The Theory of RELATIVITY

[arian]

[center]Relativity - 101 Grade school - High school version I've been told, and that this has been known and taught for over a hundred years![/center]

Relativity
Physics - the dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, esp. regarding the nature and behavior of light, space, time, and gravity.

OK, .. so there seems to be a various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed object, even I have noticed this phenomena, it is somewhat a different perspective going 150mph on a motorcycle vs standing still and watching someone pass me by doing 150 mph on a motorcycle.

This states that all motion is relative and that the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed.
E=MC^2 - where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light. Thus, Einstein stated that the universal proportionality factor between equivalent amounts of energy and mass is equal to the speed of light squared. The formula is dimensionally consistent and holds true irrespective of which system of measurement units is used.

All motion is relative, got it, but why ‘state’ that “the velocity of light in a vacuum has a constant value that nothing can exceed� .. and then go and square the speed of light in the equation E=MC^2?
OK, so this equation states that ‘C’ is Speed of Light which has a constant value of 186,282 miles / s.
Now squaring a speed that which nothing can exceed gives us a somewhat faster than ‘C’ speed of light, ... about 186,282 times faster because C squared is 34,700,983,524 miles / second.

Fine, let’s use that value of 34,700,983,524 miles / second to figure out the effects, or the relativity to T (time) on M (mass) when it is in motion at given V (velocity)?

- Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens, as its speed increases;

OK, so the Mass of a body increases with speed, another word something with let’s say a mass of 50lb. becomes heavier and heavier as it goes faster and faster. So any mass reaching the assumed speed of light squared (34,700,983,524 miles / s) would become infinitely heavy, .. is this correct?

.. and ALSO, it’s length in the direction of the motion shortens, which I understand that at the speed of C^2 (34,700,983,524 miles / s) the Mass (any mass) would become the size of this universe (since they don’t consider anything outside the universe), meaning infinitely heavy and infinitely big .. is that correct?

- Holding true more generally, any body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction; the term matter has no universally-agreed definition under this modern view.

Continuing with the Energy=Mass C^2, what I’m understanding is (since ‘infinite’ is not imaginable for them in this universe, we’ll just stick with the size of the universe (whatever that may be?) .. so Mass at the speed of light squared, would become as ‘heavy’ as the entire universe, and as big as the universe since as stated; “the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases� meaning that the leading end of the mass going at 34,700,983,524 miles / s would get shorter and shorter until it reached its trailing end, and since mass and energy is equal, it would all be one huge mass of energy (only this would happen at just past the speed of light, the effects of mass moving 186,282 times the speed of light would be much different effect) ... do I have this right?

But that is not all, they say that at the speed of light (especially at speeds C squared), Time would also slow down to a stop. Now if all the IFF’s are true, that would make sense since Mass and Weight would reach infinite, it would engulf the entire universe including time & space, thus everything would become an enormous gravitational Mass void of space, time or light ... am I close?

Is this what they call a ‘Gravitational Singularity’?

Question; to get to this point, don’t we need space and time where mass, any mass could have room to accelerate to reach the speed of light squared?

Let’s move on with relativity to how things 'might' appear by different observers at speed of light at 186,282 miles per second, or squared at 34,700,983,524 miles / second;

- the time interval between two events occurring in a moving body appears greater to a stationary observer; and mass and energy are equivalent and interconvertible.

As I understand and some of it based on - Among its consequences are the following: the mass of a body increases, and its length (in the direction of motion) shortens as its speed increases that if somebody was traveling near the speed of light for millions of years would have experienced only days, or just minutes vs the man standing would have been long gone and vanished millions of years ago,
also if a man traveling at the speed of light was able to look over at the watch of a man standing still, it would be flying by years not minutes, while his at the speed of light would be standing still, or stopped.

How close am I to understanding the Theory of Relativity as described by Einstein's equation of E=MC^2? And what parts am I misunderstanding?

Here are some doubts about Einstein's (that is if it's truly Einstein's idea?) Theory of Relativity, so the question for the Original Post is: 'Am I wrong, and if so, where am I wrong?'

1. 'C'^2 is 186,282 times faster than the assumed speed of light in a vacuum. How can Mass move so fast, and where is it moving IN? (not the universe we know, because there is a 'speed-limit' in our universe as defined by Einstein, which is mutually agreed upon, .. right?)

