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]

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?

No, of course I don't expect them to click stop watches Star, I was just referring to sfs comment

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.

He mentioned a tape measure too. But I'm sure I imagine things far simpler than he does. But even computer technology only travels at the speed of light, correct? To measure anything with accepted accuracy you need at lest ten times more accurate sensors or measuring equipment than the accuracy you're trying to measure.

Anyways, for now I accept John Paul's post on light-speed, so first things first. Can you suggest an answer to my above post as to when does time dilation, length contraction and Mass-gain start if speed in space is measured relative to another moving object instead of the 'actual speed' through space?

If not, that's OK, .. I'll look deeper into it myself. This way maybe I'll pick up more info and not ask so many dumb questions, .. or I'll be introduced to more paradoxes!?!

[help3434]

[Replying to post 329 by arian]

Why can't you just go to a dedicated science forum and ask a question about science without bringing things up like the bible, conspiracy theories, or anything else?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 331 by arian]

arian wrote:

Anyways, for now I accept John Paul's post on light-speed, so first things first. Can you suggest an answer to my above post as to when does time dilation, length contraction and Mass-gain start if speed in space is measured relative to another moving object instead of the 'actual speed' through space?

There is no such thing as motion "through" space. All motion is meaningful only in relation to other objects. Relativistic effects such as time dilation, contraction and mass gain start at any speed relative to another object, but become significant only at very high speeds close to that of light. For example, the formula for time dilation is t2 = SQR ROOT (1 - v^2). This means that the time dilation observed in a moving object is equal to the square root of 1 minus the square of the velocity of the object, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light. At ordinary speeds found on earth, it is too small to be detected, but at the speed of light, time stops completely.

In a sense, every observer has his own private view of the universe, different from that of all other observers moving in relation to him. This "illusion" is very real to him. Another observer may see time almost stopped for you, but to you, everything seems normal because everything around you, not just clocks but your own body and brain functions, are slowed at the same rate.

Light is very special and strange. The speed of light is the only thing in the universe that remains constant for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to each other or to the light. Perhaps this special nature of light is what God had in mind when he made a special point of saying "Let there be light!"

[arian]

[Replying to post 331 by arian]

arian wrote:

Anyways, for now I accept John Paul's post on light-speed, so first things first. Can you suggest an answer to my above post as to when does time dilation, length contraction and Mass-gain start if speed in space is measured relative to another moving object instead of the 'actual speed' through space?

There is no such thing as motion "through" space. All motion is meaningful only in relation to other objects.

Thanks again JohnPaul, .. but don't you think motion relative to another object is still motion in space? If they are moving apart in a V formation, measuring their relative speed to each other is meaningless.

Relativistic effects such as time dilation, contraction and mass gain start at any speed relative to another object, but become significant only at very high speeds close to that of light.

Measuring speeds in space relative to another object is meaningless, especially expecting time dilation and length contraction by those erroneously measured speeds.

Look my friend, if a 747 was carrying a shuttle close to the speed of sound (but not quite the speed of sound) the shuttle would be standing still relative to the 747, right? Now if the Shuttle took off let's say 25 mph from the 747, it could break the sound barrier, correct?

So is it possible for an aircraft to break the sound barrier going at 25mph?? That is what 'relative to' means, .. the Shuttle relative to the 747, correct?

For example, the formula for time dilation is t2 = SQR ROOT (1 - v^2). This means that the time dilation observed in a moving object is equal to the square root of 1 minus the square of the velocity of the object, expressed as a fraction of the speed of light. At ordinary speeds found on earth, it is too small to be detected, but at the speed of light, time stops completely.

Yes I understand that those effects would be only at near speed of light. But are you saying that the speed of a platform already traveling through space is irrelevant, .. that the only thing matters is if something (like a shuttle) from that platform takes off? That only the speed of the shuttle relative to the platform counts and that time dilation, length contraction will happen only when the speed between these two reach near light-speed? That's ludicrous, don't you think?

In a sense, every observer has his own private view of the universe, different from that of all other observers moving in relation to him. This "illusion" is very real to him. Another observer may see time almost stopped for you, but to you, everything seems normal because everything around you, not just clocks but your own body and brain functions, are slowed at the same rate.

Well, none of that makes sense to me because it is not logical even in theory.

Besides, .. the only thing we have is light and information traveling at the speed of light, so this means light has no time. If light and information has no time, then it has to be instant, or we have a huge paradox on our hand.

Also, .. how could light and information travel in no time (at the speed of light)? Unless time dilation is false too!?

Q. If the Hadron Collider ever produced a particle to travel the speed of light, then according to Einstein's rules, that particle would gain infinite mass AND sit there long after the scientists working on it have died, no matter how short the life-expectancy of that particle was originally.
Time stop is time stopped whether for the long life of the Redwood, or the ant crawling on the great Redwood. If the ant reached light-speed, the ant would outlive many, many Redwoods.

Light is very special and strange. The speed of light is the only thing in the universe that remains constant for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to each other or to the light. Perhaps this special nature of light is what God had in mind when he made a special point of saying "Let there be light!"

I don't know JohnPaul, .. look: If we on earth send out a message to a ship going away from us at 0.2 C at the very moment its distance is 20 light (C) minute's away, according to this 'constant', the info is said to get there in 20 minutes, right? It doesn't matter what speed the ship was traveling at.

But by the time the information reaches the ship, the ship is 40 light minutes away from us, or from the source the information was sent out from. Something is wrong here, a huge paradox as far as I see it?

