The Theory of RELATIVITY

[arian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this what they call a ‘Gravitational Singularity’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

[Star]

[Replying to post 419 by JohnPaul]

I see this, now that you point it out.

Not only is it logically impossible (the two ships can't have a 0.4c difference between them while still travelling head-to-head), but as you point out, those velocities are only in relation to what they departed from.

All that explanation, just to ask what the time dilation is between two objects that aren't moving in relation to each other. None. Time dilation occurs between moving objects, and it's like no matter how many times we say this, it just doesn't seem to sink in.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 414 by Star]

Star wrote:

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

Just for fun, I will quibble with this calculation a little. The catch is in the "round-trip" part. For the calculation to be numerically correct would require instant accelerations and decelerations. At the end of the first half of the trip out, the instant deceleration would instantly flatten both ship and crew into a smear less than an atom thick, then the infinite forces involved would force the orbital electrons into the atomic nucleii, which would break down into quarks and vanish in a flash of radiation. So he would have aged only 8 years on the trip out, then vanished in a flash of radiation, leaving nothing to return. Of course, the radiation would still exist, but traveling at the speed of light, time dilation for it would be infinite and it would experience no further time for all eternity.

[Star]

[Replying to post 414 by Star]

Star wrote:

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

Just for fun, I will quibble with this calculation a little. The catch is in the "round-trip" part. For the calculation to be numerically correct would require instant accelerations and decelerations. At the end of the first half of the trip out, the instant deceleration would instantly flatten both ship and crew into a smear less than an atom thick, then the infinite forces involved would force the orbital electrons into the atomic nucleii, which would break down into quarks and vanish in a flash of radiation. So he would have aged only 8 years on the trip out, then vanished in a flash of radiation, leaving nothing to return. Of course, the radiation would still exist, but traveling at the speed of light, time dilation for it would be infinite and it would experience no further time for all eternity.

Acceleration was intentionally omitted from the scenario because it's "not central to the argument."

His craft will quickly accelerate to 0.6c. For those who are interested, it would take a little more than 100 days to reach 0.6c at an acceleration of 2g's. Two g's is two times the acceleration of gravity, about what one experiences on a sharp loop on roller coaster. However, if the traveler were an electron, he could be accelerated to 0.6c in a tiny fraction of a second. Hence, the time to reach 0.6c is not central to the argument.

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

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 414 by Star]

Star wrote:

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

Just for fun, I will quibble with this calculation a little. The catch is in the "round-trip" part. For the calculation to be numerically correct would require instant accelerations and decelerations. At the end of the first half of the trip out, the instant deceleration would instantly flatten both ship and crew into a smear less than an atom thick, then the infinite forces involved would force the orbital electrons into the atomic nucleii, which would break down into quarks and vanish in a flash of radiation. So he would have aged only 8 years on the trip out, then vanished in a flash of radiation, leaving nothing to return. Of course, the radiation would still exist, but traveling at the speed of light, time dilation for it would be infinite and it would experience no further time for all eternity.

Acceleration was intentionally omitted from the scenario because it's "not central to the argument."

His craft will quickly accelerate to 0.6c. For those who are interested, it would take a little more than 100 days to reach 0.6c at an acceleration of 2g's. Two g's is two times the acceleration of gravity, about what one experiences on a sharp loop on roller coaster. However, if the traveler were an electron, he could be accelerated to 0.6c in a tiny fraction of a second. Hence, the time to reach 0.6c is not central to the argument.

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

Humph! But some nit-picking bleeding-heart liberals would probably claim that survival of the traveler is central to the argument. Because of relativistic mass increase of the traveler, acceleration to .6 C as observed from earth would require more than 100 days. If we then imposed an outside force on it to keep the acceleration at 2g as observed from earth, the acceleration forces experienced by the time-dilated traveler would be much more than 2g.

There are obviously some engineering problems to be solved here before we try this experiment with a live traveler.

[Star]

[Replying to post 414 by Star]

Star wrote:

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

Just for fun, I will quibble with this calculation a little. The catch is in the "round-trip" part. For the calculation to be numerically correct would require instant accelerations and decelerations. At the end of the first half of the trip out, the instant deceleration would instantly flatten both ship and crew into a smear less than an atom thick, then the infinite forces involved would force the orbital electrons into the atomic nucleii, which would break down into quarks and vanish in a flash of radiation. So he would have aged only 8 years on the trip out, then vanished in a flash of radiation, leaving nothing to return. Of course, the radiation would still exist, but traveling at the speed of light, time dilation for it would be infinite and it would experience no further time for all eternity.

Acceleration was intentionally omitted from the scenario because it's "not central to the argument."

