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.

[mgb]

I'm not sure i understand the problem. I don't recall reading that galaxies are moving faster than light... C^2, in the context of e= mc^2, is not a measure of speed, it is a measure of energy...

[Divine Insight]

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

Nothing can move faster than the speed of light through the fabric of spacetime.

Like mgb said E=MC² is a quantitative relationship between matter and energy and is not saying that anything can move though the fabric of spacetime at C².

So the speed of light "C" is the fastest anything could possibly move through the fabric of spacetime. And because of the fact that massive objects increase in mass as their speed increases no massive object can even reach the speed of light. Much less C².

With respect to galaxies potentially moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, this is permissible. Because these galaxies are not moving through the fabric of spacetime and therefore they are not dependent upon the effects of relativity.

The universe is expanding because the very fabric of spacetime is expanding.

I think you also asked, "Well then what is the universe expanding into?"

That's a common question that is not easy to answer. The basic answer is that it's not expanding into anything. There isn't anything outside of the universe to expand into. In fact, the universe may not even have an edge at all.

This becomes quite difficult to comprehend in Special Relativity 101.

To truly understand these concepts requires a deeper understanding of General Relativity. This gets into the geometry of the fabric of spacetime. And once you get into geometry you begin to learn about non-Euclidean geometries, as well as a whole new field called "Topology". In Topology you learn about shapes that have no edges or boundaries. It is believed that the fabric of spacetime may have a topology like this.

So yes, if you are thinking in terms of Euclidean space where space just simply goes on forever in all directions, then you're going to have a limited understanding of cosmology. You are going to be thinking that the universe is a finite object that must be expanding into a preexisting Euclidean space. But this is not what modern cosmologists believe.

They have accepted non-Euclidean spaces, and they have also accepted the topological concepts of objects that have no boundaries.

So most likely your problem is that you are thinking in terms of an infinite Euclidean space that the universe must be expanding into.

That's not the picture that modern cosmologists and topologists paint today.

They demand that you must first wrap your mind around all these non-intuitive concepts of geometry and topology potentially even existing in dimensions higher than three.

Even though our spacetime universe seems to be 3-dimensional to us living within it, it may very well be that the universe itself is actually a 4-dimensional object if it were possible to view it from "outside" of it. But even that is a misleading concept because if it truly is a 4-dimensional object it may not even have an "outside" where a person could go to view it from "outside".

Once you get into 4-dimensional geometry the very notion of inside and outside may no longer apply.

As some scientists have suggested, "Our reality may not only be stranger than we think, it may actually be stranger than we are even capable of thinking"

Thus if you find that you can't makes sense of cosmology, don't sweat it. Chances on no one can. Especially not on a simple intuitively level that can be related to our everyday experiences.

The reality of the universe may be totally unlike our everyday experiences.

In fact, we have very good reasons to believe that this is indeed the case.

So don't drive yourself batty trying to demand that the universe must be such that you could easily understand it in terms of simple Euclidean Geometry and Classical physics. That simply may not be the situation. In fact, we can be absolutely assured that it's not the situation. We have ample evidence that shows that the universe is indeed far weirder than we can ever imagine.

Also keep in mind that Time Dilation is real. It's been experimentally observed in literally billions upon billions of experiments in particle accelerators. It also must be taken into account for our modern technology to work.

So Time Dilation is real.

Relativity may be a "Theory", but Time Dilation is "real".

The quantitative relationship between matter and energy E=MC² is also real and has been observed, measured, and verified repeatedly too.

Many other predictions of the "Theory" of relativity have also been experimentally observed and confirmed.

So at this stage it is far more than "Just a Theory". All of its predictions have been observed, measured, and verified to be the way our spacetime fabric actually behaves.

And none of these observations are compatible with the previous rules and laws of Classical Physics.

There's no going back. We can only move forward.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

DI, that's a very interesting answer. If I could interject a comment/question. I have read recently, I think it was written by a guy at NASA, that the expansion of the universe might be likened to a balloon expanding with everything (galaxies) holding their relative place within. I don't think he said there were borders like a balloon. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[arian]

I'm not sure i understand the problem. I don't recall reading that galaxies are moving faster than light... C^2, in the context of e= mc^2, is not a measure of speed, it is a measure of energy...

