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]

Yes so you say, but I also know that to measure something to an accepted accuracy you have to have a measuring tool TEN TIMES more accurate than what you're measuring. Another word to measure a diameter of .001, you have to have a .0001 micrometer or indicator.
But if .001 inches is as accurate as anything in the universe can get (I'm referring to C), .. how in the world will they measure something that is .0011?

See what I mean? I mean do they have equipment and sensors that can measure TEN TIMES the accuracy of 186,282 miles per second?

Your statements are (more or less correct), but the question you asked doesn't mean anything. You can measure 186,282 miles/sec to 10% accuracy, or to 1% accuracy, or to .001% accuracy; there's no accuracy attached just to the value itself. To rule out the idea that things travel at 1.2c, a 1% accurate measure would be more than sufficient.

If a 1% accurate measure would be more than sufficient, wouldn't that be like measuring the thickness of my hair with a yardstick and telling me that it is exactly 0.0030 inches thick? That is the way I understand what you are saying, .. please forgive me.

I believe my simple expressions are the problem, or maybe our perspectives are very different? You may be viewing this and considering Maxwells equation along with Lorentz laws regarding electromagnetism, while I am envisioning a simple one-second 186,282 mile long beam of light traveling through space. Could my simple questions be answered without trying to calculate permeability and how matter travels through what we believe is responsible for mass like the Higgs Boson?

If they do, how were they able to calibrate it?

That would vary depending on the experiment, but it's trivial to do: just measure how long it takes for light to travel the length of the experimental area. That's c by definition.

That is what I'm asking, .. how does one verify this speed 'C'? Did you build two atomic clocks where one starts when it shoots out a beam of light, or particle and the other stops when the light/particle hits it?

Please try to come down to my level on this, what I want to understand is how the speed of light, or C can be a constant speed of 186,282 m/p/s?

Here, let's go into space. Now I know that scientists are saying that space is made up of dark matter, quarks, then there is this new Higgs Boson, then there is still the residue of primordial gasses, and gravity and what not, .. what I am asking is; did Einstein figure the effects of permeability through these .. these substances into his calculations when he came up with a beam of light traveling through the vacuum of space at a constant 186,282 m/p/s?

If gravity has a bending effect on light, and light has speed and travels, then a 186,282 mile long beam of light traveling through space would be similar to a 186,282 mile long ruler, .. is this correct? Another word, whatever makes up space, or whatever things are present in space, would their effects be the same on a beam of light as on a metal ruler? I don't mean just some small particles, but a solid steel ruler?

Lets consider relativity, time and space. Let's take two solid objects like a couple of meteors that are just passing each other, meteor A and meteor B. Lets stand on A, and from A we measure B passing us at a speed of 0.6 C.

* We are at rest on A, another word we are not moving relative to ourselves, B is passing us at a measured velocity of 0.6 C.

Q. How do we know this measurement of speed is accurate? This only tells us that meteor B is moving away from us at 0.6 C, doesn't tell us how fast we are going in space?

Q: How could we ever tell how fast meteor A (the one we are on) is really traveling through space?

Q: How could we tell which direction meteor A is traveling? A could be traveling the same direction as B, only slower, right? OR, we could be traveling in opposite directions? We could be traveling in a V formation upwards at the same speed?

Let's see this in our birds-eye view where we could see both meteors, but oops, .. we can't because there is nothing to stand on.
Wait, we can! We don't need anything to stand on since space provides us infinite points to observe the two meteors from, only now time stops. As I switch from point to point I no longer see motion, only two meteors at different distances.

If I move rapidly through points in my birds-eye view, I could alter the speed of the meteors, which in turn alters time for each individual rock!?!

What if the two meteors are traveling perfectly parallel to each other, at the same speed, .. we couldn't measure time, correct? Did time stop then even though the two rocks are moving through space?

If there was one rock in space, would time exist relative to itself? Would speed exist?

Thanks, and please forgive my simplicity.

[sfs]

If a 1% accurate measure would be more than sufficient, wouldn't that be like measuring the thickness of my hair with a yardstick and telling me that it is exactly 0.0030 inches thick? That is the way I understand what you are saying, .. please forgive me.

