[arian]

So please explain to me like to a child how a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on? Please give me the reference frame you are observing this from?

You're making this much more complicated than it really is. In your question, you define the reference frame yourself: a man moving at 3 mph relative to the ground. That means the man is moving at 3 mph in the reference (rest) frame of the ground. In the rest frame of the man, the ground is moving at 3 mph.

Thanks sfs
It's a statement; "a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on?" I asked that you (or anyone) could explain to me which frame of reference this would be true in?

You said that I already defined the reference frame, 'man and the ground he is walking on', .. correct? But Bust Nak mentioned at one point regarding the moving sidewalk that in the mans reference frame he is not moving!?!
You then said that from the rest frame of the ground, the man is moving, and the rest frame of the man the ground is moving.

My question is; Which frame of reference could we observe a man walking 3 mph on the ground surrounded by a million people?

The other crowd of people are completely irrelevant for describing the motion of the man. The physics of the situation will be exactly the same, regardless of which of the two reference frames you choose for describing it. (And this still has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity; what you're talking about here is usually called "Galilean relativity".)

OK, .. Galilean relativity, .. I understand.

So you are saying that all the other million people on the ground would agree that the man IS walking 3 mph, .. correct? Or that it doesn't matter what they claim, the man IS walking 3 mph, .. period?

Now what if this man walked off into space, .. relative to the ground, or earth, he would continue to travel through space at 3 mph indefinitely, correct?

Thanks.

[sfs]

It's a statement; "a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on?" I asked that you (or anyone) could explain to me which frame of reference this would be true in?

You said that I already defined the reference frame, 'man and the ground he is walking on', .. correct?

Nope, I didn't say that. I said, "In your question, you define the reference frame yourself: a man moving at 3 mph relative to the ground. That means the man is moving at 3 mph in the reference (rest) frame of the ground." The reference frame in your statement is the ground, not the man and the ground he is walking on, whatever that means.

But Bust Nak mentioned at one point regarding the moving sidewalk that in the mans reference frame he is not moving!?!

Quite correct.

You then said that from the rest frame of the ground, the man is moving, and the rest frame of the man the ground is moving.

From the rest frame of the man, the ground is moving, yes.

My question is; Which frame of reference could we observe a man walking 3 mph on the ground surrounded by a million people?

He will be seen to be walking at 3 mph in the reference frame of the ground, as you just said above. Any observer who is motionless in that rest frame -- anyone who is standing still on the ground -- will see him moving at 3 mph relative to that observer. Anyone who is walking will see him moving with respect to that observer at a different speed.

So you are saying that all the other million people on the ground would agree that the man IS walking 3 mph, .. correct? Or that it doesn't matter what they claim, the man IS walking 3 mph, .. period?

First, it doesn't matter whether they are on the ground or in the air or in space; what matter is whether they are moving compared to the ground or not. If they are maintaining the same distance from a spot on the ground, then they are at rest with respect to the ground, and are therefore observing from the same rest frame as someone standing motionless on the ground.

Second, even someone who is moving relative to both the ground and the walking man will still say that the man is walking at 3 mph compared to the ground. All they have to do is measure how far he moves on the ground and the time it takes him. (This is the part that breaks down at high velocities.)

Now what if this man walked off into space, .. relative to the ground, or earth, he would continue to travel through space at 3 mph indefinitely, correct?

If he keeps walking at 3 mph in the same direction, then yes, he will keep walking at 3 mph in the same direction.

[Bust Nak]

Thanks again Bust Nak, .. but I still can't figure out 'From Where' we are to view the universe and the things happening in it by your explanations?

Any where you like.

We could have a million people walking all over the place in one reference frame let's say 'Z' yet not one is actually moving relative to themselves, correct?

So does that mean in Reference frame 'Z' nobody is really moving?

Incorrect. When you say relative to themselves - you are talking about not one but a million reference frames.

You would say: "relative to themselves, .. yes, nobody is moving", correct?

Correct.

The only way you admit that anyone is really moving is to create another reference frame within Z, the person and relative what he is moving to and call this something else besides Z .. correct?

Partially correct. The only way someone is moving is indeed to use another reference frame. But there is no need to "create another reference frame within Z."

So if man#100 is moving 3mph relative to the ground, from WHERE am I observing this from?

You've already choosen the ground as your reference frame when you said relative to the ground.

If I say 'Z', you'll say that is relative to me, NOT 'his relation to the ground'.

I would say there is no such thing as Z.

If I jump in there with him, I create another reference frame between either me and him, or me and the ground. Again I couldn't determine, or say with a certainty that he is traveling 3 mph, or that it is the ground under him that is moving.

No. You can determine, with certainly that both statements: he is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground; the ground is moving at 3 mph relative to him, are correct.

So what I am saying is that if we don't admit to and use a Universal Frame of Reference to distinguish what is really happening out there in the universe, HOW do we make sense of anything?

The view idea that there is there is an universal Frame of Reference does not make sense.

So please explain to me like to a child how a man in a crowd of a million people is moving at 3 mph relative to the ground he is walking on?

By walking just like you and I walk.

Please give me the reference frame you are observing this from?

You've already choosen reference frame "the ground" by saying relative to the ground.

