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.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]
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.

The observing of any modulation of the speed of light falsifies the theory of relativity notion that the speed of light is constant with respect to any observer.

There is no such thing as the "fabric of space."

What is the scientifically proven nature of space?

All motion is relative to other "frames of reference," other objects or observers.

A meaningless statement.
Your response suggests that you think the speed of light can't be referenced to anything but frames of reference.
That is nonsense.

E=MC^2 proves that light speed can be referenced to the amount of energy per unit matter.
For, since it is known that matter can't be created nor destroyed, all loss of energy must equate to a decrease in the speed of light.

Please explain how you think modifying the frequency of radar, light, or any other form of electromagnetic wave has any effect on its speed? Please explain how you think energy can be "lost."

[arian]

Q. After billions of years of sunshine, why isn't there daylight on the bottom of our oceans? At least 8 to 10 hours worth, and this, day after day?

A simple problem-Question;
* Two ships A and B are traveling the same direction, A is ahead of B exactly 186,282 miles (1 light second)
-They are both traveling relative to planet Earth they came off of.
A is traveling 0.8 C
B is traveling at 0.1 C

- the trailing ship B turns on his high-beams for exactly one-second at the exact moment ship A is ahead 186,282 miles

Q. Considering the speed of light constant rules, how much time will it take for the light beam from ship B to hit the back of ship A?

[arian]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]

I am rapidly losing patience here. Your questions have already been answered several times by several people here.

Sorry to make you loose your patience JohnPaul, but that will happen when you are unable to honestly give an answer to an honest question.

I did NOT get an answer to any of my relativity-paradoxes, unless you consider telling me to move on to another forum as an answer?

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.

If the answers were really in those 'elementary books', and are as simple as you claim, then you or someone else here would have given them to me a long time ago. (Unless none of you can make any sense out of them either!?)

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.

Radar-waves going from and coming to the radar-gun, .. it is still at a constant, correct? Just asking?

Also, I've seen picture of red-shifts, and they were red. And I believe that is why they call it red-shift.
Only they also found red galaxies in front of white galaxies, which would disprove the 'expanding-universe theory', .. wouldn't you think? Unless they are left over from the bubble-in-a-bubble multi-universe theory? But that would only be 'overlapping-theories', .. I don't know how that could be interpreted as real?

There is no such thing as the "fabric of space." That is simply an imaginary metaphor.

Don't let Stephen Hawking hear you say that, or any of those quantum-activists because hundreds of other theories to support a Big-bang are based on that.

All motion is relative to other "frames of reference," other objects or observers.

I asked you guys about a hundred times over the year, and over the past twenty posts or so, as to what happens in 'shared-reference frames' where one ship takes off the opposite direction of a platform going to the right, at twice the speed? Remember?

This ship is going 0.8 C relative to the platform head and head, neck to neck with another ship going at 0.4 C in the same direction relative to the nearby space-station. I asked what happens with time-dilation, since they are both traveling head and head, yet one is traveling twice the speed of the other?
No one could answer it?

I also would like an answer to what happens when two ships separate from each other in a V formation, how is their relative speed measured? Is it relative to the other ship? Is that when time dilation will occur when their speed between each other reaches near-light speed? See what I mean? Relative to space they could be traveling 5 times the speed of light before they reach C relative to each other!

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.

Hey old friend, no apologies needed, it's mostly my fault for being so hard-headed. Please forgive me.
But come on now, you know that I don't consider EVERYTHING we learned of the universe to be the lies of Satan, many of it Big-bang Evolutionists created. I am here to prove (mostly to myself) that any theory that is created to remove a Creator out of the picture is a lie. And so far I am very content.
The root is the Planck Epoch, the idea that 'something could come from nothing' .. which I proved wrong. Nothing exists, and it is absolutely nothing. We can't put even a quantum string inside it, nor could one come out of it. Nothing exists IN God, who is Everything. It is He who created and defined 'nothing', and let no man try to add, or take away from nothing, or it is not nothing anymore.