No, not at all. I told you exactly what I meant. To measure the speed of light to 1% accuracy, all you have to be able to do is measure time to an accuracy of 1 ns and measure how long it takes light to travel 100 feet. That's easy to do. Why are you introducing irrelevant analogies?

I believe my simple expressions are the problem, or maybe our perspectives are very different? You may be viewing this and considering Maxwells equation along with Lorentz laws regarding electromagnetism, while I am envisioning a simple one-second 186,282 mile long beam of light traveling through space. Could my simple questions be answered without trying to calculate permeability and how matter travels through what we believe is responsible for mass like the Higgs Boson?

What the heck are you talking about? I talked about a simple experiment that's really easy to do in a lab, or even your backyard if you want to spend a little money -- just timing a pulse from a laser.

If they do, how were they able to calibrate it?

That would vary depending on the experiment, but it's trivial to do: just measure how long it takes for light to travel the length of the experimental area. That's c by definition.

That is what I'm asking, .. how does one verify this speed 'C'? Did you build two atomic clocks where one starts when it shoots out a beam of light, or particle and the other stops when the light/particle hits it?

I told you that too: you buy some electronics from a catalog. The clock that is part of the electronics will be some kind of oscillator. I don't know how they calibrate the clock, but you could certainly verify its accuracy with an atomic clock.

Please try to come down to my level on this, what I want to understand is how the speed of light, or C can be a constant speed of 186,282 m/p/s?

It just is. No one really understand why it is or how it can be, but it is.

Here, let's go into space. Now I know that scientists are saying that space is made up of dark matter, quarks, then there is this new Higgs Boson, then there is still the residue of primordial gasses, and gravity and what not, .. what I am asking is; did Einstein figure the effects of permeability through these .. these substances into his calculations when he came up with a beam of light traveling through the vacuum of space at a constant 186,282 m/p/s?

If gravity has a bending effect on light, and light has speed and travels, then a 186,282 mile long beam of light traveling through space would be similar to a 186,282 mile long ruler, .. is this correct? Another word, whatever makes up space, or whatever things are present in space, would their effects be the same on a beam of light as on a metal ruler? I don't mean just some small particles, but a solid steel ruler?

Why are you introducing all of these complications? It is simply an observable fact that light in a vacuum always travels at the same speed. Whether the vacuum contains virtual particles and a Higgs field is irrelevant; light just travels in a vacuum at a constant speed. It doesn't even have to be a very good vacuum, either.

Lets consider relativity, time and space. Let's take two solid objects like a couple of meteors that are just passing each other, meteor A and meteor B. Lets stand on A, and from A we measure B passing us at a speed of 0.6 C.

* We are at rest on A, another word we are not moving relative to ourselves, B is passing us at a measured velocity of 0.6 C.

Q. How do we know this measurement of speed is accurate? This only tells us that meteor B is moving away from us at 0.6 C, doesn't tell us how fast we are going in space?

You can accurately measure how fast meteor B is moving with respect to you. That's all you can measure. "How fast we are going in space" doesn't mean anything, as far as physics can tell.

Q: How could we ever tell how fast meteor A (the one we are on) is really traveling through space?

You can't -- that's the whole point of relativity. That's why physics has dropped the concept of how fast something is "really" moving.

Q: How could we tell which direction meteor A is traveling? A could be traveling the same direction as B, only slower, right? OR, we could be traveling in opposite directions? We could be traveling in a V formation upwards at the same speed?

You can tell which direction A is moving with respect to you by looking at it move. Beyond that, your question doesn't mean anything specific. You can tell what direction it is moving in relative to a planet by looking at A and the planet.

Let's see this in our birds-eye view where we could see both meteors, but oops, .. we can't because there is nothing to stand on.
Wait, we can! We don't need anything to stand on since space provides us infinite points to observe the two meteors from, only now time stops. As I switch from point to point I no longer see motion, only two meteors at different distances.

If I move rapidly through points in my birds-eye view, I could alter the speed of the meteors, which in turn alters time for each individual rock!?!

I have no idea what this means. Nothing changes on the rocks when you change how you view them. For someone on a rock, a clock will keep ticking at one second per second. The only thing that changes is how you see the clocks ticking, from your changing observation frames (depending only on your velocity relative to the rock).