Thank you mgb

I believe Divine Insight answered that it is possible and is a legitimate claim of BB Evolution that entire galaxies may be expanding far faster than light on the outskirts of our expanding universe. There are hundreds of articles, youtube videos, documentaries by famous Nobel Prize winning scientists explaining how this is possible, you can check them out yourself.

One is a rubber hose with tennis balls on it at 2 inches apart. When they pull the rubber hose, the tennis balls in the center expand slowly, while as you get farther from the center they expand faster and create greater distances between each ball. So assuming the universe is expanding, and having a pretty good idea how big our 'known universe' is, the notion that galaxies may be expanding ten times faster than light can travel on the outskirts of our 'real' universe is not far-fethced at all.

To your second comment about C^2, I believe 'C' does represents the 'speed of light', which is 186,282 miles per second in a vacuum, .. unless you can show me an article that states 'C' is not the 'speed of light', but a measure of energy?

Another word 'E' is not stated as moving at some speed, Mass is. Energy is defined by Mass moving at 186,282 miles per second, or the claimed speed of light in a vacuum. This is what I would like to understand, how could so much Energy be present in ONE Mass the size of a pinhead that was sitting there in nothing, motionless, since time (distinguishing events) and space (between at least two objects) didn't exist yet?

I believe I have read it is that Mass resists movement and yet it is moving by some outside force. One way is by gravity, the other by another Mass colliding with it, or whatever like the Big-bang explosion that caused everything into motion. So I am trying to understand how E=MC^2 could make sense at a Gravitational Singularity?

Thanks again.

[Divine Insight]

I believe Divine Insight answered that it is possible and is a legitimate claim of BB Evolution that entire galaxies may be expanding far faster than light on the outskirts of our expanding universe. There are hundreds of articles, youtube videos, documentaries by famous Nobel Prize winning scientists explaining how this is possible, you can check them out yourself.

It appears that you are still thinking in terms of some sort of absolute space.

You say, "entire galaxies may be expanding far faster than light on the outskirts of our expanding universe"

There is no "outskirts" of our universe.

We do not reside in any special place. No galaxies are moving any faster than us. At least not due to the expansion of the universe. Whatever you imagine to be happening at the "outskirts" of our universe you may as well imagine happening to us. Because our position is nothing special.

We are not at the "center" of the Big Bang. In fact there is no "center" to the Big Bang. There is no direction you can point in and say, "That was where the Big Bang started".

The Big Bang started everywhere. Because when it started there was no elsewhere. It was the Big Bang itself that expanded. It left no "center" behind.

The following balloon analogy may be somewhat helpful, but even it can be a big misleading:

DI, that's a very interesting answer. If I could interject a comment/question. I have read recently, I think it was written by a guy at NASA, that the expansion of the universe might be likened to a balloon expanding with everything (galaxies) holding their relative place within. I don't think he said there were borders like a balloon. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Yes an expanding balloon is often used as a conceptual analogy, but it can be confusing. It requires some special thinking.

If you imagine a balloon being blown up you can think of this as an expanding universe. However, here's the TRICK in understanding this analogy.

The universe is ONLY the surface of the balloon, and the "space" inside and outside of the balloon simply doesn't exist at all. It has no meaning.

The surface of the balloon would be the total essence of the universe.

In other words, if you wanted to point to the "center" of the Big Bang where would you point?

Well, in the balloon analogy you'd be tempted to point to the center of the sphere of the balloon, and say it's "In There".

But no that's wrong.

There is no "In There". That isn't part of the universe. Remember only the surface of this balloon is the universe. There is no "inside" and there is no "outside".

If you want to point to the "center" of the Big Bang on the balloon you need to point to the entire surface. The whole surface was at the "center" when the balloon first started out. So no matter where you are on the surface of the balloon you are at the "center" of the Big Bang. The whole universe is the center of the Big Bang.

There is no "inside" and there is no "outside" of this balloon.

You may be tempted to say, "But the balloon is obviously expanding into previous space as it gets bigger. But that space in the analogy has no meaning.

So in this sense the balloon analogy breaks down and many cosmologies don't even like to use it precisely because it gives these wrong impressions.

When we think of a balloon we think of a 2-dimensional surface expanding in 3-dimensional space.

