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 379 by arian]

arian wrote:

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

It seems to some of us that you are here to resist learning. As far as I can see, your questions have been answered. Please try to be as specfic as possible about exactly what it is you do not understand or disagree with. It is often difficult to explain Relativity in any detail without geometric diagrams and formulas, but I will do my best to answer your questions as fully as possible. But if you simply do not believe the answers, you will have to ask your God for help with that problem.

[arian]

[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.

OK, here; we have one spaceship out in space on a 5-year mission carrying a shuttle. After three years they decide to split up, so they go off in a V formation at a 12 degree angle.

Q. How fast will they have to travel at the present trajectory to reach 0.99 C (time dilation, length contraction etc.), and please tell me what is this speed relative to?

Thank you.

[arian]

[Replying to post 379 by arian]

arian wrote:

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

It seems to some of us that you are here to resist learning. As far as I can see, your questions have been answered. Please try to be as specfic as possible about exactly what it is you do not understand or disagree with. It is often difficult to explain Relativity in any detail without geometric diagrams and formulas, but I will do my best to answer your questions as fully as possible. But if you simply do not believe the answers, you will have to ask your God for help with that problem.

Thanks John Paul, my God has all the answers in His creation FOR creation, and we are learning some of it in science. I just posted a question in my previous post a few minutes ago, can you answer me that one please?

[Peter]

[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.

OK, here; we have one spaceship out in space on a 5-year mission carrying a shuttle. After three years they decide to split up, so they go off in a V formation at a 12 degree angle.

Q. How fast will they have to travel at the present trajectory to reach 0.99 C (time dilation, length contraction etc.), and please tell me what is this speed relative to?

Thank you.

Is this a trick question? You ask how fast will they have to travel to reach .99C? They have to travel at .99C to reach .99C and the speed will be relative to wherever you're measuring .99C from.

Questions like this make me wonder why there's a Science & Religion forum here. You might as well have an Apples & Oranges forum because that's about how much science and religion have in common.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 379 by arian]

arian wrote:

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

It seems to some of us that you are here to resist learning. As far as I can see, your questions have been answered. Please try to be as specfic as possible about exactly what it is you do not understand or disagree with. It is often difficult to explain Relativity in any detail without geometric diagrams and formulas, but I will do my best to answer your questions as fully as possible. But if you simply do not believe the answers, you will have to ask your God for help with that problem.

Thanks John Paul, my God has all the answers in His creation FOR creation, and we are learning some of it in science. I just posted a question in my previous post a few minutes ago, can you answer me that one please?

OK, let's take this a step at a time. First, describe exactly what you mean by "speed" in completely empty space. And please, no more nonsense about the "fabric of space." What would you mean by saying that you are moving at .99 C? How could you measure, observe, or detect it in any way? What would such a statement even mean, without relating it to something other than yourself? And dthere is absolutely nothing else there. And please, no ?bird's eye view". Unless you can drive a stake into your "fabric of space" and attach your bird's eye to it with a strap, forget about it.

Think about it before you answer.

[arian]

[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.

OK, here; we have one spaceship out in space on a 5-year mission carrying a shuttle. After three years they decide to split up, so they go off in a V formation at a 12 degree angle.

Q. How fast will they have to travel at the present trajectory to reach 0.99 C (time dilation, length contraction etc.), and please tell me what is this speed relative to?

Thank you.

Is this a trick question? You ask how fast will they have to travel to reach .99C? They have to travel at .99C to reach .99C and the speed will be relative to wherever you're measuring .99C from.

No tricks, just asking?
Now again, .. once the two ships split from each other and start off going aah .. that way, let's just say 'up' on a V formation, how will they know they have reached 0.99C?

Q. Is it relative to each other?

Q. Or relative to space itself?

Questions like this make me wonder why there's a Science & Religion forum here. You might as well have an Apples & Oranges forum because that's about how much science and religion have in common.

Because I am trying to separate science from religion, so this is the place to do that. My question is a scientific one, and I am here to prove that it does not fit in with the religious doctrine of 'relativity'.

So again, .. can you answer my question? Once the two ships split up in a V formation and speed up, .. how will they know when to expect time dilation, length contraction and mass gain? Another word, .. how will they know they are approaching 0.99 C?

Is it by Relative to each other? If so, how will they measure this, is it by the distance-rate they are separating from each other?

Thanks, and please give me a non-religious answer.