Even though it was fun chopping down the branches of all those other lies, but the main point is that the tree is down, and it is quickly dying.

I am also very grateful to finally have other rational, scientific minded people agreeing with me here. And of course any rational-minded scientist would naturally believe in a Creator and ID. Thank you.

As for Christianity, you know how I feel about that? There is this 1,700 year old Christian religion with about 38,000 variations, .. and then there are the ones who people call Christian, .. outside of religious doctrines with all their gods. But that's another subject.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]

I am rapidly losing patience here. Your questions have already been answered several times by several people here.

Sorry to make you loose your patience JohnPaul, but that will happen when you are unable to honestly give an answer to an honest question.

I did NOT get an answer to any of my relativity-paradoxes, unless you consider telling me to move on to another forum as an answer?

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.

If the answers were really in those 'elementary books', and are as simple as you claim, then you or someone else here would have given them to me a long time ago. (Unless none of you can make any sense out of them either!?)

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.

Radar-waves going from and coming to the radar-gun, .. it is still at a constant, correct? Just asking?

Also, I've seen picture of red-shifts, and they were red. And I believe that is why they call it red-shift.
Only they also found red galaxies in front of white galaxies, which would disprove the 'expanding-universe theory', .. wouldn't you think? Unless they are left over from the bubble-in-a-bubble multi-universe theory? But that would only be 'overlapping-theories', .. I don't know how that could be interpreted as real?

There is no such thing as the "fabric of space." That is simply an imaginary metaphor.

Don't let Stephen Hawking hear you say that, or any of those quantum-activists because hundreds of other theories to support a Big-bang are based on that.

Quantum activists? If you are looking for tangible space fabric prehaps you should look here https://www.fabric.com/quilting-fabric- ... space.aspx

All motion is relative to other "frames of reference," other objects or observers.

I asked you guys about a hundred times over the year, and over the past twenty posts or so, as to what happens in 'shared-reference frames' where one ship takes off the opposite direction of a platform going to the right, at twice the speed? Remember?

This ship is going 0.8 C relative to the platform head and head, neck to neck with another ship going at 0.4 C in the same direction relative to the nearby space-station. I asked what happens with time-dilation, since they are both traveling head and head, yet one is traveling twice the speed of the other?
No one could answer it?

I already answered this one. Vehicles traveling neck to neck are going the same speed when you compare them to the same point of reference. Comparing them to different points of reference and then declaring that is a paradox is asinine.

I also would like an answer to what happens when two ships separate from each other in a V formation, how is their relative speed measured? Is it relative to the other ship? Is that when time dilation will occur when their speed between each other reaches near-light speed? See what I mean? Relative to space they could be traveling 5 times the speed of light before they reach C relative to each other!

Of course when you want to know the relative speed to the other ship you measure the speed relative to the other ship! What are you trying to ask here? Where did you get this stuff about 5 times the speed of light?

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.

Hey old friend, no apologies needed, it's mostly my fault for being so hard-headed. Please forgive me.
But come on now, you know that I don't consider EVERYTHING we learned of the universe to be the lies of Satan, many of it Big-bang Evolutionists created. I am here to prove (mostly to myself) that any theory that is created to remove a Creator out of the picture is a lie. And so far I am very content.
The root is the Planck Epoch, the idea that 'something could come from nothing' .. which I proved wrong. Nothing exists, and it is absolutely nothing. We can't put even a quantum string inside it, nor could one come out of it. Nothing exists IN God, who is Everything. It is He who created and defined 'nothing', and let no man try to add, or take away from nothing, or it is not nothing anymore.

Even though it was fun chopping down the branches of all those other lies, but the main point is that the tree is down, and it is quickly dying.

I am also very grateful to finally have other rational, scientific minded people agreeing with me here. And of course any rational-minded scientist would naturally believe in a Creator and ID. Thank you.

As for Christianity, you know how I feel about that? There is this 1,700 year old Christian religion with about 38,000 variations, .. and then there are the ones who people call Christian, .. outside of religious doctrines with all their gods. But that's another subject.