2. it is claimed that; nothing is faster than the speed of light, yet they assume that on the outer-skirts of our expanding fabric-of-space lies entire galaxies that are expanding ten times the speed of light, AND still emitting light at the speed of light both in the direction of the expansion, and leaving a trail behind?

3. Why is it that at these speeds distance would be shorter, not the time it takes to get to these distances? Matter of fact, they claim 'time would stop' at 186,282 miles per second. This can only mean one thing; that once these expanding galaxies passed the speed of light, they are actually coming behind us, or as we see ourselves in the mirror, we behold our face from the back. That what we see out there is US passing through us?

But that can happen only UP-TO twice the speed of light, because three times the speed of light would pass through the 'twice the speed of light', and if Einstein is right about squaring 'C', we are actually seeing 186,282 TIMES the outskirts of our universe passing through us! That would be like taking a mirror and looking back INTO a mirror, ... our universe creating infinite universes... or am I missing something?

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

[arian]

[Replying to post 409 by JohnPaul]

Thank you John Paul, it is rare that I get someone to agree with me, even if it is partially.

As for your Hadron Collider stats, there is no way I can wrap my brain around as to how they can so accurately measure speeds of particles, .9999 C?? I would have to see it, then ask questions, otherwise to me it's just another "if you say so". I cant use it till I can understand this process, or compare those results with other actual tests.

I know they tell me many here played in their basement building small versions of these particle colliders, but honestly I just can't believe it. I wanted to help my kids build a simple generator, and RadioShack didn't even have the magnets. They did have a small 20 or 30 foot magnetic wire for sale, but that wasn't enough for anything. It took us forever to track down a couple of magnets and a spool of long enough magnetic wire to build a tiny generator.

I have a question; If information through space travels at the speed of light, .. another word a one second beam of light would be 186,282 miles long, which would travel at that length forever at C, (unless it hit something,) correct?

Q. If a ship was cruising next to that laser beam of light, another word if we shot a beam next to that ship traveling at 0.8C, .. Relative to the ship, how fast would that laser-beam be traveling?

I have more questions, but I would like your opinion on this first.

Thanks again JohnPaul, .. really.

[Star]

Here is my math, simple and clear;

What math? You just pumped out yet another version of your scenario that barely makes sense. There's no math here. Do you know what math is?

* A platform is going to the right of your screen at 0.4 C.

* A shuttle takes off from the platform the opposite direction at 0.8 C (towards the left of your screen)

*At this same time, as they pass by a space station, another ship takes off from the space station going to the left of your screen at 0.4 C

* We now have a shuttle and a ship traveling head and head to the left of our screen, the ship traveling 0.4 C, and the shuttle at 0.8 C

*A year later they both reach the same planet, at the same time, land and meet.

One is going twice the velocity as the other, and leaves earlier, but they reach their destination at the same time?

To the left of my screen? Leaving from the right of my screen? My monitor isn't anywhere near large enough. This isn't math. It's not even a scenario that makes sense. You have a lot of work to do on what you refer to as your "math, clear and simple."

Q. why should I believe you that in the one year that they traveled head and head, one aged less than the other?

It has been confirmed experimentally, and applied to technology in real world situations, such as GPS, as has been pointed out to you several times. Like natural selection, relativity are two confirmed theories which can only be improved, unified, replaced, or expanded upon. Unless you have anything new that's neither strawman, nor another misconception (which have already been corrected ), this is the last time I'm going to explain it.

(if you're going to tell me again that "Einstein said so", I will just say "prove it", and a formula, or a bunch of unrelated formulas trying to justify time dilation, length contraction is not good enough, it only proves that the formulas work in their own reference frame, .. lol and not according to my realistic example.)

This is another strawman. We're not appealing to Einstein's authority and this argument is getting old. We've explained how his theories have been experimentally confirmed, provided examples of applications in modern technology, and demonstrated we have an understanding of the math, yet you persist with the strawman that our only reason is because "Einstein says so". Enough already.

Sure there is, I can create as big a universal frame as I desire, by zooming out and include other objects with different velocities.

If you say this, then you don't understand what frames are. They're not a matter of zooming in and out, like a camera lens. Everything else is irrelevant in this scenario. What matters is the movement of objects in our scenario only, as well as the observer.