What if the two meteors are traveling perfectly parallel to each other, at the same speed, .. we couldn't measure time, correct? Did time stop then even though the two rocks are moving through space?

Huh? If they're traveling parallel to each other, then an observer on each will see the other as motionless. An observer moving with respect to them will see them as moving in parallel. In no case does time stop.

If there was one rock in space, would time exist relative to itself? Would speed exist?

Time would exist just fine; wind up your clock and let it tick. If there's just the one rock, then no, it won't have a speed relative to anything else, since there is nothing else.

[arian]

If a 1% accurate measure would be more than sufficient, wouldn't that be like measuring the thickness of my hair with a yardstick and telling me that it is exactly 0.0030 inches thick? That is the way I understand what you are saying, .. please forgive me.

No, not at all. I told you exactly what I meant. To measure the speed of light to 1% accuracy, all you have to be able to do is measure time to an accuracy of 1 ns and measure how long it takes light to travel 100 feet. That's easy to do. Why are you introducing irrelevant analogies?

Again, .. please forgive my seemingly irrelevant analogies, but to me it is relevant so I could understand it all better. I really do appreciate your patience.

Look, here is what I mean; even if I had a stopwatch that was accurate to the nanosecond as you say, how do I start and stop the clock? By the time I press the button, about 500 millionth of a second could have gone by, .. no? My light would have traveled about 90,000 miles by then.
At this incredible speeds both in velocity and in the measurement of time, any minute atmospheric interferences could be huge! Even temperature, atmospheric density, a lens between the source of the light and its receiver, and countless other factors, no?

When I inspected runout of .0002 of an inch on curvics of impellers that go into jet-engines, any variation in temperature was critical. Any tiny vibration of the ground, my hand, the tiniest friction or dust particle could throw my measurement off. So how could a measuring device as accurate as 1 billionth of a second, to measure speed of 186,282 miles per second be used along with a 'tape-measure'? Especially measuring this within a tiny space of a hundred feet? Please help me out here?

I believe my simple expressions are the problem, or maybe our perspectives are very different? You may be viewing this and considering Maxwells equation along with Lorentz laws regarding electromagnetism, while I am envisioning a simple one-second 186,282 mile long beam of light traveling through space. Could my simple questions be answered without trying to calculate permeability and how matter travels through what we believe is responsible for mass like the Higgs Boson?

What the heck are you talking about? I talked about a simple experiment that's really easy to do in a lab, or even your backyard if you want to spend a little money -- just timing a pulse from a laser.

Timing a speed of 186,282 miles per SECOND with a clock that is accurate down to the BILLIONTH of a second within a tiny distance of a hundred feet is simple? And you tell me I can do this in my back yard with a tape measure and a stopwatch?

If they do, how were they able to calibrate it?

That would vary depending on the experiment, but it's trivial to do: just measure how long it takes for light to travel the length of the experimental area. That's c by definition.

That is what I'm asking, .. how does one verify this speed 'C'? Did you build two atomic clocks where one starts when it shoots out a beam of light, or particle and the other stops when the light/particle hits it?

I told you that too: you buy some electronics from a catalog. The clock that is part of the electronics will be some kind of oscillator. I don't know how they calibrate the clock, but you could certainly verify its accuracy with an atomic clock.

Even with my limited knowledge in inspection, verifying the timing between an oscillator and an atomic clock would seem extremely difficult and expensive.
I have studied how they have been measuring the speed of light over the years, and still their most used answer remains 'C', .. or something in the area of 180,000 m/p/s. Sorry, but I would never pass that through my inspection, and sure as heck wouldn't put my stamp on it.

Please try to come down to my level on this, what I want to understand is how the speed of light, or C can be a constant speed of 186,282 m/p/s?

It just is. No one really understand why it is or how it can be, but it is.

Hmm.. just as the speed of light, which is almost always referred to as 'C', or approximately 180,000 miles per second even by physics Professors. So is the answer the same for it's limit also; "No one really understand why it is or how it can be, but it is." ???

How in the world did they agree on this 'constant limit' of exactly 186,282 m/p/s, NOT 186,283 mps mind you, but EXACTLY 186,282 mps, not an inch more, .. and this way back hundreds of years ago?