You didn't chop down anything, you just showed that you don't understand the science and then rambled on about creationist and conspiracy theory drivel.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 373 by arian]

arian wrote:

Even though it was fun chopping down the branches of all those other lies, but the main point is that the tree is down, and it is quickly dying.

I am also very grateful to finally have other rational, scientific minded people agreeing with me here. And of course any rational-minded scientist would naturally believe in a Creator and ID. Thank you.

As for Christianity, you know how I feel about that? There is this 1,700 year old Christian religion with about 38,000 variations, .. and then there are the ones who people call Christian, .. outside of religious doctrines with all their gods. But that's another subject.

The only thing you have chopped down here is your own credibility. If you are going to argue against Relativity, you should first learn to understand at least a little about what Relativity is saying. A little basic physics wouldn't hurt either. For example, the energy of light is absorbed by the molecules of water long before it reaches the bottom of the ocean. The energy then appears as a warming of the water.

Your question about two ships moving relative to the earth, a space platform, or other ships involves several different frames of reference, with different relativistic effects in each. A couple of relativistic formulas have already been given here which you have chosen to ignore. Ignoring something is not an argument to make it false. You seem to think that two ships moving in opposite directiions at .8 each, relative to some other object, add together to equal 1.6 C relative to each other. False!! The formula for the relative motion of object A to object B is given by the formula A+B/(1 + AB). Substituting the values in your question, this gives .8 + .8 = 1.6, divided by 1 + .64, which gives 1.6/1.64, or about .98 C observed by the ships relative to each other. You may not like these formulas, but that does not make them false.

Science does not deny the possible existence of a Creator. It simply bases its conclusions on observations, and does not find it necessary to make wildly unsupported claims about some supernatural unobservable God.

Since you deny Christianity, may I assume your God is the vindictive tribal war-god of the Old Testament? I have several copies of the Bible, but none of them include any technical details about what creation process God is alleged to have used. Lacking any scriptural support either way, it seems a little presumptious of you, even blasphemous, to arrogantly substitute your own ignorant opinions and deny that God may have chosen to use a Big Bang creation process and included Relativity in his creation.

[Jack Stoddart]

There is no scientific evidence of.....
black holes,
Each of the above are born of magic related imaginations looking for excuses for nature not agreeing with the bias' of theorists. And yes, common sense is all that is needed to prove false sciences are false.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]@1:02 “..astronomers have believed for quite a while that the centre of our Galaxy is the site of a supermassive black hole.�

It’s called a black hole simply because its gravitational field is strong enough to prevent light escaping. That’s why we can’t see it. The orbits of nearby stars can be observed however.

How those observations are made is explained @1:30[font=Georgia]f[/font].

What are they orbiting? Nothing can be observed but its mass can be calculated. The gravitational field associated with such a mass is too strong for light to escape.

@2:26[font=Georgia]ff[/font] details of those observations are presented together an explanation from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. Although that is an authoritative source, this is not an appeal to authority as such, since anyone with an equivalent telescope would get the same results (data from publicly funded observatories are available to the public and university astrophysics departments also make information available; local universities will have contact details on their websites).

Their orbits, combined with the invisibility of what they are orbiting, constitute empirical evidence for black holes.

[JohnPaul]

There is no scientific evidence of.....
black holes,
Each of the above are born of magic related imaginations looking for excuses for nature not agreeing with the bias' of theorists. And yes, common sense is all that is needed to prove false sciences are false.

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]@1:02 “..astronomers have believed for quite a while that the centre of our Galaxy is the site of a supermassive black hole.�

It’s called a black hole simply because its gravitational field is strong enough to prevent light escaping. That’s why we can’t see it. The orbits of nearby stars can be observed however.

How those observations are made is explained @1:30[font=Georgia]f[/font].

What are they orbiting? Nothing can be observed but its mass can be calculated. The gravitational field associated with such a mass is too strong for light to escape.

