Would Religion still continue if....

[MRC_Hans]

Well, talk away, heheh. One thing I forget the explanation for is this:

Suppose you are in a spaceship moving at a considerable fraction of C (say, 50%). Now, if you shine a light forward or backwards, you will not notice anything strange about the light, it will seem to leave at C and have normal color? But to an external observer, the light shone forward will be blue-shifted and have a separation rate (from the spaceship) of 0,5C, whereas the light shone backwards will be red-shifted and have a seperation rate of 1,5C?

Could you (or another rocket scientist) explain that to me in reasonably simple terms? (No I'm not gonna keep telling you that you are wrong )

Hans

 

[The Fool]

Franko, whats the game here? Normally you would have declared yourself imaginary and run away by now.

So whats your problem with this speed limit of C? Is your clockwork world falling apart? It seems to me that your problems may come from facts contradicting your religious dogma. Gravitons have massive in your religious dogma. So if they propagate at light speed you certainly do have to generate some fog and mirrors to retain your massive graviton. Einstein sits at the right hand of your Goddess, Isn't that what you say? In that case she is probably elbowing him in the ribs to stop him laughing.

Get over it frank, relative velocities are just a concept, You can fire imaginary objects in any damn direction you like but C is still the speed limit. A photon emitted from any object traveling at any speed up to C will always be able to reach the other object traveling in any other direction traveling at any speed up to C. You could always put a stationary dot in between them that neither of them are traveling from at greater than C...The photon simply travels to the dot then from the dot to the other object...Dammit, you don't even need the Dot! I just thought it would help you get your head around the problem....get over it.

ok, you can claim you don't exist now....

 

[Upchurch]

Suppose We have the same scenario, except lets say that we have Two planets directly opposite each other with Earth in the center, and the two planets are Both Exactly 7 Light years away. One to the "East" and one to the "West".

B-------------A-------------C

A= Earth, B = Planet 1 (7 LY away), C = planet 2 (7 LY away)

So now … when we launch our two spaceships traveling at 0.7 x the speed of Light (C) … how long until they should reach the two planets in opposite directions? (from the POV of an observer on Earth). Just round to the closest number of years.

Because of the symmetry of the problem, there is only need to calculate the time for one ship. Say, the AB ship. Assuming instantaneous acceleration and everything from the Earth reference frame:

t = d / v

Where,
t = time for the trip
d = the distance traveled = 7 light years (ly)
v = the velocity = 0.7c

t = 7 ly / 0.7c
t = 10 years

So, both ships AB and AC will arive at their respective planets in 10 years from the perspective of the Earth. Further, due to relativity (i.e. there is no distinction between the ship moving or the planets moving), the trip will take 10 years for each ship, as well.

Going further to analyze the problem completely, as previously calculated, ship AB and ship AC are traveling apart at 0.94c. Calculating gamma:

gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - (0.94c)^2 / c^2)
gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - 0.8836)
gamma = 1 / (0.3412)
gamma = 2.93

By length contraction, l' = lo / gamma, ship AB sees ship AC traveling a distance of

l' = 7 ly / 2.93
l' = 2.39 ly

So, from AB's perspective, ship AC makes the trip in t = l' / u, or

t = 2.93 ly / 0.94c
t = 3.12 years

In summary:
From Earth's perspective, each ship took 10 years.
From each ship's perspective, their own trip took 10 years and the other ship took 3.12 years.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In summary:
From Earth's perspective, each ship took 10 years.
From each ship's perspective, their own trip took 10 years and the other ship took 3.12 years.

Mmm, I think you must be in error here: Surely, travelling at 0.7C, each ship would experience a considerable time dilution, so they would not feel they had taken 10 years. More likely 3.12. And obviously, if they had some way of knowing when the other ship arrived, they would find that it arrived at the same time as themselves (might be calculated retrospectively).

This also explains the apparent puzzle of the separation rate. While the stationary observer can calculate it to 1.4C, from the POV of each ship, space is compressed (or time is diluted, tw osides of the same thing), so they would have a separation rate of only 0.94C (according to Tricky's calculations).

Hans

 

[Franko]

evildave:
Ten years.