His craft will quickly accelerate to 0.6c. For those who are interested, it would take a little more than 100 days to reach 0.6c at an acceleration of 2g's. Two g's is two times the acceleration of gravity, about what one experiences on a sharp loop on roller coaster. However, if the traveler were an electron, he could be accelerated to 0.6c in a tiny fraction of a second. Hence, the time to reach 0.6c is not central to the argument.

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

Humph! But some nit-picking bleeding-heart liberals would probably claim that survival of the traveler is central to the argument. Because of relativistic mass increase of the traveler, acceleration to .6 C as observed from earth would require more than 100 days. If we then imposed an outside force on it to keep the acceleration at 2g as observed from earth, the acceleration forces experienced by the time-dilated traveler would be much more than 2g.

There are obviously some engineering problems to be solved here before we try this experiment with a live traveler.

That was random. Sounds like you have an ax to grind with liberals.

Of course it's important that the traveler live. Did you read the article? It requires that he return to his Earth-bound twin and compare clocks/ages. It's just a mind experiment to illustrate the Twin Paradox.

Yes, there are many engineering problems to be solved before we do this. With our current technology, it's impossible. Humans haven't even been to Mars yet. One huge problem is our propulsion technology. Another is limitations in human physiology. Then there's the slow-moving matter and energy the ship would have to pass through. Collisions at such high velocities would be catastrophic.

However, the mass increase, like you say, is relativistic. To observers on Earth, the ship's mass would increase because of its energy, but to the ship's crew, they would experience no difference. An object with a mass of 1kg would still appear to have the same mass, and weigh 1kg in 1g, relative to their local frame. Therefore, an astronaut with a mass of 100kg would feel like 200kg in 2g, regardless of their velocity.

The reason its not central to the Twin Paradox argument is that it's 1) not necessary to explain the "paradox" (which isn't a paradox), and 2) the effect on time dilation and the overall travel time isn't substantive.

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 425 by Star]

Star wrote:

That was random. Sounds like you have an ax to grind with liberals.

Of course it's important that the traveler live. Did you read the article? It requires that he return to his Earth-bound twin and compare clocks/ages. It's just a mind experiment to illustrate the Twin Paradox.

Yes, there are many engineering problems to be solved before we do this. With our current technology, it's impossible. Humans haven't even been to Mars yet. One huge problem is our propulsion technology. Another is limitations in human physiology. Then there's the slow-moving matter and energy the ship would have to pass through. Collisions at such high velocities would be catastrophic.

However, the mass increase, like you say, is relativistic. To observers on Earth, the ship's mass would increase because of its energy, but to the ship's crew, they would experience no difference. An object with a mass of 1kg would still appear to have the same mass, and weigh 1kg in 1g, relative to their local frame. Therefore, an astronaut with a mass of 100kg would feel like 200kg in 2g, regardless of their velocity.

The reason its not central to the Twin Paradox argument is that it's 1) not necessary to explain the "paradox" (which isn't a paradox), and 2) the effect on time dilation and the overall travel time isn't substantive.

Lighten up! Take a valium if you need to. Please read the first words of my previous post: Just for fun,
I think the relativistic mass increase is more an illusory result of the time dilation. It is only an increase in inertial mass, or the apparent resistance to acceleration, not gravitational mass, which would cause the entire universe to collapse around it at near light speeds, and I don't believe Relativity predicts that to happen.

Incidentally, I do have an ax to grind with liberals for their destruction of the American public school system, but that is for another thread.

[arian]

[Replying to post 419 by JohnPaul]

I see this, now that you point it out.

Not only is it logically impossible (the two ships can't have a 0.4c difference between them while still travelling head-to-head), but as you point out, those velocities are only in relation to what they departed from.

All that explanation, just to ask what the time dilation is between two objects that aren't moving in relation to each other. None. Time dilation occurs between moving objects, and it's like no matter how many times we say this, it just doesn't seem to sink in.

None, .. really? Did you even give it some thought? There are objects that I mentioned, and if the shuttle keeps traveling, it will come in contact with other objects, .. what do you mean "aren't moving in relation to each other"? Everything, .. that is every object in our scenario has a relation to another object! The spaceship I gave a relation to the Space station of 0.4 C, then you even admitted that the shuttle and the ship have zero relative speed to each other since they are traveling head and head, .. these are ALL moving objects that have relative speeds to different objects that passes them by, or that they pass by.
Why does time dilation happen ONLY in relation between two objects that separated from each other, and not in other objects around them?

How about this:
A Shuttle takes off the USS Platform the opposite direction measuring a velocity of 0.8 C. One of the object, in this case you all agree that the shuttle's clock would be going slower, .. correct?

Now watch, .. what if the shuttle took off at 0.8 C IN the direction of the Platform? (Remember the Platform was traveling at 0.4 C relative to Earth it took off from.)