@2:26[font=Georgia]ff[/font] details of those observations are presented together an explanation from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics. Although that is an authoritative source, this is not an appeal to authority as such, since anyone with an equivalent telescope would get the same results (data from publicly funded observatories are available to the public and university astrophysics departments also make information available; local universities will have contact details on their websites).

Their orbits, combined with the invisibility of what they are orbiting, constitute empirical evidence for black holes.

What? Any real Christian will tell you, that is Satan lurking at the center of our galaxy and deliberately deceiving us.
(I hope everyone here realizes I am being sarcastic. Judging from past experience, I can't always be sure of that.)

[Star]

Time and Frequency Measurements
Using the Global Positioning System
Michael A. Lombardi, Lisa M. Nelson, Andrew N. Novick,
Victor S. Zhang
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Time and Frequency Division

This paper describes how Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite signals are used in time and frequency metrology. It discusses how a GPS receiver can provide a reference signal for frequency calibrations and time synchronization. It also explains the several types of time and frequency measurements that utilize GPS signals. These include one-way or direct reception measurements, single and multi-channel commonview measurements, and carrier phase measurements. A discussion of how GPS signals can provide traceability to national and international standards is also provided.

The basic carrier-phase equation (Equation 1) shows
the parameters that must be determined in the analysis.
The analysis software makes it possible to make a good
estimate of most parameters. Generally, the number of
cycle slips and the atmospheric delays are the most
difficult parameters to determine.

R
S = g + cS - cR+ trop - ion + mult + cp + NR
S(1)
where,
= carrier wavelength, c/f, R
S = carrier phase observable for satellite S and receiver R,
g = geometric range, √((XS-XR)2+(YS-YR)2 +(ZS-ZR)2,
S = satellite clock error
R = receiver clock error
trop = propagation delay due to troposphere,
ion = propagation delay due to ionosphere,
mult = multipath error,
cp =unmodelled errors and receiver noise,
NR
S= carrier phase ambiguity or bias.

The above shows that no magic corrections are required for GPS to function, and that GPS requires reference to real and palpable national standards rather than to imaginary concerns.

The above formula is for the carrier-phase GPS that is accurate to a millimeter. That is the precision form of GPS.
Whereas the common GPS is accurate <10 meters and is the Course Acquisition GPS.

The variable symbols didn't translate symbolically to this post format..
However, the description of each variable clearly what natural parameters are required.
Whether you can find this paper on the internet I don't know.

You don't realize it, but you confirm here that GPS does in fact rely on the speed of light being a constant in a vacuum. These adjustments are required because Earth's atmosphere obviously isn't a vacuum, but they're all based on the constant, so if the constant's wrong, it's all wrong.

Furthermore, adjustments for time dilation are included in "satellite clock error". They have to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_anal ... ing_System

[arian]

[Replying to post 358 by arian]

I am rapidly losing patience here. Your questions have already been answered several times by several people here.

Sorry to make you loose your patience JohnPaul, but that will happen when you are unable to honestly give an answer to an honest question.

I did NOT get an answer to any of my relativity-paradoxes, unless you consider telling me to move on to another forum as an answer?

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.

If the answers were really in those 'elementary books', and are as simple as you claim, then you or someone else here would have given them to me a long time ago. (Unless none of you can make any sense out of them either!?)

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.

Radar-waves going from and coming to the radar-gun, .. it is still at a constant, correct? Just asking?

Also, I've seen picture of red-shifts, and they were red. And I believe that is why they call it red-shift.
Only they also found red galaxies in front of white galaxies, which would disprove the 'expanding-universe theory', .. wouldn't you think? Unless they are left over from the bubble-in-a-bubble multi-universe theory? But that would only be 'overlapping-theories', .. I don't know how that could be interpreted as real?

There is no such thing as the "fabric of space." That is simply an imaginary metaphor.

Don't let Stephen Hawking hear you say that, or any of those quantum-activists because hundreds of other theories to support a Big-bang are based on that.

Quantum activists? If you are looking for tangible space fabric prehaps you should look here https://www.fabric.com/quilting-fabric- ... space.aspx

So Hawking's is just using government grants to advertise his products, "Fabrics are Us" .. ey? Figures.