But in the balloon analogy you are supposed to ignore the 3rd dimension and just consider what's happening to the surface only. The surface represents the entire universe in this analogy.

Whether a further dimension for the universe to actually being "expanding into" is required or not is unknown.

Like I say, there are mathematical geometries and topologies where a single 4-dimensional structure can actually expand without any need for a 4th dimension to expand into.

But this is extremely difficult for us to wrap our minds around.

Mathematically things change dramatically when we go from 3 dimensions to adding just one more dimension to make 4 dimensions. The math itself changes in very strange ways that are totally non-intuitive.

It's a fascinating topic. The topic is called "Topology".

You begin by studying 3-dimensional manifolds (or spaces), and you learn how to categories all the different possible configurations. Then you move on to 4-dimensional manifolds, and you quickly discover that things change dramatically. It's not merely a nice continuation of 3-dimentional topology. It actually becomes quite exotic and strange.

So just by adding one more dimension it changes everything dramatically.

Topology is a fascinating topic in mathematics to be sure.

Here's a nice video introductory course on Topology:

Shape of Nature

Don't Buy it! unless of course you want to.

Check for it at your local library and if they don't have it they may be able to get it for you via inter-library loan.

Also, all these courses by The Great Courses go on sale for around $69 yearly or sometimes twice a year. So if you would like to buy this course email them to send you a notice when it's on sale.

[arian]

I could use any help on this,

Thanks.

Nothing can move faster than the speed of light through the fabric of spacetime.

So it's all moving in relation to another, right, like a wagon wheel spinning, one rotation is one rotation. A fly near the center makes one rotation at the same time as the fly on the outside edge, the different speeds that each fly is moving is irrelevant, .. or just an illusion since they both make a complete 360 degree turn at the same time?

Like mgb said E=MC² is a quantitative relationship between matter and energy and is not saying that anything can move though the fabric of spacetime at C².

Ok, .. so E=MC^2 is not about relativity, it's about identifying individual properties, right?
E is Energy, M is Mass and E is the speed of light at 186,282 miles per second.
C^2 is NOT 'speed of light in a vacuum' squared, but simply the 'square symbol', right? Well you have to agree that putting them next to each other like that could give a simpleminded man like me the wrong idea, .. that maybe they are relative to each other? So I could defend my stupidity by saying; "Hey, it's not my fault. I didn't know??"

So the speed of light "C" is the fastest anything could possibly move through the fabric of spacetime. And because of the fact that massive objects increase in mass as their speed increases no massive object can even reach the speed of light. Much less C².

Got it, so according to you, .. like I said above 'MC^2' is NOT 'M' times 'C' which is 186,282 miles ps, squared, it is just to show that we have Energy, Mass, and a speed to light, and the ^2 symbol to show that we can square things if we wanted to. OK then, let's move on.

With respect to galaxies potentially moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, this is permissible. Because these galaxies are not moving through the fabric of spacetime and therefore they are not dependent upon the effects of relativity.

I think I understand, this equation just shows that 'relative to themselves' each galaxy is standing still, they are not really moving away from each other, so in their own perspective they are not moving through the fabric of spacetime as you said.
I guess only a dummy like me would mistake the rubber hose example with the tennis balls on it representing the galaxies farther and farther away from the center moving faster and faster relative to each other, with the outer ones moving far faster than the speed of light. Oh yea, and hundreds of Professors, and Nobel Prize winning BB-Scientists never ever said the galaxies were moving much faster than the speed of light either, .. which they had to take in consideration when measuring distances using red-shift?

The universe is expanding because the very fabric of spacetime is expanding.

I got it, 'the very fabric of space is expanding' and what you said above; "Because these galaxies are not moving through the fabric of spacetime and therefore they are not dependent upon the effects of relativity"

So relativity doesn't address galaxies moving at certain velocity/speed, or things like Mass traveling through the fabric of space, right? So E=MC^2 doesn't have anything to do with ship A moving at near-speed of light relative to ship B standing still? Time in ship A is irrelevant to time in ship B. The Astronaut in ship A traveling through the fabric of space at 'near speed of light' for a million years would be a million years older just as the guy standing on earth, right? So wait, does that also mean that a ship traveling to another galaxy would be just taking a ride on the fabric of space?

