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.

[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.

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?

You mean like, NOooo don't go into the light? Heh, just kidding.

I didn't google my answer, I suggested you do. There must be some simulation of traveling at lightspeed out there. Let me do it for you.



How much time dilation? How much length contraction? You keep asking questions without enough information to give you an answer. Relativistic effects don't just happen suddenly at .99C. Astronauts come back a fraction of a second younger that us land lubbers and they don't travel anywhere near C.

BTW, your original post was answered two posts later by Divine Insight and received a donation by me! Why do you keep asking nonsense 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?

You mean like, NOooo don't go into the light? Heh, just kidding.

I didn't google my answer, I suggested you do. There must be some simulation of traveling at lightspeed out there. Let me do it for you.



How much time dilation? How much length contraction? You keep asking questions without enough information to give you an answer. Relativistic effects don't just happen suddenly at .99C. Astronauts come back a fraction of a second younger that us land lubbers and they don't travel anywhere near C.

BTW, your original post was answered two posts later by Divine Insight and received a donation by me! Why do you keep asking nonsense questions?

Yeah, he, he, he, .. don't look at the light! Bugs Life right? My kids loved that movie, over and over again.. lol.

OK, .. so if you guys don't know the answer to something, you deem the question as nonsense. I don't care how many back-patty points you gave DI, his religious rambling did NOT answer my question, .. I left it alone so I may study this relativity doctrine a little more. So far every Lecture and every YouTube video example was a trick, a deliberate aim to confuse simple reality, and sorry but your last video suggestion was no different.

Look at the place he talks about the beam/pulse of light going up to a mirror and back on a moving train. He implies, or 'suggests' that the light travels up in half second, and then back down in half a second, .. why? Is he trying to say the distance between the pulse and the mirror is 93,000 miles long?

Lets look at this in a 'universal' sense, and then look at it relative to each observer, and then see what effect (if any) time has on each frame of reference.

Let's take a ping pong ball in a glass ship bouncing between two plates 2 feet apart. Bounce the ball at a rate of 1 seconds, half a second up, and half a second down, or TWO FEET per second, just to keep at a kindergarten understanding level (since you guys can't seem to understand if I make anything more complex)

Now lets speed this ship up to C, which is 186,282 m/p/s before it passes an observer motionless in space (yes, I CAN imagine a stationary static point in space, if you guys cant, or if Einstein couldn't, then that was his problem, or limitation. I don't create such limitations for myself, as I said, .. I am beyond religious indoctrination.)

DISTANCE/Time dilation for the outside static/stationary observer:
In one second the ping pong ball would have traveled 186,282 miles and two feet. Doesn't matter what the observer seen or thinks he saw, or what time he thinks the guy in the ship had, .. all that is irrelevant. The main thing is the fact, which is that the bouncing ping pong ball traveled 186,282 miles and two feet in one second.

DISTANCE/Time dilation for the guy INSIDE the spaceship:
ASSUMING this guy in the spaceship is not an infant, but at least a kindergartner or a first grader who knows he is traveling at 186,282 m/p/s., .. he would clock the ping pong ball between the two foot distance of the two plates at exactly 1 (one) second, and knowing he is traveling at 186,282 m/p/s, he would say; "daddy, the last second the ping pong ball has traveled 186,282 miles and two feet."

Now if the kid was my own son, I would tell him: "Very good son, that is EXACTLY the distance the ping pong ball traveled in one second!"

What I would not tell him is that he is dumb, because he did not consider some fairytale relativistic effects of time dilation, length contraction and mass accumulation/weight-gain. Or what 'effects' another observer may have on his own reality, or visa-versa.

As for the assumed few seconds the astronauts traveling in space gained over us on earth, it really doesn't show that much? Why, .. is that something they or their loved ones always talk about after they land?
"Hey Neil, you do look a few seconds younger, you lucky man you!" lol.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 392 by arian]

arian wrote:

DISTANCE/Time dilation for the outside static/stationary observer:
In one second the ping pong ball would have traveled 186,282 miles and two feet. Doesn't matter what the observer seen or thinks he saw, or what time he thinks the guy in the ship had, .. all that is irrelevant. The main thing is the fact, which is that the bouncing ping pong ball traveled 186,282 miles and two feet in one second.