Hey! Congrats evildave you officially have more balls that Upchimp. It would have taken me at least 12 posts to get a straight answer out of him.

Except from Earth, the event of reaching the planets will actually be closer to 17 years away, given the lag in signal (propagating at the speed of light) reaching the Earth from the space craft reaching their respective destinations.

Yeah, but remember we are trying to keep things simple so we can see what is really going on. That is how Logic, Philosophy, and Science ALL work. You reduce the complexity and focus your perception on one single puzzle at a time. Otherwise, you’ll never see squat.

Further complicating matters, we're not counting the time to accelerate to their top speed, nor time to decelerate. The theoretical "top speed" would only be for the cruising (no acceleration) portion of the trip. Factor in acceleration at tolerable G loads.

Ohhh, yes we could think of all kinds of nonsense to make the example MORE complex, and that is exactly what you would do if you didn’t want to find anything out more than what you already know. Maybe they were traveling at 0.69642028754 x the speed of light instead of just 0.7 x C? Maybe instead of both planets being exactly 7 light years away one was 7.8986386 light years away, and the other was 15.875328976.

Does that really make the example BETTER for you evildave?

That is, if you're going to pay attention to physics at all, and not assume silly things, like "instant acceleration".

But hey, we're dealing with Franko.

Ahhh, so in other words, you Hate simple examples where it is easy to see the point?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Psst, Frank: It seems that even the simple example is too complicated for you to see the point?

Hans

 

[Upchurch]

Mmm, I think you must be in error here: Surely, travelling at 0.7C, each ship would experience a considerable time dilution, so they would not feel they had taken 10 years.

Actually, I did make a mistake, but it's not the one you're pointing out. It's not the ship that experiences its own time dialation. It's other objects viewing the ship that sees it experiencing time dilation.

What I made the mistake in was that, for the ship, the distance between planets A and B is not 7 ly. It should actually be:

gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
gamma = 1 / Sqrt(0.51)
gamma = 1.40

l' = 7ly / 1.40
l' = 5ly

t = 5ly / 0.7c
t = 7.14 years.

From each ship's perspective, the trip takes 7.14 years (beause it's traveling a shorter distance).
From Earth's perspective, the trip takes 10 years.

Sorry about that. My lack of recent practice is showing.

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
t = 7 ly / 0.7c
t = 10 years

So, both ships AB and AC will arive at their respective planets in 10 years from the perspective of the Earth. Further, due to relativity (i.e. there is no distinction between the ship moving or the planets moving), the trip will take 10 years for each ship, as well.

Okay, so you have two ships moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 km/sec when the max speed limit according to Einstein is 300,000 km/sec.

Both ships are traveling away from each other in opposite directions at 70% the speed of light (c).

Now, agreed … when the one ship looks back at the other he sees that the other ship doesn’t actually appear to be going 140% C, but instead is only going 94% x C (I didn’t check your calculations, but I’m assuming your correct).

Okay, so here’s the thing. Lets say that the two ships aren’t headed EXACTLY away from each other. Instead of 180 degrees, lets say that they are 178 degrees. The Earth is in the middle (A), and then you have the two ships (B & C) on either ends. You could connect them all with lines and form a triangle. Ship C wants to figure out where Ship B is going, so he looks over at B, and sees that B is moving away from him at 94% C (300,000 kms x 0.94 = 282,000 kms). Then C looks back at Earth and sees that he is still moving away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light.

So why can’t Ship C, run the calculations as if he were on Earth, and he knows that ship C (his ship) is headed away from the Earth at 70% C, and he knows that from C’s POV B appears to be moving away at 94% C, so couldn’t he simply triangulate and calculate that from the Earth’s POV he (ship C) and ship B are actually moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 kms instead of at the rate of 282,000 kms?