I think you also asked, "Well then what is the universe expanding into?"

That's a common question that is not easy to answer. The basic answer is that it's not expanding into anything. There isn't anything outside of the universe to expand into. In fact, the universe may not even have an edge at all.

I'm sorry but you really have to do better than your; "basic answer that it's not expanding into anything" Remember that I'm the guy that can define 'nothing', and PROVE that it exists. And I know without a shadow of a doubt that in the absence of 'anything', is the 'nothing', and there is NOTHING that can expand in 'nothing', especially an entire universe, and I can prove it.
So is Big bang universe expanding, or not?

This becomes quite difficult to comprehend in Special Relativity 101.

Fine, ... then step out of Special Relativity 101 and explain it to me using the most advanced concepts in Big-bang Evolutionary Science known to man. You are welcome to bring in a team of 'Quantum-Activist', the Pope, any Philosopher or Theist/Atheist you choose.
Remember that I am not bound by Educational indoctrinations, nor limited to divinations from the supernatural realm, ... I am a simple-minded man guided by the Spirit of God who is outside of the universe He created. So His Son Christ is in me, which means I have the 'mind of Christ' and He is the co-Creator of this universe, He would have all the answers, right? So I challenge you to prove Him wrong?

To truly understand these concepts requires a deeper understanding of General Relativity. This gets into the geometry of the fabric of spacetime. And once you get into geometry you begin to learn about non-Euclidean geometries, as well as a whole new field called "Topology". In Topology you learn about shapes that have no edges or boundaries. It is believed that the fabric of spacetime may have a topology like this.

There are 'non-Euclidean geometries'? I didn't know that?

Must be because using abstract ideas without any physical or concrete existence the good old Euclidean geometry is of no use for them anymore?

So Either Mass has a speed in the theory of relativity, or it don't. Which is it? Surely you're not going to tell me that this theory only explains that speed has speed? ... I mean, are you? Oh wait, 'C' IS speed, the speed of light, and speed squared is just another speed, only 186,282 times faster. So you are saying that Mass cannot go the speed of light, especially 186,282 times faster than light. So what they're really saying in this equation is that 'speed has speed' .. C^2, C=speed and squaring it is another speed.

So yes, if you are thinking in terms of Euclidean space where space just simply goes on forever in all directions, then you're going to have a limited understanding of cosmology. You are going to be thinking that the universe is a finite object that must be expanding into a preexisting Euclidean space. But this is not what modern cosmologists believe.

So imagining that 'space just simply goes on forever in all directions' gives me a limited understanding of cosmology? Shoot, that is how I imagine light emitting from our round ball-like sun, ..shining in all direction (or expanding in all direction of you believe light has speed)! Oh well, back to the drawing-board.

They have accepted non-Euclidean spaces, and they have also accepted the topological concepts of objects that have no boundaries.

Funny they accepted all that, but not God who has no shape or form? So close yet so far.

So most likely your problem is that you are thinking in terms of an infinite Euclidean space that the universe must be expanding into.

That's not the picture that modern cosmologists and topologists paint today.

No, I never said that space is expanding into some other space, Big-Bang Evolution Theorists did.

They say; that our universe was at one 'time' the size of a pinhead in a point in space.
In this 'point in space' it was sitting there getting ready to explode.
Then finally with a Big-Bang it exploded and is still expanding (where else but) in this 'space' that it was residing in initially, and within itself created another spacetime which we live in.

So you will have to identify 'my problem' elsewhere, or scrap the BB theory which would end all our problems.

They demand that you must first wrap your mind around all these non-intuitive concepts of geometry and topology potentially even existing in dimensions higher than three.

Wrap my mind around what? Half my life is spent in dimensions 'they' try to describe, it is called the Spiritual realm, it is IN and where we learn the mind of God. This is why I see all these theories and concepts so primitive, like children trying to put a two inch square in a one inch diameter hole. It's funny when you see kids doing it, but not so funny when educated adults try to do it, and insist on doing it for hundreds of years.