Look, I could give you this same example if I was in another galaxy, or on the other side of the universe, what difference does it make? Would the distance my question arose from have an effect on your answer because of time dilation? I just want a rational and reasonable answer. I gave you all the information, and if you need more, or want me to expand my birds-eye view to include other nearby planets, stars, other ships, .. I can do that too! I can get very creative with this, only I know I will loose you all since your universe is filled with different time-zones according to how fast each object, each planet, each galaxy is moving, and the distance of each planet could be different then what we measure because dependent on their speed, you add length contraction.

You keep telling me to "look" (and I do as you ask, I look) but all I see is someone who knows little about relativity, and keeps exposing his ignorance of it by the silly strawman arguments he unwittingly keeps making. I looked for your math, and saw nothing. You twist everything I say around, and it makes communication with you difficult, so I'm just going to end this post here.

[Star]

[Replying to post 408 by arian]

I agree at least partly with arian on this one. The URL account of time dilation and the Twin Paradox is enough to confuse anyone, partly because it lumps the effects of time dilation together with the asymmetry of acceleration, deceleration and change of direction, and partly because of its disorganized writing style which throws numbers around in an almost random way.

Sorry I cannot suggest a better account at the moment, but this one lacks clarity, to say the least.

Poorly written, perhaps. I don't see any numbers thrown around randomly. All the math is explained. I also don't interpret it as lumping the two effects together. In fact, it makes a distinction between them. Are we talking about the same Scientific American article?

This paradox is discussed in many books but solved in very few. When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. Hence, the brother who travels to the star is younger. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore, it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental.

[Star]

On the trip back, the homebody views the traveler?s clock going from eight years to 16 years in only four years' time, since his clock was at 16 years when he saw the traveler leave the star and will be at 20 years when the traveler arrives back home (event 3). So the homebody now sees the traveler's clock advance eight years in four years of his time; it is now twice as fast as his clock. On the trip back, the traveler sees the homebody?s clock advance from four to 20 years in eight years of his time. Therefore, he also sees his brother?s clock advancing at twice the speed of his. They both agree, however, that at the end of the trip the traveler?s clock reads 16 years and the homebody?s 20 years. So the traveler is four years younger. The asymmetry in the paradox is that the traveler leaves the earth?s reference frame and comes back, whereas the homebody never leaves the earth. It is also an asymmetry that the traveler and the homebody agree with the reading on the traveler?s clock at each event, but not vice versa. The traveler?s actions define the events.

The Doppler effect and relativity together explain this effect mathematically at any instant. The interested reader will find the combination of these effects discussed in The Fundamentals of Physics, by David Halliday et al. (John Wiley and Sons, 1996). Paul Davies also does a nice job explaining the Twin Paradox in his book About Time (Touchstone 1995, ppf 59.) My explanation follows Davies?s closely; I hope my graph adds further clarity. The reader should also note that the speed that an observed clock appears to run depends on whether it is traveling away from or toward the observer. The sophomore physics problem, mentioned earlier, is a special case as it applies only when the motion of the traveler passes the observer?s reference frame with no separating distance in the direction of motion.

Too many assumptions, and it uses time dilation as fact. I can make up my own rules traveling too and come up with all sorts of formulas to explain it down to the Nano-second. Please explain to me how the traveling twin aged less all while his brother, or let's say they both were able to see each other the entire trip.

The traveling brother started from earth, went the distance of 4 light years from earth, watched each other for another 4 years as he arrived back to earth, so 8 years later he is back on earth exactly as planned. Please tell me other then the fairytale sci-fi hypothesis of time dilation, why one aged more then the other?

See, this is what I mean. Does everyone see this?

I posted an article explaining a thought experiment involving six light years (or 12 light years round-trip) at 0.6c, which takes 20 years for the homebody, but only 16 years for the traveler.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... vity-theor

Arian responds that the article's scenario is actually four light years (or eight light years round-trip) at 1.0c, or full light speed (which is a rather brazen strawman, even by apologist standards). This doesn't appear anywhere in the article. It's so random, it seems to me like it's fabricated on-the-fly. I don't know if it's on purpose, or if it's due to poor cognitive function, but this is ridiculous.