You have overlooked a couple of points here. The first is a very minor point, the distance the ping pong ball has traveled. The ball's motion is a combination of two motions, an up-and-down motion and a "forward" motion of the ship. Therefore the path of the ping pong ball is a diagonal motion to an outside observer, the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Using grade school math, the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Therefore, the distance the ball has traveled is the square root of the sum of 186282 miles squared plus 1 foot squared, or only infinitesimally more than 186282 miles, not two feet more. Perhaps the kindergarten boy in your example can be forgiven for not yet having grade school math, but the father has no such excuse.

The first point is too trivial to bother with, but the second point is fundamental and overwhelmingly important. WHAT THE OUTSIDE OBSERVER SEES is the whole point of Relativity. In this case, the ship would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the outside observer, so time dilation would cause time within the ship to be reduced to zero. The ping pong ball, the crew's clocks and watches, their brains and hearts, everything in the ship as seen by the outside observer, would be absolutely motionless and would remain motionless for all eternity for the outside observer. Seconds, hours, days, years, centuries would pass for the outside observer, but not the tiniest fraction of a second for those inside the moving ship.

You have not yet grasped the fundamental principle of Relativity. TIME AND DISTANCE ARE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENTLY MOVING OBSERVERS. If they are moving at the speed of light, the difference is infinite, as in your example above

[arian]

[Replying to post 387 by arian]

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.

Come on now buddy, as Captain of the USS Enterprise, would you settle for that? I mean you would split off in a 12 deg. V formation to land on two different planets, and just rev up those hyper drives relative to the speed between the ship and the shuttle till McCoy would scream: "I don't think she can take anymorre Captain! She is rready to blow!" ?? I mean you could end up going half way into the planet before you would stop.

Also, on a five-year mission you could pass a lot of different objects in space, so how would you calculate your speed if those objects varied with speeds themselves, and the direction they were traveling? Some could be coming at you, some crossing your path, .. and some coming up behind you gaining at only ten miles an hour? What, .. would you yell at McCoy for slacking the entire mission? "McCoy, .. what's the holdup, .. after two days and I can still see that planet behind us?"

"But Captain, .. I am giving herr all she gott!"

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.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; "And you don't see a problem with that?" Why would anyone in their right mind go into space on a 'five year mission' with such poor understanding of navigation? I mean Earth itself is traveling around the sun, and the solar system is traveling within the galaxy and so on, .. once you are off the planet and gliding (engines off) you would be registering all kinds of speeds relative to earth. So what then, .. switch to another planet that you have absolutely no idea which direction or what speed its heading?

Thank God Columbus didn't hear about the theory of relativity, after sailing for six months, he could have ended up just a few miles from where he left off estimating his speed and direction off of other ships passing by. I know, he went by the stars, right? Well so can we in space, and chart everything according to what we see out there. If Columbus could do it, I'm sure our super-duper computers could too.

The only use that I see in relativity with its time dilation, and length contraction and so on is to confuse and distract graduates from seeing the stupidity in the Big-bang fairytale. That's it. It's no different than religions keeping mans mind off God with the Trinity Doctrine. I see absolutely no difference in purpose between the two.

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.

You'll just have to depend on your instruments. You should know your spaceship too, like how much force your engine gives out per second, then calculate what speed five seconds of that force could get you up to relative to the planet or ship you just got off of. Then you calculate what angle you took off from the other ship, what speed your engines are getting you up to, end your on your own. The velocity of the ship traveling away from you could give you the angle of the V formation you set for yourself. I mean you should know where you wanted to go before you took off right? The rest is elementary adjustments even your on-board I-Pad could handle.

If all fails, dial 911, I'm sure they will respond promptly and send you a nuke to put you and your crew of 5,000 out of their misery.

This has to be much easier than sailing across the ocean back in Columbus days! In space the stars are fixed to your spaceship, but on earth you have wind, for calculating by stars you have the earths rotation, the earths rotation around the sun, clouds, currents, .. none of these have any effect on a spaceship once it's in motion.