Because A is a universal view where I can determine walking-mans relation to the ground, running-mans relation to the moving sidewalk, running-mans relation to walking-man, running-mans relation to us standing in A, and so on.. and figure anything and everything we want to know within this universal view.

A is not universal, it is "relative to the airport." When you say walker's relation to the ground, you are in Reference Frame A. When you say runner's relation to the moving sidewalk, you are in Reference Frame B. When you say relation to walking-man you are introducing a third reference frame, when you say us standing in A you are back at Reference Frame A, and so no. None of which are universal.

So was it Newton who said; "there is no universal Reference point"? Or was it Einstein?

It was Galileo before either of them actually.

.. where running man is standing still, .. got it, only it doesn't make any sense.

No, the runner is moving at 8 mph in reference frame B, not standing still. He is standing still relative to himself and the walker, not relative to the sidewalk.

Again, .. I got it, only staying there it doesn't make any sense. Before it makes any sense, I have to go back to A, my universal frame of reference.

A is the air port. The runner is moving at 4 mph in reference frame A, not 8 mph.

And I would yell back to him: "How do you know that?"

By direct observation.

But you just said above: Look carefully at what you wrote - you "moved in running-mans reference frame." Besides, in running-mans reference frame, he is moving at 0 mph.

Yep. I did say that. He is not moving in with the runner as the reference frame, only in Reference Frame B. I shall call this C from now on.
The runner is moving at 4 mph in Reference Frame A, relative to the airport.
The runner is moving at 8 mph in Reference Frame B, relative to the sidewalk.
The runner is not moving at all in Reference Frame C, relative to the runner.

Yes there is, it is where we analyze each individual reference frame and figure out whatever we want.
In reference point A there are two things, .. what it 'seems like', and what it actually is after we analyze each relative reference frame.

From earth the sun 'seems like' 10 inches in diameter, but we figure out the distance relative to earth and get 1,391,000 km in diameter. From where? From reference frame A where we are standing on earth looking at the sun.
If I stood front of the sun, it wouldn't look 10 inches in diameter because I would be in another reference frame. But I am NOT in "front-of-the-sun reference frame", I am on earth looking at the sun reference frame, and this is my universal reference frame where I can calculate the distance and sizes of many other heavenly objects.

The place you standing physically, where you do the analyzing, is not reference frame at all, let alone a universal one. The entity you are discribing here, does not fit the definition of reference frame you gave earlier (and again here). Think of a new term, reference frame is already defined as a system of geometric axes in relation to which measurements of size, position, or motion can be made. Your confusion is caused by using the same term to talk about two different things.

And I understand it, and visualize it where? In reference frame A.

No, you understand it and visualize it in the airport. It makes no sense to say you understand it and visualize it relative to the airport. It doesn't even make sense to say you are standing relative to the airport. It only make sense to talk about size, position, or motion relative to something.

In Reference frame A I see a man walking and shaking hands with running man, and they are traveling what seems like the same speed, head and head. But upon examination of what we call reference frame B, running man is actually traveling at 8 mph. So in our universal frame of reference we have two guys at different speeds, traveling 'what seems like' head and head the same speed.

In light of what I said here. Let me rephase your statement:
While standing in the airport I see a man walking and shaking hands with running man, and they are actually traveling the same speed, head and head. But upon examination of what we call reference frame B, we can measure that both running man and walking man are actually traveling at 8 mph. So in every frame of reference we have two guys travelling head and head at the same speed.

If I remain in reference frame A, are you saying I couldn't see the other reference frames and what they seem-like in relation to me in A, and then figure out what each actually IS?

All you have to do is switch reference frames.

[definition of universal]

So 'All common category of reference-frames in participation or sharing by all members of a class observed in a universal frame of reference identified by where we stand, as 'A'.'

That doesn't make any sense.

Einstein said there is no universal frame of reference, no?

Sure, along with every scientists out there.

Aren't we talking about one frame of reference RELATED to another?

No. We are talking about how objects relate to frame of references.

The 'runners own reference frame he is not moving at all'? Please explain since I don't get it?

How do you get the speed of something? By measuring the change in distance over time. If you measure the distance from the runner to the runner at time zero, what is the distance? And when you measure the distance the runner to the runner at time zero + 10 sec, what is the distance? How about at time zero + 1 minute?

The distance from the runner to the runner is zero, at all times. Meaning his speed is zero relative to himself. In other words in the runner's own reference frame he is not moving at all.

From the runners point of view, or another objects POV there is no reference frame. Don't we have to have another object to refer to?

That object is the runner when you say his frame of reference.

In our Universal reference frame we have many objects relative to other objects...

Hopefully we have cleared that up. What you are calling the "Universal reference frame" is not "a system of geometric axes in relation to which measurements of size, position, or motion can be made" but some sort of mind's eye.

Two objects sharing the same space at the same time that have two different velocities.

That would indeed be a problem. But luckly that cannot happen. Two objects going head to head would always be at the same velocity in EVERY reference frame.

You mean running-man relative to the moving sidewalk, correct? Just making sure. But we could say; 'running-man relative to the hall floor, .. or hall wall, right? Now would that be another frame of reference, or still B?

In mean any and everything relative to the moving sidewalk when I say reference frame B. And when the way relative to the hall floor or hall walls, those are not B anymore, but you know "relative to the hall floor" and "relative to the hall walls."