Here is the real math:

Scenario: Ship travels six light years there, and six light years back, at a velocity of 0.6c, or 60% the speed of light.

6 + 6 = 12 total light years traveled

The ship is travelling at 0.6c, so 12 light years will take 20 years.

12 / 0.6 = 20 years

At 0.6c, time is dilated to 80% for the traveler.

0.6² = 0.36

1 - 0.36 = 0.64

0.64√ = 0.8, or 80%

Travelling a round-trip distance of 12 light years will age him 16 years at 0.6c.

12 / 0.6 = 20

20 * 0.8 = 16

[arian]

Here is my math, simple and clear;

What math? You just pumped out yet another version of your scenario that barely makes sense. There's no math here. Do you know what math is?

Yes I know what math is, using numbers as they are, and not saying that one number sees the other number as bigger then it actually is, and the other number sees the previous number smaller then it actually is. Or that if I have a slow calculator, the answer to the problem may be much bigger than it shows, and with a super fast computer at light speed, I may not even get an answer at all, or it would be too distorted to make out, and that GPS satellites prove this fact.

* A platform is going to the right of your screen at 0.4 C.

* A shuttle takes off from the platform the opposite direction at 0.8 C (towards the left of your screen)

*At this same time, as they pass by a space station, another ship takes off from the space station going to the left of your screen at 0.4 C

* We now have a shuttle and a ship traveling head and head to the left of our screen, the ship traveling 0.4 C, and the shuttle at 0.8 C

*A year later they both reach the same planet, at the same time, land and meet.

One is going twice the velocity as the other, and leaves earlier, but they reach their destination at the same time?

You are right, .. way too complicated for you. Here how about we slow things down even more?

You are walking next to the railroad tracks with your straw hat chewing on wheat-stem, when suddenly you notice a very long choo-choo train coming towards you. All the cars of the train is flat beds almost touching each other and are all empty except for one motorcycle on the first car.
You can barely keep walking and chewing your straw after what you see. You see the motorcycle start up, speed up and drive over all the other beds the opposite direction the train is headed, and you notice that the motorcycle guy has long hair, and he seems to be going really fast over the flat-bed cars, yet his hair is not waiving in the wind.

If that wasn't enough to choke on your straw, you notice as the motorcycle reaches the last choo-choo-train-car, drop to the ground right next to you and holding his brakes just sits there, then says hi to you.
In amazement you walk over and touch this guys hair (thinking it must be made of plastic), and when you do, it feels smooth as silk. Then you ask the guy how fast was he going over the flat-beds? He responds; "60 mph".

So you think for a moment, and mumble to yourself; "Oh I know why his hair didn't move when he was going 60 mph, .. it must not be windy today." and you walk away like you are doing from answering my questions.

To the left of my screen? Leaving from the right of my screen? My monitor isn't anywhere near large enough. This isn't math. It's not even a scenario that makes sense. You have a lot of work to do on what you refer to as your "math, clear and simple."

He, he, he, ... I rest my case.

Q. why should I believe you that in the one year that they traveled head and head, one aged less than the other?

It has been confirmed experimentally, and applied to technology in real world situations, such as GPS, as has been pointed out to you several times.

Yes, .. many, many times, just as I heard many people, even very famous people like the diva, the goddess Lady Gaga claim that Jesus was gay, (a homosexual for the lay person), but that doesn't mean it's true.

Like natural selection, relativity are two confirmed theories which can only be improved, unified, replaced, or expanded upon.

Natural selection? He, he.. now that is also funny, because from what I have read and seen, I believe you are talking about that 'aggressive and forced cross breeding of dogs and horses' .. am I correct? Natural selection is when a black and white striped zebra mates with another black and white striped zebra, NOT forcing a great Dane with a Poodle, or taking the sperm of the great Dane and injecting it in the Poodle.

Unless you have anything new that's neither strawman, nor another misconception (which have already been corrected ), this is the last time I'm going to explain it.

If the last 'Twin Paradox Explained' article is the best you can do, .. then by all means you and I are done here.

(if you're going to tell me again that "Einstein said so", I will just say "prove it", and a formula, or a bunch of unrelated formulas trying to justify time dilation, length contraction is not good enough, it only proves that the formulas work in their own reference frame, .. lol and not according to my realistic example.)

