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]

good night, arian. I won't try to explain anything more to you. I can see from the above that it is hopeless. Good night.

Yes I agree, it is hopeless to convince me of something that makes no sense and is useless like time dilation, length contraction and weight-gain with increased relative to another objects speed where it is impossible to tell which object is actually going faster? How could time dilate for one and not the other? Either it's speed, or relativity of objects, because same-speeds can vary substantially if the objects are separating in a V formation, or if knocked off course.

If you or anyone else like to continue, I would like to add this new thing I just learned on another thread, putting the Earth as the 'center of gravity' to all the stars in the Universe. It makes perfect sense (so far) and it is according to Creation, for God created the empty 'heaven', or space, then He created the Earth. Later He created the sun, moon and the stars.

Now we have Earth as the stationary object where we can set all speeds relative to. A Gods-Eye-View, or a Universal point where everything moves in relation to, agreed?

No.

Ouch! Please warn me next time you scream like this, so I can turn down my speakers.

OK, .. why not? Would you rather be 'Lost in Space'? Or not knowing which moment you will time-dilate and have yourself return to Earth where you see yourself about to take off on the mission you just got back from? Or see a bunch of Apes running your planet? .. Oh yea, you already see Apes running, actually ruining our planet.

[JohnPaul]

good night, arian. I won't try to explain anything more to you. I can see from the above that it is hopeless. Good night.

Yes I agree, it is hopeless to convince me of something that makes no sense and is useless like time dilation, length contraction and weight-gain with increased relative to another objects speed where it is impossible to tell which object is actually going faster? How could time dilate for one and not the other? Either it's speed, or relativity of objects, because same-speeds can vary substantially if the objects are separating in a V formation, or if knocked off course.

If you or anyone else like to continue, I would like to add this new thing I just learned on another thread, putting the Earth as the 'center of gravity' to all the stars in the Universe. It makes perfect sense (so far) and it is according to Creation, for God created the empty 'heaven', or space, then He created the Earth. Later He created the sun, moon and the stars.

Now we have Earth as the stationary object where we can set all speeds relative to. A Gods-Eye-View, or a Universal point where everything moves in relation to, agreed?

No.

Ouch! Please warn me next time you scream like this, so I can turn down my speakers.

OK, .. why not? Would you rather be 'Lost in Space'? Or not knowing which moment you will time-dilate and have yourself return to Earth where you see yourself about to take off on the mission you just got back from? Or see a bunch of Apes running your planet? .. Oh yea, you already see Apes running, actually ruining our planet.

I agree about the apes running the planet, but everything else you said is dead wrong. Sorry, arian, but I refuse to be drawn into your game again. All this has been explained to you over and over again, and you have refused to understand any of it. I say refused to understand it, because all this is elementary and requires no advanced math to understand.

So good night again, arian. I wish you well, but go trap someone else into your game.

[arian]

I agree about the apes running the planet, but everything else you said is dead wrong. Sorry, arian, but I refuse to be drawn into your game again. All this has been explained to you over and over again, and you have refused to understand any of it. I say refused to understand it, because all this is elementary and requires no advanced math to understand.

So good night again, arian. I wish you well, but go trap someone else into your game.

Thank you JohnPaul and the rest who so kindly participated in this topic on Relativity. I will wait for others to reply, and answer my question as to "What causes these special effects like time dilation, length contraction and weight gain with objects in space?"

* Is it the "SPEED" of the object?

* Or is it some magical effect when one object is separating from the other at a certain speed? (As if that was possible to differentiate which object is moving faster and which is moving slower so we could say; "This one aged less and this one aged more, .. because, .. ?!?)

Note: Please no bending, distorting, ignoring, adding or taking away from the laws of physics! If it's only possible on paper with numbers that creates paradox after paradox, .. I'll just label it science-fiction. All explanations of the "Twin Paradox" that were presented here so far were poor to say the least. They created more paradoxes than the one it tried to explain.

Still waiting, ..

arian

[Apoapsis]

Thank you JohnPaul and the rest who so kindly participated in this topic on Relativity. I will wait for others to reply, and answer my question as to "What causes these special effects like time dilation, length contraction and weight gain with objects in space?"

* Is it the "SPEED" of the object?

It is the relative velocity, a simple way to visualize it is that if you are measuring the speed of light on two test frames, and one is in motion relative to the other, the path the light takes in the moving frame is longer than the stationary one.



Since we require the speed of light to be the same for all tests, time appears to slow for the moving frame. Note that this effect is true for all velocities, it is just more noticeable as the speed approaches that of the speed of light. With modern atomic clocks the effect is measurable with relative velocities of 10m/s (a really good NFL running back).

[The Me's]

[Replying to post 1 by arian]

The theory relies entirely on "observation", in other words, perception.

Perception relies entirely on point of view.

On these grounds I reject the theory. Science requires a means of measuring results, and if we can't escape the boundaries of mere observation, we'll never get them.