All motion is relative to other "frames of reference," other objects or observers.

I asked you guys about a hundred times over the year, and over the past twenty posts or so, as to what happens in 'shared-reference frames' where one ship takes off the opposite direction of a platform going to the right, at twice the speed? Remember?

This ship is going 0.8 C relative to the platform head and head, neck to neck with another ship going at 0.4 C in the same direction relative to the nearby space-station. I asked what happens with time-dilation, since they are both traveling head and head, yet one is traveling twice the speed of the other?
No one could answer it?

I already answered this one. Vehicles traveling neck to neck are going the same speed when you compare them to the same point of reference. Comparing them to different points of reference and then declaring that is a paradox is asinine.

You did it again, you gave me an asinine answer.

Again, .. ship A is 0.8 C relative to the Platform and the other shuttle B is 0.4 relative to the space station. Both ships can be seen from the space station traveling neck to neck. The claim is that ship A will age less, .. much less.

OK, .. here let me help you out a bit, .. think about our GPS satellites in our space and using those figures, tell me what time adjustments would be needed to calibrate for two ships going neck and neck at two different speeds so neither would age more than the other?? Better?

I could give you much more complex scenarios, but for now, let me hear your explanation for my original scenario. No asinine, or stupid, foolish, brainless, mindless, senseless, idiotic, imbecilic, ridiculous, ludicrous, absurd, nonsensical, fatuous, silly, inane, witless, empty-headed answers please.

I also would like an answer to what happens when two ships separate from each other in a V formation, how is their relative speed measured? Is it relative to the other ship? Is that when time dilation will occur when their speed between each other reaches near-light speed? See what I mean? Relative to space they could be traveling 5 times the speed of light before they reach C relative to each other!

Of course when you want to know the relative speed to the other ship you measure the speed relative to the other ship! What are you trying to ask here? Where did you get this stuff about 5 times the speed of light?

Two ships split off from each other in V formation at the same speed. Looking out their respective windows they are slowly distancing/drifting away from each other. Now when will they reach time dilation? Is it when they reach near-light speed relative to each other, or relative to space?

You know what, .. never mind. I mean I am asking people who believe our universe is expanding in absolute nothing. Their reply to this is as asinine as you can get: "nothing is not nothing anymore!"

Okey-dokey

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.

Hey old friend, no apologies needed, it's mostly my fault for being so hard-headed. Please forgive me.
But come on now, you know that I don't consider EVERYTHING we learned of the universe to be the lies of Satan, many of it Big-bang Evolutionists created. I am here to prove (mostly to myself) that any theory that is created to remove a Creator out of the picture is a lie. And so far I am very content.
The root is the Planck Epoch, the idea that 'something could come from nothing' .. which I proved wrong. Nothing exists, and it is absolutely nothing. We can't put even a quantum string inside it, nor could one come out of it. Nothing exists IN God, who is Everything. It is He who created and defined 'nothing', and let no man try to add, or take away from nothing, or it is not nothing anymore.

Even though it was fun chopping down the branches of all those other lies, but the main point is that the tree is down, and it is quickly dying.

I am also very grateful to finally have other rational, scientific minded people agreeing with me here. And of course any rational-minded scientist would naturally believe in a Creator and ID. Thank you.

As for Christianity, you know how I feel about that? There is this 1,700 year old Christian religion with about 38,000 variations, .. and then there are the ones who people call Christian, .. outside of religious doctrines with all their gods. But that's another subject.

You didn't chop down anything, you just showed that you don't understand the science and then rambled on about creationist and conspiracy theory drivel.

-creating asinine paradoxes,
-you don't understand the science
-rambled on about creationist and conspiracy theory drivel
-believes that everything learned about the universe in the past several centuries is nothing but the lies of Satan.
-deliberately blind attitude

How about just answering my questions? If you can't just say so, I am here trying to learn too.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 379 by arian]

I already know your scenario. Speed is still relative. There is no paradox with the two vehicles neck and neck. Time dilation and length contraction is relative to other objects.