Here, let's go into space. Now I know that scientists are saying that space is made up of dark matter, quarks, then there is this new Higgs Boson, then there is still the residue of primordial gasses, and gravity and what not, .. what I am asking is; did Einstein figure the effects of permeability through these .. these substances into his calculations when he came up with a beam of light traveling through the vacuum of space at a constant 186,282 m/p/s?

If gravity has a bending effect on light, and light has speed and travels, then a 186,282 mile long beam of light traveling through space would be similar to a 186,282 mile long ruler, .. is this correct? Another word, whatever makes up space, or whatever things are present in space, would their effects be the same on a beam of light as on a metal ruler? I don't mean just some small particles, but a solid steel ruler?

Why are you introducing all of these complications? It is simply an observable fact that light in a vacuum always travels at the same speed. Whether the vacuum contains virtual particles and a Higgs field is irrelevant; light just travels in a vacuum at a constant speed. It doesn't even have to be a very good vacuum, either.

But it does matter because they claim light can be slowed down in some virtual particles, .. even stopped. So what's left in the vacuum IS very important! There goes this 'observable fact', .. right?

They say light somewhat 'slows down in water', correct? Yet even after billions of years it hasn't reached the bottom of our oceans??

Another example which I would like to understand; As we focus our camera on our distant stars, the longer the exposure, .. the brighter, and the more stars we capture, .. correct?
So why doesn't our nights get brighter near the end of the night, after 8 or 9 hours of exposure? Is there a better answer than "It's just the way it is." ??

Lets consider relativity, time and space. Let's take two solid objects like a couple of meteors that are just passing each other, meteor A and meteor B. Lets stand on A, and from A we measure B passing us at a speed of 0.6 C.

* We are at rest on A, another word we are not moving relative to ourselves, B is passing us at a measured velocity of 0.6 C.

Q. How do we know this measurement of speed is accurate? This only tells us that meteor B is moving away from us at 0.6 C, doesn't tell us how fast we are going in space?

You can accurately measure how fast meteor B is moving with respect to you. That's all you can measure. "How fast we are going in space" doesn't mean anything, as far as physics can tell.

It does to me! Even if there is only one planet in the entire universe, if its moving close to light-speed then it definitely would mean something won't you agree? The only thing we don't know yet until we can detect some dark matter next to it, or the Higgs Boson particle, .. is how fast it's moving, and what direction? If you believe in the Big bang, then the planet could be traveling at 0.8 C for all we know?

But on the planet we wouldn't feel a thing unless we launched a ship into space and all of a sudden after reaching 0.15 C the ship would drastically slow down and keep going slower and slower no matter how much energy our engines are putting out, also it would immediately start getting heavier and heavier, its length shorter and shorter, and time on our planet go faster and faster, while on the ship the time would gradually come to a halt.

We have radio contact with the ship. After the ship reached .19 C from the planet we send out a message: "Space ship this is Huston, come in please!"

Q. The planet is cruising at 0.8 C since its creation, the same direction the ship took off in, so in actuality the ship is traveling 0.99 C through space, but only 0.19 C relative to the planet. What effects would the ship be experiencing regarding contraction, time dilation, weight or Mass?
What would the effects be;
A. at 0.19 C relative to the planet?
and
B. at 0.99 C relative to its velocity in space?

Q: How could we ever tell how fast meteor A (the one we are on) is really traveling through space?

You can't -- that's the whole point of relativity. That's why physics has dropped the concept of how fast something is "really" moving.

Then so much for time dilation and length contraction, .. right? These effect are because of space, not where the ship launched off of.

Also, (referring to my above examples) ... if another planet B came upon the planet the ship took off from, and was approaching planet A at 0.19 C, considering length contraction and the increase in mass and time dilation, planet A would not even notice the speck of a planet B (because of length contraction) coming up on them, yet they would be sucked into its incredible gravitational pull because of its mass created by its velocity of 0.99 C. The difference in the passing of time between the two planets would be extreme too.
I mean while the two are traveling through space they could easily visit each other, land, stay for a while and return to their home planet where one would not have aged much at all, and the other would have to visit his kids at their grave sites because they would have died of old age a long time ago.