(You run into the same problem with the Doppler Effect. As a siren approaches you, you "perceive" that the pitch is getting higher--due to the wavelength contracting. But if you're sitting inside the vehicle, the pitch never changes. So did it change or not?)

[Apoapsis]

[Replying to The Me's]

And I reject your "Matrix" view of reality.

[The Me's]

[Replying to The Me's]

And I reject your "Matrix" view of reality.

Your post might be helpful if it didn't contain a demeaning comment and actually explained what you meant.

The theory of relativity can be called a "Matrix Reality" because it creates a fictitious world behind the one we live in. That's what "theory" is.

I'm a realist.

I claim that both:

--the frequency of the siren did NOT change,
--and the wavelength DID contract

When I see the same observable phenomena demonstrated for the theory of relativity, I'll accept the theory. Until then, it stays on the shelf as a hobby of scientists who tire of reality in day-to-day life and need a diversion.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 467 by The Me's]

Yeah, trying saying that next time you get pulled over for speeding. "But,but officer, your radar gun couldn't possibly work, the Doppler effect is just a diversion made by scientists who are trying to escape reality."

[Apoapsis]

[Replying to The Me's]

And I reject your "Matrix" view of reality.

Your post might be helpful if it didn't contain a demeaning comment and actually explained what you meant.

The theory of relativity can be called a "Matrix Reality" because it creates a fictitious world behind the one we live in. That's what "theory" is.

I'm a realist.

I claim that both:

--the frequency of the siren did NOT change,
--and the wavelength DID contract

When I see the same observable phenomena demonstrated for the theory of relativity, I'll accept the theory. Until then, it stays on the shelf as a hobby of scientists who tire of reality in day-to-day life and need a diversion.

You are rejecting the observations of reality by others in favor of the world you have constructed within your own mind, hence "The Matrix".

If you want to demonstrate relativity for yourself, here are three tests you can perform on your own:

1: Take atomic clocks to different altitudes to deomstrate time variation in a gravitational potential well. Like this guy did with his kids.
http://leapsecond.com/great2005/

2: Take a fiber optic ring gyro. http://www.kvh.com/Military-and-Governm ... -3400.aspx
Bolt it to your desk and note that it shows a rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour. Explain it without relativity.

3: Get a GPS receiver that outputs raw data. http://home-2.worldonline.nl/samsvl/oemtable.htm
Calculate your position with and without relativistic correction, which is more accurate?

[arian]

Thank you JohnPaul and the rest who so kindly participated in this topic on Relativity. I will wait for others to reply, and answer my question as to "What causes these special effects like time dilation, length contraction and weight gain with objects in space?"

* Is it the "SPEED" of the object?

It is the relative velocity, a simple way to visualize it is that if you are measuring the speed of light on two test frames, and one is in motion relative to the other, the path the light takes in the moving frame is longer than the stationary one.



Since we require the speed of light to be the same for all tests, time appears to slow for the moving frame. Note that this effect is true for all velocities, it is just more noticeable as the speed approaches that of the speed of light. With modern atomic clocks the effect is measurable with relative velocities of 10m/s (a really good NFL running back).

APPEARS to move slower, .. APPEARS that time slowed because you are viewing two frames within one reference frame, a short frame within a much longer frame.

Look, .. if I stand next to the highway, I see cars that are traveling at 55 mph flash before my eyes, .. yet without moving an inch I look up in the sky, I see a plane barely moving, .. as if time slowed down for the plane, yet I know it has to be traveling at least 300 mph!?!

The illustration shows two reference frames, a short one and a long one. These are two speeds, like the cars in front of me and I look up and see the plane, this may SEEM that the cars are traveling much, much faster than the plane, but I'm not dumb, I know what I see and why it APPEARS that way.

Again, .. all speeds, not just the speed of light, or 186,282 m/p/s are the same for all tests. If a shuttle takes off a platform at 35 mph in ANY direction, the shuttle will travel 35 mph relative to the platform no matter what it seems-like, .. period.

If that same shuttle goes 186,282 m/p/s relative to the platform, then it's traveling at that speed, .. But if i am standing on the other end of our galaxy, .. I'm sure that this would SEEM slow, real slow as if time stopped for the shuttle.

If I stood a billion light years away observing the shuttle, I would say: "Man, that shuttle traveling at C sure is slow, .. I mean I will be a billion years old before that shuttle reached me!" But did time stop for the people in the shuttle? If and when they do reach me, will they be the same age as when they left and me a billion years older? No of course not. They will have aged a billion years just as me, and it doesn't matter which speed, or which direction they are traveling, .. whether it's towards or away from where I am. We will both age the same.

Time dilation and all that other 'special-relativity' stuff is a useless hoax, .. period.

As for that silly atomic clock-plane experiment, why were the Big-bang scientists in the plane instead of on the ground observing the clocks in the plane? I mean do people actually fall for this?