I mean come on now, they calculated the age of the universe back to the Plank Epoch, the Event Horizon, that Big Bang to the very few seconds, to that speck and point in nothing it all started in, so you think they're going to use relativity to travel the stars? Ouch, .. something is very wrong here.
(I know they don't use relativity, or what they made up about the Big-bang and Evolution in real life events, this is only to keep the idea of God out of peoples heads. Keep them busy calculating time dilation and length contractions, or what exactly does the trinity doctrine mean .. LOL The rest of the working folk can watch porn, or play X-Box games after school or after work, or watch futuristic awesome movies, music videos by the gods themselves humping themselves before the millions of worshipers. Anything and everything to keep their weak minds occupied so they won't know what hit them when Agenda 21 is fully implemented in a year or so. By then, we'll tell them to kill their own family and they will OBEY!)

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 going to argue with it about who is moving where?

I mean what you are saying above is exactly my point John Paul! We NEED to use the UNIVERSAL FRAME of reference. I mean think my friend, .. how do you know what you just said; "the earth was moving when you left at .8 C in the opposite direction toward the distant Andromeda galaxy." huh, .. how?

How did they know that Jupiter has an elliptical orbit, or which galaxies are closer and which ones are farther? I mean they already have a 3-D rendering of our known universe on my I-Pad, I could maneuver through our known universe just by that. I mean I could use all that info and find a static place, a point in space where I am not moving just by reversing the stars/planets around me that I know is moving relative to other objects. If something is off in its estimated future trajectory, that means I am still moving. Once my computer shows everything moving around me as estimated, I should be sitting still in space.

I mean come on, if an unschooled dummy like me could figure this out, I am sure those brilliant minds have a long, long time ago. Only they invested so much time and money in taking God out of His creation, this all is sold to the general public, not as if this was actually of any use to them. As I said, relativity to back up all the Evolution without a God theories.

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.

Hey old buddy, .. I'm not the one preaching this "something from nothing theory" OK? So who is denying the existence of the universe huh? Something from nothing had to be nothing before it became something, and an entire believed to be infinite universe with all the countless galaxies, stars and planets is a lot of something. So who is religious and fighting against common sense using irrational reasoning?

Thanks again my friend.

[arian]

[Replying to post 392 by arian]

arian wrote:

DISTANCE/Time dilation for the outside static/stationary observer:
In one second the ping pong ball would have traveled 186,282 miles and two feet. Doesn't matter what the observer seen or thinks he saw, or what time he thinks the guy in the ship had, .. all that is irrelevant. The main thing is the fact, which is that the bouncing ping pong ball traveled 186,282 miles and two feet in one second.

You have overlooked a couple of points here. The first is a very minor point, the distance the ping pong ball has traveled. The ball's motion is a combination of two motions, an up-and-down motion and a "forward" motion of the ship. Therefore the path of the ping pong ball is a diagonal motion to an outside observer, the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Using grade school math, the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is the sum of the squares of the other two sides. Therefore, the distance the ball has traveled is the square root of the sum of 186282 miles squared plus 1 foot squared, or only infinitesimally more than 186282 miles, not two feet more. Perhaps the kindergarten boy in your example can be forgiven for not yet having grade school math, but the father has no such excuse.

I didn't have grade school math, or high school math, but I did learn trigonometry using a booklet to figure out the sides of the triangle I need. Also, I don't see the ball traveling in a strait line up two feet and then down two feet, because the ball is traveling at a much slower speed than 186,282 miles per second. Now if the distance between the two plates was 93,141 feet high, and the ball traveled at the speed of light, then you should get a straight line, am I correct? But like this, we have a curve the ball is traveling, and to trig out the curve which has infinite points, it takes a lot of trigging. Tell me at what intervals you want it trigged out at, 1 foot, one inch or .001 increments? The smaller the increments, the more accurate distance we get. I know you know that, I'm just saying.

The first point is too trivial to bother with, but the second point is fundamental and overwhelmingly important. WHAT THE OUTSIDE OBSERVER SEES is the whole point of Relativity. In this case, the ship would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the outside observer, so time dilation would cause time within the ship to be reduced to zero.

Prove it.