The Shuttle relative to the platform would be now going only at 0.4 C, but if it took off the opposite direction, the shuttle would be traveling at 0.8 C relative to the Platform. So are you saying that 'time' in the shuttle would be going much slower if it took off the opposite direction the Platform was traveling, .. but NOT if it took off the direction the Platform was traveling?

In reality the engines in the shuttle created a velocity of 0.8 C in either direction, another word according to the Navigation officer, the shuttle would be traveling at 0.8 C no matter which direction it took off from the Platform.

Also, you haven't answered my V formation, like if the shuttle took off 15 degrees left in the direction of the Platform at 0.8 C (the Platform continued at 0.4 C), after a few minutes the relative speed between these two objects would decrease drastically even though neither reduced their speed, or slowed down even an iota. When should the Shuttle expect time dilation? What, .. when it reached 0.9 C relative to the Platform? See what I mean?

[arian]

[Replying to post 422 by JohnPaul]

Amen to that John Paul, .. but thank goodness it's only a theory.

JohnPaul, I have a question: Let's say there are a dozen different objects in space, all traveling at different speeds in different directions, .. one hits and takes a chunk off the other. These two could experience time dilation, but the rest (since they didn't touch) would NOT? I mean let's put people with clocks on all these different objects, so only the people on the two split objects would experience time dilation?

In my Shuttle and Platform example, why would only the shuttle at .8 C experience time slowing down and not the Platform?
The shuttle is traveling the same velocity relative to the Platform as the Platform is traveling relative to the shuttle, .. isn't that correct? What gives?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 422 by JohnPaul]

Amen to that John Paul, .. but thank goodness it's only a theory.

JohnPaul, I have a question: Let's say there are a dozen different objects in space, all traveling at different speeds in different directions, .. one hits and takes a chunk off the other. These two could experience time dilation, but the rest (since they didn't touch) would NOT? I mean let's put people with clocks on all these different objects, so only the people on the two split objects would experience time dilation?

In my Shuttle and Platform example, why would only the shuttle at .8 C experience time slowing down and not the Platform?
The shuttle is traveling the same velocity relative to the Platform as the Platform is traveling relative to the shuttle, .. isn't that correct? What gives?

You are still missing the fundamental principle of relativity, and I believe that is the source of all your confusion. ALL MOTIONS AND ALL SPEEDS ARE ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS RELATIVE TO SOME OTHER OBJECT OR OBSERVER. THEY NEVER, NEVER NEVER EXIST SEPARATELY BY THEMSELVES. Please print this out and paste it to your forehead, and much of your confusion in this thread will disappear.

Time dilation is a difference in time itself, not just in clocks. That is why it can only be observd by another differently moving observer, never by the observer experiencing it. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUETE TIME. Time is always RELATIVE to another observer, and cannot be detected within itself alone. Every observer in the universe has his own special slice and sees both time and space differently than other moving observers. This does not mean that just their clocks are running differently. Time itself is different for them.

In your question about the Platform and the Shuttle, each one sees time dilation in the other, but cannot see it in themselves. There is no such thing as absolute time dilation. Like time itself, time dilation is always RELATIVE to some other moving observer, and is different for all other differently moving observers.

Of course you are not going to believe all this, but if you are going to make sense and not waste all our time in this thread, you will have to use it here. Please remember that "common sense" disappeared from physics in the 19th century when our instruments became sensitive enough to detect the very strange behavior of light. Now we know that everything about moving things is strange.[/b]

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 428 by arian]

arian wrote:

JohnPaul, I have a question: Let's say there are a dozen different objects in space, all traveling at different speeds in different directions, .. one hits and takes a chunk off the other. These two could experience time dilation, but the rest (since they didn't touch) would NOT? I mean let's put people with clocks on all these different objects, so only the people on the two split objects would experience time dilation?

I missed this particular question before. Touching or hitting another object, starting from the same place, or being anywhere near each other has absolutely nothing to do with time dilation or any other relativistics effects. Their relative motions and speeds, relative only to each other, are the only things that matter between any two objects. These effects are different relative to all other objects anywhere around. If the two objects are motionless relative to each other, then the time difference between them is zero. If another observer is moving at .8 C relative to either of them, then the time dilation between that observer and either of the objects is 60%, as given by the formula, as observed by each in the other, but not in itself.

Perhaps you are confused and thinking of relativistic effects such as time dilation as something possessed privately by an object within itself and carried around with it. No, these effects are always BETWEEN any two moving objects, and different between them and any other objects.

I don't know how else I can explain or repeat any of this. I hope at least some of it is clear. Relativity is a wierd thing and not subject to "common sense."