 

[Upchurch]

I assume you have quite caught up with the posts, but you've already made three contradictory statements:

Okay, so you have two ships moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 km/sec when the max speed limit according to Einstein is 300,000 km/sec.

u1 = 1.4c

Both ships are traveling away from each other in opposite directions at 70% the speed of light (c).

u2 = 0.7c

Now, agreed … when the one ship looks back at the other he sees that the other ship doesn’t actually appear to be going 140% C, but instead is only going 94% x C (I didn’t check your calculations, but I’m assuming your correct).

u3 = 0.94c

u1 was arrived at by using an incorrect composition of speeds. u2 is mislabeled. They aren't traveling away from each other at 0.7c, they're traveling away from Earth at 0.7c. u3 is correct given the information above.

Okay, so here’s the thing. Lets say that the two ships aren’t headed EXACTLY away from each other. Instead of 180 degrees, lets say that they are 178 degrees. The Earth is in the middle (A), and then you have the two ships (B & C) on either ends. You could connect them all with lines and form a triangle. Ship C wants to figure out where Ship B is going, so he looks over at B, and sees that B is moving away from him at 94% C (300,000 kms x 0.94 = 282,000 kms). Then C looks back at Earth and sees that he is still moving away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light.

This problem can't be solved using SR. In order for Ships B and C to maintain a velocity of 0.94c along the line connecting them, they must be accelerating along their lines of travel (the line that connects each ship and Earth). Once you introduce acceleration, you lose inertial reference frames.

So why can’t Ship C, run the calculations as if he were on Earth, and he knows that ship C (his ship) is headed away from the Earth at 70% C, and he knows that from C’s POV B appears to be moving away at 94% C, so couldn’t he simply triangulate and calculate that from the Earth’s POV he (ship C) and ship B are actually moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 kms instead of at the rate of 282,000 kms?

Again, if the problem insists on holding B & C's relative velocities constant at 0.94c, this problem cannot be solved using SR, due to the acceleration needed to meet the 0.94c restriction.

I don't have the mathematical tools easily at hand to answer this question. In fact, the math needed for General Relativity calculations is f***ing hard and I was struggling with it when I was on top of my game.

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
I assume you have quite caught up with the posts, but you've already made three contradictory statements:

You clearly stated that the two ships would reach their destinations in 10 years relative to the Earth. That CLEARLY works out to a rate of separation of 420,000 kms when viewed from Earth. If the one ship (C) sees that it is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 210,000 kms, and if it sees that that other ship (B) appears to be moving away at 94% the speed of light, then why can’t ship C simply triangulate the relative position and speed of ship B from the Earth, and work out the True rate of separation?

Your explanation went off on a lot of tangents but it didn’t address the point.

Also …

Or imagine that you have some people living on a small little planet. They launch a rocket into space which can travel 0.5 x C. Now … suppose that the little planets is actually one of the asteroid ships, and suppose that they launch the rocket away from Earth (the same direction they were traveling) The rocket would only be flying away –relative to the asteroid – at 0.5 x C, but relative to the Earth wouldn’t that little rocket be moving at 1.2 x C? In other words wouldn’t the mini rocket being moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec + 150,000 km/sec (360,000 km/sec [greater than C])? If not, why not? For all we know the Earth itself is already moving at 0.7 x C? Without a common point of reference, I am not sure what “speed/velocity” even means?

In other words, isn’t Relativity always applied to two points of reference and no more? When you calculate the maximum speed an object can travel isn’t it ALWAYS relative to some other Single object (point in space)? So why can’t one of the asteroid ships launch it’s own rocket as I suggest above.

Look, if you were going to launch a rocket from Earth, there is no other “frame of reference” you have to consider … is there? So why do the inhabitants of the little asteroid have to consider the Earth as an extra frame of reference? Shouldn’t their little rocket appear to travel off at 50% the speed of light from their POV with the Earth receding in the opposite direction at 70% the speed of light? How is that any different than the Earth simultaneously launching two rockets in opposite directions?

 

[Upchurch]

You clearly stated that the two ships would reach their destinations in 10 years relative to the Earth. [true] That CLEARLY works out to a rate of separation of 420,000 kms when viewed from Earth.