UNLESS Big bang scientists consider space created between two objects by motion, SEPARATE from the space we have in our universe? So, do they?
Is the ONLY acknowledged space in physics the space they are observing between two objects, .. and the rest of the space in the universe as irrelevant?

Q: How could we tell which direction meteor A is traveling? A could be traveling the same direction as B, only slower, right? OR, we could be traveling in opposite directions? We could be traveling in a V formation upwards at the same speed?

You can tell which direction A is moving with respect to you by looking at it move. Beyond that, your question doesn't mean anything specific. You can tell what direction it is moving in relative to a planet by looking at A and the planet.

Say what? .. So we are to calculate length contraction, time dilation, increase in mass, ONLY according to the relation between the two objects? Only the speed between the two and NOT the actual speed in space? This is crazier than I thought? And they try to convince me of a Big Bang?

Also, what if two planets are traveling upwards at exactly at 0.6 C, but in a V formation? From either planets perspective they would be moving away from each other in a straight line, nothing else. Speed would be calculated according to their separation, or relative to each other which is far less than 0.6 C, more like 0.2 C (depends on the angle of the V) So when could they expect time dilation, length contraction and the increase in mass to happen? What, .. when they reach a separation speed of 0.99 C? Their timing would be way off! They would have to travel something like 3.2 C on their V formation to achieve this.

Let's see this in our birds-eye view where we could see both meteors, but oops, .. we can't because there is nothing to stand on.
Wait, we can! We don't need anything to stand on since space provides us infinite points to observe the two meteors from, only now time stops. As I switch from point to point I no longer see motion, only two meteors at different distances.

If I move rapidly through points in my birds-eye view, I could alter the speed of the meteors, which in turn alters time for each individual rock!?!

I have no idea what this means. Nothing changes on the rocks when you change how you view them. For someone on a rock, a clock will keep ticking at one second per second. The only thing that changes is how you see the clocks ticking, from your changing observation frames (depending only on your velocity relative to the rock).

Picture the universe sprinkled with sand (or dark matter). Now take a sheet of paper and sprinkle sand on it. take two pencils and place their erasers to represent two planets. In a V formation about 2 degrees apart start at the bottom and move the erasers upwards at the same velocity. From either planets perspective they can only see themselves moving apart in the X direction, NOT the upwards direction.

So what is their actual speed traveling through space? When will they feel the effects of time dilation and length contraction, .. when they reach near-light speed in the X direction? See what I mean?

What if the two meteors are traveling perfectly parallel to each other, at the same speed, .. we couldn't measure time, correct? Did time stop then even though the two rocks are moving through space?

Huh? If they're traveling parallel to each other, then an observer on each will see the other as motionless. An observer moving with respect to them will see them as moving in parallel. In no case does time stop.

I only said two rocks, .. traveling yet seem motionless. No watches have been invented yet and no one outside my example is observing this. They are motionless, so time stops, or there is no reason for time.

If there was one rock in space, would time exist relative to itself? Would speed exist?

Time would exist just fine; wind up your clock and let it tick. If there's just the one rock, then no, it won't have a speed relative to anything else, since there is nothing else.

Think about this for a second, .. does the ticking of a clock create time?

TIME:
1 the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole : travel through space and time : one of the greatest wits of all time.

Thanks

[sfs]

[Replying to post 323 by arian]
Sorry. I've done my best, but you appear to be impervious to my explanations. Physicists will go on studying the real world and you'll have to go on living in your own.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 323 by arian]

arian wrote:

That is what I'm asking, .. how does one verify this speed 'C'? Did you build two atomic clocks where one starts when it shoots out a beam of light, or particle and the other stops when the light/particle hits it?

In these modern times, You don't need to build such a device for yourself. You can easily purchase a hand-held laser rangefinder of the kind used by hunters, golfers, etc in sporting goods stores for less than $100. These electronic devices work by emitting a laser pulse of light, which is then reflected by the target and returns to the defice, where it is very accurately timed by the electronics. See WIKIPEDIA for a description of these devices, and Amazon.com to purchase one for less than $100.

[arian]

[Replying to post 323 by arian]


arian wrote:

That is what I'm asking, .. how does one verify this speed 'C'? Did you build two atomic clocks where one starts when it shoots out a beam of light, or particle and the other stops when the light/particle hits it?

