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.

[Star]

In the same way, we note that the speed of light isn't absolute at all except in the pristine world of imaginary science.
Which is why I reminded readers that like the calculus' lack of absoluteness the need for absoluteness is null and void by the ability to measure as accurately as needed.
Theoretical absolutes are ficticious.
The most accurate things are natural things but, no natural thing is absolute.
That is the real world.

What in the universe are you talking about?

There are no absolutes in science. For the reason of being a strawman, your argument against science is invalid.

[arian]

You might say: "But scientists eat cake all the time

[Replying to post 348 by arian]

How is the doppler effect a fairytale? Don't you think it is ridiculous to criticize the theories of scientists when you have already shown you have holes in your knowledge of basic scientific facts?

The Doppler effect, .. where did I say anything about the Doppler effect? I was talking about the red-shift fairytale, which has as much to do with the Doppler effect as scientists eating cake has to do with science. You might say: "But scientists eat cake all the time!" .. but it still has nothing to do with science, .. sorry. Please keep all fairytales out of science.

The Doppler effect can be observed, but saying that the pretty red lights in the heavens proves the universe is expanding is not scientific, .. it's just like saying that collecting dark-energy would solve our electricity shortage problem, both are unrealistic science fiction.

First, please explain the basics, and tell me how you would determine whether you are coming or going in space?

Here, .. you are in a spaceship looking out the window in front of you. You see another ship moving away from you. Now tell me;

A. do you think the other ship is speeding away from you?

B. Or are you going backwards away from the other ship?

C. Or is the universe expanding and you two are just expanding with it and are not moving at all?

You are welcome to use the Doppler effect, or the Red shift/background radiation theory to solve this problem.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 352 by arian]

arian wrote:

The Doppler effect, .. where did I say anything about the Doppler effect? I was talking about the red-shift fairytale, which has as much to do with the Doppler effect as scientists eating cake has to do with science.

from Wikipedia:

Redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.

It would really save a lot of time here if you would make a little effort to first learn at least a little about what is being talked about.

[arian]

[Replying to post 348 by arian]

How is the doppler effect a fairytale? Don't you think it is ridiculous to criticize the theories of scientists when you have already shown you have holes in your knowledge of basic scientific facts?

I have often observed the Doppler effect. I live near a highway on which ambulances occasionally pass with their sirens going. I can easily hear the drop in siren pitch or sound frequency as they pass by and move away from me. I suppose some here in the forum (arian?) would claim that the ambulance drivers are part of a vast conspiracy to deceive me, and have learned to recognze my house and deliberately reduce their siren's pitch as they pass by.

Who said anything about the Doppler effect? Anyways, .. let's take those ambulances with their sirens to outer space, and see if you could tell whether the sirens are coming, .. or going away from you?

I also examined some spectrograms of light from distant stars in school, which clearly showed a shift in light frequency toward the red end of the spectrum.

That's nice JohnPaul, .. but until we cosmologically observe the white light of a star coming towards us, then turn red as it passes us by, .. all we are left with is a colorful story and nothing else, which is not even science.

I wonder how all the professors found the time and skills to carefully edit all these spectrograms just to convince a bunch of bored students that the Red Shift exists? It is amazing that this vast conspiracy has been going on worldwide for a century or more!!! Wow!!!

I know, I know, .. it's amazing what level people will stoop down to in order to feed their families, isn't it? Not me, the short suffering here on earth doesn't even compare with the glory waiting for me in Heaven.

Have you tried Jesus yet? It is such a nice feeling, because with Him we don't have to lie to people in order to keep our jobs, .. or be afraid to be killed when we proclaim the truth. You really should try it my friend! I mean what do we have to loose, right, .. our social security? you know that's as good as gone, .. right? So what, .. our life? We die no matter what, but to die for a just cause will give so much more value to the short time we did live, .. wouldn't you agree?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 354 by arian]

You did, when you brought of redshifting. Redshifting is the doppler effect of light.

[arian]

[Replying to post 352 by arian]

arian wrote:

The Doppler effect, .. where did I say anything about the Doppler effect? I was talking about the red-shift fairytale, which has as much to do with the Doppler effect as scientists eating cake has to do with science.

from Wikipedia:

Redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.

It would really save a lot of time here if you would make a little effort to first learn at least a little about what is being talked about.

Familiar?? Familiar would be shining a light on the back of a white car as it passes away from us, and then shining the light on the same car coming towards us. If the light turns reddish on the car going away from us, opposed to white coming towards us, .. well that would be proof.
But comparing the colors of distant starlight to the Doppler effect sounds very much like religious doctrine to me, .. NOT science, .. and I don't care what comparisons you guys put in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately Wikipedia is devolving as fast as the Big-bang theory devolved our universe from its original size (whatever that may be) to a pin-sized dot in nothing within a few seconds. Sadly but surely, the lie of Big-bang Evolution finally found a place it can evolve in many languages at once, .. Wikipedia, the Evolution theory Encyclopedia.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 352 by arian]

arian wrote:

The Doppler effect, .. where did I say anything about the Doppler effect? I was talking about the red-shift fairytale, which has as much to do with the Doppler effect as scientists eating cake has to do with science.

from Wikipedia:

Redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.

It would really save a lot of time here if you would make a little effort to first learn at least a little about what is being talked about.