This is another strawman. We're not appealing to Einstein's authority and this argument is getting old. We've explained how his theories have been experimentally confirmed, provided examples of applications in modern technology, and demonstrated we have an understanding of the math, yet you persist with the strawman that our only reason is because "Einstein says so". Enough already.

OK, .. so it's; Einstein said so, AND it's being done in GPS. I guess that explains all the paradoxes created by Relativities time dilation, length contraction and weight-gain.

Sure there is, I can create as big a universal frame as I desire, by zooming out and include other objects with different velocities.

If you say this, then you don't understand what frames are. They're not a matter of zooming in and out, like a camera lens. Everything else is irrelevant in this scenario. What matters is the movement of objects in our scenario only, as well as the observer.

Man oh man, and you say I don't understand what frames are? If we zoom out, we get more objects into our frame of reference we are observing.
Look, .. we can zoom into our star-lit sky and see only one distant galaxy. But if we zoom out we have more galaxies in our frame, billions more.

Wait, .. you're just trying to yank my chain, right? Because I KNOW you know this, I can see from your other posts that you are very smart.

Look, I could give you this same example if I was in another galaxy, or on the other side of the universe, what difference does it make? Would the distance my question arose from have an effect on your answer because of time dilation? I just want a rational and reasonable answer. I gave you all the information, and if you need more, or want me to expand my birds-eye view to include other nearby planets, stars, other ships, .. I can do that too! I can get very creative with this, only I know I will loose you all since your universe is filled with different time-zones according to how fast each object, each planet, each galaxy is moving, and the distance of each planet could be different then what we measure because dependent on their speed, you add length contraction.

You keep telling me to "look" (and I do as you ask, I look) but all I see is someone who knows little about relativity, and keeps exposing his ignorance of it by the silly strawman arguments he unwittingly keeps making. I looked for your math, and saw nothing. You twist everything I say around, and it makes communication with you difficult, so I'm just going to end this post here.

Well I hate to say this, but you were more of a thorn in this subject than a contributor, so thanks, and I wish you all the best. See you in other posts.

[arian]

On the trip back, the homebody views the traveler?s clock going from eight years to 16 years in only four years' time, since his clock was at 16 years when he saw the traveler leave the star and will be at 20 years when the traveler arrives back home (event 3). So the homebody now sees the traveler's clock advance eight years in four years of his time; it is now twice as fast as his clock. On the trip back, the traveler sees the homebody?s clock advance from four to 20 years in eight years of his time. Therefore, he also sees his brother?s clock advancing at twice the speed of his. They both agree, however, that at the end of the trip the traveler?s clock reads 16 years and the homebody?s 20 years. So the traveler is four years younger. The asymmetry in the paradox is that the traveler leaves the earth?s reference frame and comes back, whereas the homebody never leaves the earth. It is also an asymmetry that the traveler and the homebody agree with the reading on the traveler?s clock at each event, but not vice versa. The traveler?s actions define the events.

The Doppler effect and relativity together explain this effect mathematically at any instant. The interested reader will find the combination of these effects discussed in The Fundamentals of Physics, by David Halliday et al. (John Wiley and Sons, 1996). Paul Davies also does a nice job explaining the Twin Paradox in his book About Time (Touchstone 1995, ppf 59.) My explanation follows Davies?s closely; I hope my graph adds further clarity. The reader should also note that the speed that an observed clock appears to run depends on whether it is traveling away from or toward the observer. The sophomore physics problem, mentioned earlier, is a special case as it applies only when the motion of the traveler passes the observer?s reference frame with no separating distance in the direction of motion.

Too many assumptions, and it uses time dilation as fact. I can make up my own rules traveling too and come up with all sorts of formulas to explain it down to the Nano-second. Please explain to me how the traveling twin aged less all while his brother, or let's say they both were able to see each other the entire trip.

The traveling brother started from earth, went the distance of 4 light years from earth, watched each other for another 4 years as he arrived back to earth, so 8 years later he is back on earth exactly as planned. Please tell me other then the fairytale sci-fi hypothesis of time dilation, why one aged more then the other?

See, this is what I mean. Does everyone see this?