[arian]

[Replying to post 379 by arian]

arian wrote:

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

It seems to some of us that you are here to resist learning. As far as I can see, your questions have been answered. Please try to be as specfic as possible about exactly what it is you do not understand or disagree with. It is often difficult to explain Relativity in any detail without geometric diagrams and formulas, but I will do my best to answer your questions as fully as possible. But if you simply do not believe the answers, you will have to ask your God for help with that problem.

Thanks John Paul, my God has all the answers in His creation FOR creation, and we are learning some of it in science. I just posted a question in my previous post a few minutes ago, can you answer me that one please?

OK, let's take this a step at a time. First, describe exactly what you mean by "speed" in completely empty space. And please, no more nonsense about the "fabric of space." What would you mean by saying that you are moving at .99 C? How could you measure, observe, or detect it in any way? What would such a statement even mean, without relating it to something other than yourself? And dthere is absolutely nothing else there. And please, no ?bird's eye view". Unless you can drive a stake into your "fabric of space" and attach your bird's eye to it with a strap, forget about it.

Think about it before you answer.

Thanks John Paul, and yes I do think about both my questions, and my answers, and I am surprised that no one can answer me on a forum dedicated to science and religion? It seems more and more to me that 'religion' seems to rule over science here.

OK, .. no 'fabric of space', .. so how about a space sprinkled with dark matter? No, .. OK no dark matter either since we can't detect the little suckers yet.

Here, how about this?

Again, .. we have a space ship carrying a shuttle.
They split off in a 12 deg. V formation and speed up.

Q. When will they know when to expect time dilation, length contraction and mass gain?

OK, let me help you out here; let's say the ship has a fine fishing line attached to the shuttle. When they split off in a V formation, the string coming off the roll that's on the ship can measure the rate they are distancing from each other, .. correct?

Q. Now "Is this the rate" they have to watch for to reach 0.99 C and expect time dilation and length contraction?

Note!
They are going off from each other in a 12 deg. V-formation, not the opposite direction from each other. Please think about it before you answer.

[Peter]

how will they know they are approaching 0.99 C?

They will know by the light distortion around them. Basically, since they're traveling almost C most of the light they see will be concentrated in a bright area in their direction of travel.

Just google your questions.

[arian]

how will they know they are approaching 0.99 C?

They will know by the light distortion around them. Basically, since they're traveling almost C most of the light they see will be concentrated in a bright area in their direction of travel.

Just google your questions.

Once they start seeing the bright-light, .. won't that be a little too late? I asked when should they expect time dilation, length contraction? Is it when they reach 0.99 C relative to each other? (as I described above)

If you just Googled your answer, why didn't you provide your sources, .. as a common practice here?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 387 by arian]

arian wrote:

Here, how about this?

Again, .. we have a space ship carrying a shuttle.
They split off in a 12 deg. V formation and speed up.

Q. When will they know when to expect time dilation, length contraction and mass gain?

OK, let me help you out here; let's say the ship has a fine fishing line attached to the shuttle. When they split off in a V formation, the string coming off the roll that's on the ship can measure the rate they are distancing from each other, .. correct?

Q. Now "Is this the rate" they have to watch for to reach 0.99 C and expect time dilation and length contraction?

Note!
They are going off from each other in a 12 deg. V-formation, not the opposite direction from each other. Please think about it before you answer.

Your "V formation" is meaningless without some other fixed point of reference separate from the ships themselves. Without such a separate reference point, the ships are simply moving apart relative to each other.

Relativistic effects begin the instant relative motion begins, although they do not become large and significant until speeds near the speed of light. The formula I gave earlier for time dilation shows this, and is not advanced math. It is grade school arithmetic. Please use it. Relativistic effects are always relative to some other object or observer, never to "space" or to the moving object alone by itself.

Motion relative to space is meaningless because it cannot be measured, observed or detected in any way without reference to some other object in space. We are talking about empty space here. No wind in your face. No trees seeming to rush past you. No lights of an approaching harbor. No planets, stars or even subatomic particles around. If there are such objects around, then motion is relative to them, not to space itself. Let me try to give an example of how meaningless your motion "relative to space" is. Suppose you take off in a spaceship from earth at .8 C relative to earth. But suppose the earth was moving when you left at .8 C in the opposite direction toward the distant Andromeda galaxy. So now, relative to Andromeda, you are floating motionless in space and it is the earth that is moving at .8 C away from you toward Andromeda. Andromeda is a lot bigger than you are. Are you goiing to argue with it about who is moving where?

More later.

EDIT - I don't care about your religion. From my point of view, if a God exists, then such things as the Big Bang and Relativity are part of his creation. If a God does not exist, then these things are simply part of the natural universe around us. Either way, they are part of the universe we observe around us. Denying them does not make them go away.