In these modern times, You don't need to build such a device for yourself. You can easily purchase a hand-held laser rangefinder of the kind used by hunters, golfers, etc in sporting goods stores for less than $100. These electronic devices work by emitting a laser pulse of light, which is then reflected by the target and returns to the defice, where it is very accurately timed by the electronics. See WIKIPEDIA for a description of these devices, and Amazon.com to purchase one for less than $100.

Aahh.. finally! Thank you so much JohnPaul, I even remembering seeing this in hunting magazines, only back then I never considered how it worked?

Great, now I have something I can put my hands on instead of trying to understand how they could get the speed of light from observing Jupiter's moon IO

I wholeheartedly thank you JohnPaul, another thing out of the way.

I am still trying to figure out when the laws of length contraction, time dilation and the increase in mass occurs in relativity? Is it when two objects reach C relative to each other? Or is it when an object, regardless of any other object, reaches near-C in space? (please see my questions in the above posts)

I'm sure you wonder why Einstein would say that there is no real speed except what is relative to another object, right?

I mean if they say dark matter is like the skeleton that holds the stars and galaxies in place, then they have to be there, and once we do detect it, we could use that to determine 'actual speed' in space, and not the erroneous 'relative to another object'?

Don't abandon me JohnPaul, there has to be a better answer then "Just because"?

Thanks again.

[arian]

[Replying to post 323 by arian]
Sorry. I've done my best, but you appear to be impervious to my explanations. Physicists will go on studying the real world and you'll have to go on living in your own.

Please forgive me sfs, and please, I am not impervious to your explanations. I am really listening, only you skip over a lot of critical questions I had.

JohnPaul convinced me of the speed of light, and unless something else doesn't add up, I am satisfied with a constant 186,282 mps. But what about the other questions I had? Like when will the effects of time dilation, length contraction and the increase in mass occur if speed is measured ONLY relative to another object in space?
Don't my two planets (or whatever objects) traveling in a V formation example make sense?

Is there anyone else out there who can explain this to me?

Thank you for the info so far sfs! I really appreciate it!

Take care my friend.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 327 by arian]

You will probably find more luck getting your questions answered on forums dedicated to physics rather than on a religion forum.

[arian]

[Replying to post 327 by arian]

You will probably find more luck getting your questions answered on forums dedicated to physics rather than on a religion forum.

Yea, .. you would think, right? I was on strictly Christian Forums, and when I debated the trinity doctrine, I was kicked off. Then I wanted to know more about atheism and how they think, so I went on the Happy Atheist Forum, and when they read i was an atheist that believe in God, and they couldn't refute it, they kicked me off of there too. So why would a Forum dedicated to physics be any different, .. right? Besides, over the years I have tried that too, and soon as I mention a Biblical view, or mention God in my explanation, .. they stop responding. This is because people have been conditioned that the only God that exists is through religion, when in this case I reveal a God who Created all the laws of physics which made science possible.

No, I believe I am on the right Forum; Christianity & Religion, on the Science & Religion sub-forum. It is right here that I want to prove how one-sided people can be when it comes to Big-bang Evolution vs Intelligent design. I can defend my God as the Creator no problem, .. but can you defend the idea behind Big-bang Evolution?

If you guys define 'nothing' as 'not nothing anymore', and erroneously define speed relative to another object, maybe the entire Big-bang, primordial gas, red-shift, .. string theory having the answer to creating our universe is wrong too? So why not consider the God of the Bible, .. not the religious version of Him, but the scientific, the Creator of the universe AND all of its physical laws version? Just as He revealed Himself in the O.T. and the N.T through His Son Jesus Christ?

Anyway, thank you my friend.

[Star]

Look, here is what I mean; even if I had a stopwatch that was accurate to the nanosecond as you say, how do I start and stop the clock? By the time I press the button, about 500 millionth of a second could have gone by, .. no? My light would have traveled about 90,000 miles by then.

You think they sit there clicking stopwatch buttons like in track and field? Wow lol, no. Your argument revolves entirely around your lack of understanding, rather than theirs. Scientists go to school for many years, and believe it or not, they use sensitive equipment and computer technology to measure with a great deal of accuracy. It's the 21st Century, right?