I posted an article explaining a thought experiment involving six light years (or 12 light years round-trip) at 0.6c, which takes 20 years for the homebody, but only 16 years for the traveler.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... vity-theor

Arian responds that the article's scenario is actually four light years (or eight light years round-trip) at 1.0c, or full light speed (which is a rather brazen strawman, even by apologist standards). This doesn't appear anywhere in the article. It's so random, it seems to me like it's fabricated on-the-fly. I don't know if it's on purpose, or if it's due to poor cognitive function, but this is ridiculous.

Sorry Star, I was just making a comment, it was late and I was tired, the scenario gave an estimated time of arrival of the information, another word; what he saw and when this information arrived at his eyes, so I just made up a similar simpler scenario without all that clutter.

Here is the real math:

Scenario: Ship travels six light years there, and six light years back, at a velocity of 0.6c, or 60% the speed of light.

6 + 6 = 12 total light years traveled

The ship is travelling at 0.6c, so 12 light years will take 20 years.

12 / 0.6 = 20 years

Very good so far.

At 0.6c, time is dilated to 80% for the traveler.

0.6² = 0.36

1 - 0.36 = 0.64

0.64√ = 0.8, or 80%

It's your sci-fi scenario, you can add or take time dilation as you please, use formulas created by other than Einstein to help minimize paradoxes in these stories, but as I explained, it just don't seem to be very realistic, or agree with the rules we have observed in science and classical physics.
Don't get me wrong, .. I love sci-fi as much as the next guy, but I was presenting real-life situations here and how the Relativity Theory conflicts with observed reality.

Travelling a round-trip distance of 12 light years will age him 16 years at 0.6c.

12 / 0.6 = 20

20 * 0.8 = 16

Sure, .. unless he runs into a wormhole on the way back, in which case the back trip could be almost instant. So let's consider that and other sci-fi theories too! Star Trek had a lot of neat sci-fi theories, like beaming someone up, or the warp drives, the cell phones etc, .. Some were based on real-possibilities which became a part of our reality, but this relativity theory can be chaotic if we applied it in real space travel. Nothing would make sense out there using separate frames of references for each object in space, .. nothing. Add time dilation and all that other stuff, and we would surely be Lost In Space. So I am just trying to point out the Danger! Danger Mr. Smith! That's all.

[Star]

You are right, .. way too complicated for you. Here how about we slow things down even more?

Are you serious?

All your arguments are from incredulity. It's too complicated, you don't understand, therefore it must be sci-fi. Confirmatory experiments be damned.

I'm still waiting to see your math.

[arian]

You are right, .. way too complicated for you. Here how about we slow things down even more?

Are you serious?

All your arguments are from incredulity. It's too complicated, you don't understand, therefore it must be sci-fi. Confirmatory experiments be damned.

I'm still waiting to see your math.

Here is the proposed relativity scenario, the math part is elementary, 1st or second grade level:

again and again, ..

An interstellar Space Ship Carrier is traveling at 0.4 C from the left of our screen (somewhere in space) towards the right. (Now I am not going to confuse you by including all the other various speeds and directions the USS Platform may be experiencing, .. like Big-bang expansion, black hole gravitational curves, Klingon death-ray effects, dark matter and dark energy effects and limitations, and the thousands of other 'possibilities' like solar flares disrupting clocks and instrument readings where minute time adjustments have to be calculated that the Platform may or may not be experiencing, and the mathematical paradoxes these effects could have on our scenario OK?) So we have this USS Platform going from left of our screen towards the right, with me so far?

The USS Platform is carrying ships and shuttles for exploration. To their surprise, they notice out their left window as they pass by a Klingon Space-station at 0.4 C, .. from which they launched a ship going their opposite direction speeding up to 0.4 C (the Klingon ship is moving towards the left of our screen- please try to use your imagination)

Upon seeing this, the Capitan of the USS Platform orders a shuttle launched to catch up with the Klingon ship, and see where it is headed and what evil they may up to? The USS Shuttle takes off from, and in the opposite direction of the USS Platform speeding up to 0.8 C relative to the Platform, which is also coming up on the Klingon Space station at 0.4 C (from right to left of our screen)

As the Klingon ship is speeding up to 0.4 C, our USS Shuttle catches up to it, and once the Klingon-ship reaches 0.4 C relative to his Klingon space station, the shuttle levels out, and now they are traveling head and head, .. the Klingon ship traveling at 0.4 C relative to the Klingon Space station, and the USS shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C relative to the USS Platform he just took off from.