I gave you an example in my OP about some concepts of Mass traveling faster than your speed of light, or where the front end of the mass slowed down and the back end caught up with it (as explained in Relativity regarding Mass and Speed) I compared it with looking in a mirror with a mirror, where the front of our universe would go through us time and again as each times it passed 'C'. Einstein imagined C exceeding itself 186,282 times in his theory (C^2)

Even though our spacetime universe seems to be 3-dimensional to us living within it, it may very well be that the universe itself is actually a 4-dimensional object if it were possible to view it from "outside" of it. But even that is a misleading concept because if it truly is a 4-dimensional object it may not even have an "outside" where a person could go to view it from "outside".

You're on to something there. The physical 3 Dimension IS limited to the 3-D realm, but we are more than 3-D because our mind has no Dimensional limits.

Now watch the limitations in imagination; the BB Theorists rely on 3-D space, and start with a 'point in space', and say the universe 'imploded' (not exploded), because they don't dare to look 'outside' of the universe even with their minds.
They define the universe in a point in space, WHAT space?
Then they jump out of this space and into an imploding/expanding universe and claim 'that's all there is', forgetting that their MIND traveled and seen the entire universe from the outside.

Now doesn't it seem ridiculous to jump back and forth like that? Doesn't a theory that limits the imagination a dangerous thing to hold on to?

Stay in that 'space' you imagine the tiny speck of pre-big bang universe IN. Look at this tiny speck, walk or fly around it, examine it.
Now tell me where are you? That's right, you are now in the fourth dimension looking at the universe before it exploded. It is the Big-bang Theorists that created this 4th Dimension, it is not within our physical reality.

But you are still in this physical world/universe with Mass in motion creating time and the distance between object creating space. This 4-D space they are describing is still Euclidean space, and explained in geometrical terms with lines vectors and coordinates, then throw in some illusions and unexplained or falsified definitions of space-time to try to use it to justify the Big Bang Evolution Theory.

Here is my definition of Relativity not like the confused E=MC^2

We have geometrical 3-Dimentions X, Y, Z
We have distance as distinguishing events between two objects,
we have speed
we have time

there, I just identified 6 dimensions that are relative to each other, thus I have just described the fact of relativity, not a confused theory like E=MC^2

Would you like to compare my True 6-D Relativity with Einstein's E=MC^2?

Once you get into 4-dimensional geometry the very notion of inside and outside may no longer apply.

But I can not only understand 4 Dimensional geometry, but can easily work with 6-Dimensional geometry. This is why I say that E=MC^2 is a meaningless confused concept, useless in reality except to confuse people.

As some scientists have suggested, "Our reality may not only be stranger than we think, it may actually be stranger than we are even capable of thinking"

Only through strange doctrines and unsupported theories like Evolution would it be strange, or be stranger than we are even capable of thinking.

Try me, just in this last post you taught me to think in 6-Dimensional geometry. I did have to look up the definition of geometry to make sure I'm on the right track, lol. Well I never said no-schooling didn't have its drawbacks?

Thus if you find that you can't makes sense of cosmology, don't sweat it. Chances on no one can. Especially not on a simple intuitively level that can be related to our everyday experiences.

That's because they keep creating theories they cannot understand and are useless. Then they add even more Dimensions they cant imagine, but I admit it does make interesting art though.

You think I cannot make sense of cosmology, try me?

I can now prove that the way people understand Relativity is wrong. There is no alteration in time with distance and speed, there is no difference in perception or time difference in traveling with speed, .. nor does Mass increase with speed.

Light has no speed but is instant, the universe is NOT expanding, red-light doesn't mean light traveling away from us, light has no Mass, so it has no speed, the bottom of the oceans are not lit up because light slowed to a halt in the salty water, etc, .. etc, ...

As I said, try me, with God I can explain or figure out any problem you or anyone could come up with.

The reality of the universe may be totally unlike our everyday experiences.

In fact, we have very good reasons to believe that this is indeed the case.

I disagree friend, the universe is exactly as we see it through science, that is without adding or taking away from it through religious beliefs like BB-Evolution.

So don't drive yourself batty trying to demand that the universe must be such that you could easily understand it in terms of simple Euclidean Geometry and Classical physics. That simply may not be the situation. In fact, we can be absolutely assured that it's not the situation. We have ample evidence that shows that the universe is indeed far weirder than we can ever imagine.

Looks simple to me, maybe because I don't demand something unusual from the universe, or see it as unusual. I don't create abstract ideas that have no physical or concrete existence, I accept what science and mathematics tell me.