[arian]

[Replying to post 329 by arian]

Why can't you just go to a dedicated science forum and ask a question about science without bringing things up like the bible, conspiracy theories, or anything else?

Are you kidding? Everything has to do with the Bible and our Creator God of the Bible. The Theory of Relativity, Big-bang Evolution are all opposed to our Creator, so this is where the debate must go on.

Just few nights ago an answer to "how does God know the past, present and future?" was answered for me. This also is tied in with this relativity, space, light and so on.

[help3434]

Thanks again JohnPaul, .. but don't you think motion relative to another object is still motion in space? If they are moving apart in a V formation, measuring their relative speed to each other is meaningless.

Why meaningless? The velocity vectors of the two objects can be calculated even if they are traveling at an angle away from each other.

Look my friend, if a 747 was carrying a shuttle close to the speed of sound (but not quite the speed of sound) the shuttle would be standing still relative to the 747, right? Now if the Shuttle took off let's say 25 mph from the 747, it could break the sound barrier, correct?

So is it possible for an aircraft to break the sound barrier going at 25mph?? That is what 'relative to' means, .. the Shuttle relative to the 747, correct?

The shuttle breaks the sound barrier because it is traveling faster than the speed of sound relative to the air that it is traveling in.

[Joman]

Why meaningless? The velocity vectors of the two objects can be calculated even if they are traveling at an angle away from each other.

Cut to the chase folks.

The whole theory is designed to be unprovable and produces meaningless results.
There is nothing more meaningless then a mental effort wasted on relativism.

The shuttle breaks the sound barrier because it is traveling faster than the speed of sound relative to the air that it is traveling in.

That knowledge about the speed of sound in air removes the relativity nonsense with respect to other objects.
That is, by knowing what speed the shuttle is moving at with respect to air, which air is common to both, the speed of all objects in air are known irregardless of their relationship to one another.
Same thing an airport does, it makes all flights reference to the airport and thus refutes all silliness about what individual airplane captains might theorize.

Has relativity produced anything scientific? No.
Why not?
Because relativity isn't science it's imaginary.
Newton believed that abosolute space was a good reference for all moving things.
And it is.
But, once men imagine space instead of measuring it there no longer exists in the mind of believers in relativity theory any reference but, the imagined one.
But, there is no such thing in the known measurable universe of natural things that supports the notion of light speed being the only reference for speed, time etc...
Every time some real scientists points out that light speed is seen to vary, then and only then does the true purpose of the imaginary relativity mind game come into play.
And what is it good for?
Reprimanding real scientists for denying the theory and trying to discontinue the hoax that man can't figure things out accurately.

When Newton introduced the calculus he proved that notions of absoluteness aren't necessary in real science because, although absolute space can't be absolutely measured it is nevertheless, immobile enough to let man measure the speed of anything in it.

That's why now, instead of knowing truth about the universe we ended up believing in expansion and all kinds of magical effects deemed scientific as long as one wears the relativity theory blinders with a deep commitment to absurdity.

[help3434]

Why meaningless? The velocity vectors of the two objects can be calculated even if they are traveling at an angle away from each other.

Cut to the chase folks.

The whole theory is designed to be unprovable and produces meaningless results.
There is nothing more meaningless then a mental effort wasted on relativism.

The shuttle breaks the sound barrier because it is traveling faster than the speed of sound relative to the air that it is traveling in.

That knowledge about the speed of sound in air removes the relativity nonsense with respect to other objects.

Measuring your speed relative to the air you are traveling in removes measuring speed relative to other objects? How? Stop contradicting yourself. Measuring your speed relative to the air is measuring you speed relative to another object.

[Joman]

Measuring your speed relative to the air you are traveling in removes measuring speed relative to other objects? How?

Your spinning this question such that it doesn't agree with anything I said.
Is that coincidence or what?
If you have a reference for speed that all objects can be referenced to, then all relativistic notions are null and void because no particular movement is any longer measured to anything other than the appropriately chosen reference.

So, again..planes are not referenced to each other but, to the tower which references all it's notions of speed and direction to the radar system reference.

Is this difficult to understand? No.

In the case of the speed of sound I showed that if a plane broke the sound barrier it's speed becomes known, and no need for notions of relative motion are required since, the speed is known by being referenced to the known speed of sound in air. As the other poster pointed out, then the speed of another plane in the particular situation described would be also known.

I admit that the sound barrier analogy isn't as useful as the airport analogy is.
But, I went along with it because it clarified some confusion in that discussion.

Stop contradicting yourself.

Ok.

Measuring your speed relative to the air is measuring you speed relative to another object.

No one said anything about measuring the speed of anything to air. The reference is the speed of sound in air. And requires no measuring of actual plane speed because the speed of sound in air is well proven experimentally.

What you seem to have difficulty comprehending is that the correct and practical way to measure things is to a reference standard. Namely a primary reference standard that is referenced to a national standard. Sorry to have to introduce the real world but, it shows the silliness of einstein mind experiments.

I'm not going to go into the absurdities of big bang nor relativity (they are theoretically married together by the absence of scientific evidences) at this time.
Any one believing in either is probably beyond any scientific correction since they accepted the many absurdities in whole and in part, with but a nod and wink far as I can tell. If you folks don't know the difference between fact an fiction, real and imagined, then, well I'm sure you see my point.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 339 by Joman]

Why would planes be referenced to each other? Choosing to reference an object for a specific purpose does not make it an absolute frame of reference. Please at least learn what the definition of these terms are before you try to argue against the theory.