The USS shuttle follows the Klingon ship for one year till the ship enters and lands on a tiny planet, and follows pursuit and lands himself with the Klingons.

Q. From the moment that the two ships (shuttle and ship) leveled out and traveled head and head for that one year, The USS shuttle going 0.8 C and the Klingon ship going 0.4 C, where both ships set their clocks to ZERO and started them back a year ago when they leveled out, how much did each traveler age, and please give me the difference?

Thanks. You may ask me more if you need extra clarification.

I have to run now, wait for your answer???

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 418 by arian]

arian wrote:

Here is the proposed relativity scenario, the math part is elementary, 1st or second grade level:

again and again, ..

An interstellar Space Ship Carrier is traveling at 0.4 C from the left of our screen (somewhere in space) towards the right. (Now I am not going to confuse you by including all the other various speeds and directions the USS Platform may be experiencing, .. like Big-bang expansion, black hole gravitational curves, Klingon death-ray effects, dark matter and dark energy effects and limitations, and the thousands of other 'possibilities' like solar flares disrupting clocks and instrument readings where minute time adjustments have to be calculated that the Platform may or may not be experiencing, and the mathematical paradoxes these effects could have on our scenario OK?) So we have this USS Platform going from left of our screen towards the right, with me so far?

The USS Platform is carrying ships and shuttles for exploration. To their surprise, they notice out their left window as they pass by a Klingon Space-station at 0.4 C, .. from which they launched a ship going their opposite direction speeding up to 0.4 C (the Klingon ship is moving towards the left of our screen- please try to use your imagination)

Upon seeing this, the Capitan of the USS Platform orders a shuttle launched to catch up with the Klingon ship, and see where it is headed and what evil they may up to? The USS Shuttle takes off from, and in the opposite direction of the USS Platform speeding up to 0.8 C relative to the Platform, which is also coming up on the Klingon Space station at 0.4 C (from right to left of our screen)

As the Klingon ship is speeding up to 0.4 C, our USS Shuttle catches up to it, and once the Klingon-ship reaches 0.4 C relative to his Klingon space station, the shuttle levels out, and now they are traveling head and head, .. the Klingon ship traveling at 0.4 C relative to the Klingon Space station, and the USS shuttle is traveling at 0.8 C relative to the USS Platform he just took off from.

The USS shuttle follows the Klingon ship for one year till the ship enters and lands on a tiny planet, and follows pursuit and lands himself with the Klingons.

Q. From the moment that the two ships (shuttle and ship) leveled out and traveled head and head for that one year, The USS shuttle going 0.8 C and the Klingon ship going 0.4 C, where both ships set their clocks to ZERO and started them back a year ago when they leveled out, how much did each traveler age, and please give me the difference?

Thanks. You may ask me more if you need extra clarification.

Wow! You learned multiplication, division, decimals and percentages by the second grade? You must have been a precocious genius. I didn't learn all that until about the fifth grade.

Your story was too wordy to follow easily, but I printed it out and made notes. As I understand it, your computer screen is floating out there in space somewhere and the USS Platform is moving away from it a .4 C relative to the floating screen. Since it passes the Klingon space station at 4. C, the Klingon station must be motionless relative to the floating screen. Then the Klingon ship leaves the Klingon space station and moves toward the floating screen, at .4 C relative to both the Klingon station and the floating screen. Then the USS Platform launches the Shuttle, also toward the floating screen at .8 C relative to the Platform and at .4 C relative to the floating screen and motionless beside the Klingon ship.

You answered your own question when you said the Shuttle and the Klingon ship traveled head-to-head. There would be no time difference between the Shuttle and the Klingon ship. There would be a difference between the two travelers and the floating screen, the Klingon space station, and a greater difference between them and the USS Platform. The answer to your question is that there is no difference between the two travelers. Their motion relative to anything else is irrelevant. I will leave it up to you to calculate their differences relative to the other objects mentioned, using the formula given to you earlier.

[Star]

[Replying to post 418 by arian]

I already showed you the math for time dilation at these velocities.

I'm asking for your math, not another one of your ever-changing nonsensical Star Trek scenarios.

You claim your first- or second-grade math can rival, or even trump, time dilation equations used to calibrate GPS satellites. I'd like to see this math.