What IS awesome to ponder on is our Creator God, He has no geometrical shape or form, no limits, no beginning nor end, .. yet He can create limited definable dimensions and they all work together perfectly (unlike Einstein's Relativity where he squares 'speed of light' but claims it is NOT the speed of light.)

I want to learn about God, and the unlimited Spiritual realm the Angels reside in, then its relation to this here physical realm with all its dimensions. Compared to that, this here is childs-play. It is that Spiritual realm that interests me which the human mind can't imagine, but this here attempts at describing a 4-th Dimension with an abstract 3-D Euclidean geometry won't drive me batty, I promise. But trying to convince people of all these deceptions may?

Also keep in mind that Time Dilation is real. It's been experimentally observed in literally billions upon billions of experiments in particle accelerators. It also must be taken into account for our modern technology to work.

Trying to disprove the Big-bang Evolutionary theory has taught me a lot, one is that it is all lies. In the same way I'm sure that destroying things in particle accelerators revealed a lot too, but sadly it is used only to further technology to keep an eye on us, and to imprison us.
Where is the solution to our energy crisis now that they know the universe is made up of Energy?
Did the splitting of the atoms end all wars with all its pain and suffering?
Did any intelligence taken from the billions of smashed particles end hunger?

... and I could go on and on.

No, all this newly acquired knowledge created was more ways to lie to man that there is no God. Deep down I just know that by now they have every evidence of a Creator, and I mean physical evidence. This is why they are scared and twist the truth like with the speed of light and their version of relativity, to keep the truth being known.

So Time Dilation is real.

Relativity may be a "Theory", but Time Dilation is "real".

Can you explain it to me please?

The quantitative relationship between matter and energy E=MC² is also real and has been observed, measured, and verified repeatedly too.

Yes, just like stopping light in a frozen saline solution has been proven, or the one where they film a laser-light passing through a Coke bottle to try to convince that light has speed. I can do both tricks except much, much better and without a million $ camera that takes a claimed trillion frames per second.

God has revealed to me the existence of nothing, and I see the deception in this Relativity is very great. It is not even talking about relativity, but almost immediately jumps into the 'speed of light', as if the number 186,282 has anything to do with the relation of Mass and Energy? Even you say that this 'speed' has nothing to do with Mass, but it's only a number in a formula. To make it even more confusing, they throw in some abstract ideas like space and time and even graph it on a chart, now that really is funny.

Many other predictions of the "Theory" of relativity have also been experimentally observed and confirmed.

So at this stage it is far more than "Just a Theory". All of its predictions have been observed, measured, and verified to be the way our spacetime fabric actually behaves.

Yes I have seen many of these 'facts', and sorry but all I can say is ... LOL.

And none of these observations are compatible with the previous rules and laws of Classical Physics.

There's no going back. We can only move forward.

Sadly but true that none of these MODERN observations are compatible with the previous rules and laws of Classical Physics, it destroyed them just as it is destroying morality, our God given free-will, only I would NOT call this 'moving forward'.

We are going backwards, here we go again repeating the past religious persecutions, only the definition of god has changed, .. from the Church to Evolutionary science defined as Technology, .. or 'Moving Forward'.

Sad indeed.

Thank you my friend , and I wait for your answers to some of my questions?

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 1 by arian]

I have a theory. I don't think light is all that important. I think that someday, we will travel faster than light, but that's all that we will do. Just go faster than light. We used to think it was cool to go faster than sound, but now we go mach 7 or something. 186 283 miles per second is real fast, but I think achieving that will only make you go 186 283 miles in one second. I don't think you will go back in time, and I don't think you will gain all the mass in the universe. I believe you will simply travel 2 more miles per second than travelling at 186 281 miles per second.

Keep in mind I'm no genius.

[mgb]

Yes, of course c means the speed of light but in e=mc^2 it measures e, energy, but does not imply that anything is moving at speed c. I understand the equation to mean that the amount of energy in a stationery m is equivalent to m moving at c^2. In other words, the amount of energy required to get m moving at c^2 is the amount of energy that can be extracted from m.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

DI, Thanks, that's what I love about science, there is no end to the learning about fascinating 'stuff'. That is a pretty expensive video, but a google search on the 'The Topology of the Universe' turned up a wealth of hits.