Familiar?? Familiar would be shining a light on the back of a white car as it passes away from us, and then shining the light on the same car coming towards us. If the light turns reddish on the car going away from us, opposed to white coming towards us, .. well that would be proof.
But comparing the colors of distant starlight to the Doppler effect sounds very much like religious doctrine to me, .. NOT science, .. and I don't care what comparisons you guys put in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately Wikipedia is devolving as fast as the Big-bang theory devolved our universe from its original size (whatever that may be) to a pin-sized dot in nothing within a few seconds. Sadly but surely, the lie of Big-bang Evolution finally found a place it can evolve in many languages at once, .. Wikipedia, the Evolution theory Encyclopedia.

Your example of shining a light on the back of a car moving away from us is a perfect example of the use of the red shift by the "radar guns" used by police to catch speeders. I hope you know that radar waves are a form of light, only lower in frequency, below the visible spectrum, but otherwise exactly the same. I suppose you could fight your speeding ticket in court by telling the judge that the red shift that caught you is a fairy tale. Good luck!!

[arian]

[Replying to post 352 by arian]

arian wrote:

The Doppler effect, .. where did I say anything about the Doppler effect? I was talking about the red-shift fairytale, which has as much to do with the Doppler effect as scientists eating cake has to do with science.

from Wikipedia:

Redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change in the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.

It would really save a lot of time here if you would make a little effort to first learn at least a little about what is being talked about.

Familiar?? Familiar would be shining a light on the back of a white car as it passes away from us, and then shining the light on the same car coming towards us. If the light turns reddish on the car going away from us, opposed to white coming towards us, .. well that would be proof.
But comparing the colors of distant starlight to the Doppler effect sounds very much like religious doctrine to me, .. NOT science, .. and I don't care what comparisons you guys put in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately Wikipedia is devolving as fast as the Big-bang theory devolved our universe from its original size (whatever that may be) to a pin-sized dot in nothing within a few seconds. Sadly but surely, the lie of Big-bang Evolution finally found a place it can evolve in many languages at once, .. Wikipedia, the Evolution theory Encyclopedia.

Your example of shining a light on the back of a car moving away from us is a perfect example of the use of the red shift by the "radar guns" used by police to catch speeders. I hope you know that radar waves are a form of light, only lower in frequency, below the visible spectrum, but otherwise exactly the same. I suppose you could fight your speeding ticket in court by telling the judge that the red shift that caught you is a fairy tale. Good luck!!

Sorry JohnPaul, I didn't know that the radar-gun shines red when the car it is timing is going away from the gun, and gets whitish when the car is coming towards it?

Can we go back to answer my questions on relativity? When does time dilation and all that other magical stuff happen to a ship, or any object traveling near-speed of light in space?

Is it when it reaches near-light speed relative to the fabric of space, or only when it reaches near-light speed relative to some other object it passed by?

Also, if there are multiple objects traveling in different directions at different speeds, .. will, or could those other objects set off premature time dilation for my ship which is traveling at near-speed of light relative to the fabric of space?

Another word let's say I'm cruising at 0.8 C in my ship relative to the planet I came off from, when suddenly I notice a planet zooming by me, and I clock it relative to me, and it is traveling at 1.6 C. Will I now become infinitely heavy and tiny and end up going back in time?

Or I have nothing to worry about as long as the planet I came off from doesn't start getting sucked into a black hole spiral and increase its speed away from me more than 0.19 C?

I guess it would be wise to always take off from your planet towards the direction the planet is traveling, .. but wait, .. darn, .. what if my planet is orbiting a sun? When it comes on its backwards spin and I'm still out there cruising the same direction, that could cause me to experience premature time-dilation, .. right?

hey, this is important because I don't want to come back from my 5-year mission and find my own planet, or even my entire solar system long gone, vanished!?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]

I am rapidly losing patience here. Your questions have already been answered several times by several people here. If you still don't understand the answers, you can easily find better explanations in any reference source, or in hundreds of elementary books on the subject. Ooops! I forgot. All those are the lies of Satan.

The red shift of starlight has nothing to do with the color of the light. It is determined by the position of the emission lines of hydrogen atoms in the light from the star, which are shifted toward the lower frequency (red) end of the spectrum as the star moves away, and is detected and measured by a spectrograph, certainly not by the human eye. The radar waves from the police "radar gun" reflected back to the gun by the moving car are slightly different in frequency from those originally emitted.

There is no such thing as the "fabric of space." That is simply an imaginary metaphor. All motion is relative to other "frames of reference," other objects or observers.

I do apologize if I seem rude and abrupt here, but as I said before, it is difficult to debate anything with someone who believes that everything learned about the universe in the past several centuries is nothing but the lies of Satan. I simply do not understand that deliberately blind attitude. It is not just the scientific community that has left you far behind. Even the mainstream of Christianity has long moved beyond such primitive beliefs.

[Joman]

In the same way, we note that the speed of light isn't absolute at all except in the pristine world of imaginary science.
Which is why I reminded readers that like the calculus' lack of absoluteness the need for absoluteness is null and void by the ability to measure as accurately as needed.
Theoretical absolutes are ficticious.
The most accurate things are natural things but, no natural thing is absolute.
That is the real world.

What in the universe are you talking about?

There are no absolutes in science. For the reason of being a strawman, your argument against science is invalid.

You made my point thank you.
In natural science there are no absolutes.

In the theory of relativity there is an absolute.

Conclusion...the theory of relativity is not related to nature.

Thus, for example, in nature we find that mass can't be created and so, no amount of speed can be thought to produce any increase in mass.
The results of the theory of relativity is belief in redefining science as magical.
The reason for desiring magical effects is to meld science with magic to the end that men be led away from common sense towards fables contrary to the Holy Bible's God of truth.

Men want to believe they are gods, or can become gods, and can avoid God.
Studying relativity is a complete waste of formerly rational minds.