Relative to themselves-
The time for the guy in the ship is running normally, correct? Or seems like it anyways, right?
The time for the observer is running normally, .. correct?
The time for every other being or thing in the universe is running normally, so why would time dilate for the guy traveling 186,282 m/p/s in the ship? Because Einstein said so? What made him come up with an idea like that anyways?

What I mean is this, bear with me here; He said that speed decreases time, but it doesn't, speed only decreases the time we get from here to there.

Look JohnPaul, .. if an observer at a distance was watching a rocket traveling 186,282 m/p/s between two telephone poles set at 186,282 miles apart, the observer would see the ship pass the first pole and with his atomic clock time the rocket when it reached the other pole 186,282 mile away, and it would be exactly one second, correct?

Or two sensors are built in both poles, and when the rocket passes the first pole, the sensor starts the clock, and when it reaches the second pole, it stops the clock. The clock sitting still should show 1 second, correct?

The guy in the rocket would show one second traveled between the two poles on his clock also, because for the guy in the rocket relative to himself time passes the same, correct?

But now you say that when the guy comes out of the ship, his clock would suddenly go backwards and show less than one second, .. far less. HOW and WHY? So the guy in the ship who timed one second on his atomic clock between the poles, steps out of his rocket and his clock would go back one second? Showing no time passed? But he seen it with his own eyes at the same time the observer seen his own clock. This is one event observed by two observers, one stationary and the other traveling 186,282 m/p/s
.
Not only that, but you guys say that because of his speed, once he got out of his ship after passing the 186,282 mile mark and walked over to the observer, the observer would have aged weeks or maybe even months?

Look again .. the observer sees the rocket at a distance passing from one telephone pole and reaching the other at 186,282 miles away in one second (as timed by the sensors mounted on the two telephone poles)
One second passed for the observer.
The guy in the rocket has his clock running too, and he sees one second pass as he reaches the other telephone pole, correct?
He then pulls over, gets out;
He would say that he observed that he timed and observed that one second passed in traveling from one telephone pole to the other, correct?

The observer would say he watched and timed him traveling the 186,282 mile distance in one second also, correct?

So what Einstein is saying is that once the guy gets out of his rocket, the observer would age weeks, while the rocket guys clock would show zero time passed. I say that is a fairytale time traveling sci-fi delusion. the guy in the rocket 'timed' his travel between the two poles, and he seen the atomic clock with its billionth of a second come to a stop at exactly one second. So once he gets out of his ship, time, and his clock does a trick on him?

The ping pong ball, the crew's clocks and watches, their brains and hearts, everything in the ship as seen by the outside observer, would be absolutely motionless and would remain motionless for all eternity for the outside observer. Seconds, hours, days, years, centuries would pass for the outside observer, but not the tiniest fraction of a second for those inside the moving ship.

Says who, the guy in the moving ship, or the guy outside observing INSIDE the moving ship, as if that make sense, or was possible? A ship passing by the observer at 186,282 m/p/s, and you guys are trying to tell me he would say; "wow, I saw the whole thing dude, .. he was like, .. standing still dude! I swear!"

Yes, compared to the ship he was traveling in at 186,282 m/p/s, the guy in the rocket would SEEM like standing still, but he is not. He could be walking around and juggling 5 apples in his hand while traveling, and his heart, his apples, his walking would all be relative to the universal time that others were observing him. No less or no more.

You have not yet grasped the fundamental principle of Relativity. TIME AND DISTANCE ARE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENTLY MOVING OBSERVERS. If they are moving at the speed of light, the difference is infinite, as in your example above

Say what you will, but the day I buy into something traveling 186,282 m/p/s as infinite, is the day I admit the universe popped out of nothing, or that our Creator God is really one plural three gods.

You measure stars at light years distance, all the while claiming C has no time, or infinite. Don't you see the irony in that? Now if light was 'instant', then having something other then light, like a ship travel at C (instant) it would make sense that time would stop, because you could reach the other side of the physical universe in NO TIME, or in an instant.

Now this would make sense in length contraction also, since the ship would be here and at the end of the universe at the same time, but I would call that length expansion, because the ship would span the entire universe, being here AND there at the 'same time', or in no time.

If you guys don't have an acceptable, reasonable and rational explanation to this over-used statement of; "TIME AND DISTANCE ARE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENTLY MOVING OBSERVERS", I will consider this debate WON!

You may call me names for all I care, but I will continue to pray for all you Big-bang Evolution Relativists, that you may see the light, not the illuminati one, but the truth, the true light that only your mind can see.

[Peter]

[Replying to post 392 by arian]

You seem to be struggling with relativity because it doesn't make intuitive sense to you. Surprise, it's never going to.

You're on a spaceship going .9c and turn on your headlights so that light must intuitively be going 1.9c right? Wrong.

If we spent our lives moving at relativistic speeds we might develop an intuition for relativity but we don't.

As for "winning" the debate, congratulations you get to remain ignorant about relativity!

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 395 by arian]

arian wrote:

If you guys don't have an acceptable, reasonable and rational explanation to this over-used statement of; "TIME AND DISTANCE ARE DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENTLY MOVING OBSERVERS", I will consider this debate WON!

(sigh) I have tried to be patient here because some of your questions, even though hopelessly uninformed, showed signs of some real curiousity and intelligence behind them. But there is a big difference between sincere incomprehension and obstinate blind denial. Relativity is no longer some obscure "theory" hidden away in a university. Over the past century, it has been thoroughly tested and become a daily part of modern technology.

With all due respect, I can only suggest that you either try to learn something or you go back to your cave, mutter to yourself about conspiracies, and pat yourself on the back for having "won" a debate that you never understood in the first place.

[Star]

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.

The two ships would essentially be travelling away from each other at 0.4c.

Here is the equation:



So, the calculation would be…

40 to the power of 2 is 1600, then divide that by 100 to the power of 2, or 10,000, to get 0.16.

Now, subtract that from 1 to get 0.84. Get the square root of that, which is 0.9165, rounded. Multiply this by 100 for the percentage.

So at 0.4c, time on Ship A is moving at only 91.65% relative to Ship B, and vice versa. This seems like a paradox, but once Ship A arrives at the destination, they then move towards each other at 0.4c, breaking symmetry. This is how one ship can age less than the other.

Here are a range of velocities with their respective time dilation expressed in percentages, where 100% is the rate of time relative to the non-moving frame, and 1c is light speed.

0.1c – 99.4987%
0.2c – 97.9796%
0.4c - 91.6515%
0.6c - 80%
0.8c - 60%
0.9c – 43.59%
0.9999c – 1.41%

[JohnPaul]

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.

The two ships would essentially be travelling away from each other at 0.4c.

Here is the equation:



So, the calculation would be…

40 to the power of 2 is 1600, then divide that by 100 to the power of 2, or 10,000, to get 0.16.

Now, subtract that from 1 to get 0.84. Get the square root of that, which is 0.9165, rounded. Multiply this by 100 for the percentage.

So at 0.4c, time on Ship A is moving at only 91.65% relative to Ship B, and vice versa. This seems like a paradox, but once Ship A arrives at the destination, they then move towards each other at 0.4c, breaking symmetry. This is how one ship can age less than the other.

Here are a range of velocities with their respective time dilation expressed in percentages, where 100% is the rate of time relative to the non-moving frame, and 1c is light speed.

0.1c – 99.4987%
0.2c – 97.9796%
0.4c - 91.6515%
0.6c - 80%
0.8c - 60%
0.9c – 43.59%
0.9999c – 1.41%

I believe you could simplify this equation a little by replacing the term V^2/C^2 simply by V^2, where V is the velocity expressed as a fraction of the speed of light. Thus, .4 squared gives .16 directly.

I gave this formula to arian earlier, but he ignored it. Apparently his math is limited to "trigging" things out. You might point out to him that this is indeed a trigonometric formula, the equation for a circle, although only the first quadrant is relevant here. It can also be used for calculating the sine from the cosine, or vice versa.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 398 by Star]

In Science fiction there is a device coined by Ursual Le Guin called the ansible that allows for instant communication while physical objects are still limited to less than C. What would communication be like at significant relativistic speeds over the ansible? Would they both hear each other as speaking slowly?