*sigh* First, 420,000 km/s is a rate of speration. Second, you are once again using Newtonian composition of velocities (v = v1 + v2) when it is not applicable in this relativistic situation. Third, it isn't even applicable in a similar non-relativistic way. For example:

Two cars face opposite directions at a starting line. At the gun, they each take off at a constant 50 mph. After 10 miles, they stop. By your calculation methodology, according to the guy on the starting line, each car traveled 100 mph. Is this really the method you want to use to calculate composition of velocities?

why can’t ship C simply triangulate the relative position and speed of ship B from the Earth, and work out the True rate of separation?

Because there is no "true rate of seperation". In order for there to be one, there must be an absolute reference frame to measure it from. Ship C can calculate the speed of ship B from the reference of Earth, but that doesn't change that the change in distance with respect to time of ships B and C is 0.94c.

In other words wouldn’t the mini rocket being moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec + 150,000 km/sec (360,000 km/sec [greater than C])? If not, why not?

No. Incorrect composition of velocities. Or, more simply, you are adding the speeds wrong.

In other words, isn’t Relativity always applied to two points of reference and no more?

It can be applied to more than two reference frames as long as the situation can be broken down into multiple two reference frame situations. But that's really just a problem solving method. The short answer to your question is yes.

When you calculate the maximum speed an object can travel isn’t it ALWAYS relative to some other Single object (point in space)? So why can’t one of the asteroid ships launch it’s own rocket as I suggest above.

No reason it can't. I'm not arguing the existance of the situation. I'm saying your math is wrong.

Look, if you were going to launch a rocket from Earth, there is no other “frame of reference” you have to consider … is there?

Yes, there are two reference frames: the Earth's and the rocket's.

So why do the inhabitants of the little asteroid have to consider the Earth as an extra frame of reference?

If we're not calculating anything from the Earth's perspective, then there is no need to consider Earth's reference frame.

Shouldn’t their little rocket appear to travel off at 50% the speed of light from their POV with the Earth receding in the opposite direction at 70% the speed of light?

Sure, but the minute you say that the rocket is traveling at x speed from Earth, you have to take the Earth's frame of reference into account.

How is that any different than the Earth simultaneously launching two rockets in opposite directions?

It isn't.

 

[Tricky]

You know, Franko, I don't want to tell you how to run your trolling business, but I would recommend that you abandon this Newtonian mathmatics line of reasoning. You are trying to claim things are wrong that have been firmly established for more than half a century. You are in danger of looking as foolish as Jedi Knight did when he claimed "gravity only comes from stars".

Of course, if that is your objective, then carry on, but IMHO, you need to pick your battles better.

 

[Upchurch]

For example:

Two cars face opposite directions at a starting line. At the gun, they each take off at a constant 50 mph. After 10 miles, they stop. By your calculation methodology, according to the guy on the starting line, each car traveled 100 mph. Is this really the method you want to use to calculate composition of velocities?

I just wanted to add that if you were to launch a ship from the Earth at velocity v1 and the ship then shot out a rocket at velocity v2 away from the Earth, one could find the total velocity, v, of the rocket from Earth's reference by using the Newtonian formula: v = v1 + v2.

However, this is only an approximation for low velocities. The faster the speeds the worse the approximation. As slow as the shuttle and other orbital satelites travel (much much less than even 0.001c), NASA still uses relativistic calculations to more accurately calculate trajectories.

 

[Franko]

420,000 km/s is a rate of speration.

Yes, and 420,000 kms is faster than the speed of light (300,000).

Franko:
why can’t ship C simply triangulate the relative position and speed of ship B from the Earth, and work out the True rate of separation?

Upchurch:
Because there is no "true rate of seperation".

You just acknowledged that they were separating at 420,000 kms???

In order for there to be one, there must be an absolute reference frame to measure it from. Ship C can calculate the speed of ship B from the reference of Earth, but that doesn't change that the change in distance with respect to time of ships B and C is 0.94c.

Right, but for an observer on Earth to see ship C traveling away at 0.7 and if he knows that C to B is 0.94 then he can compute that B is also moving directly away from Earth at 0.7 which means that C would know from the POV on Earth he was moving away from B at 420,000 kms (140%) instead of only 282,000 kms (94%).

You’ve already agreed that both ships will reach their destinations 10 years relative from the Earth, so how can this possible be wrong? The only way they reach their destination on time is if they are separating at 420,000 kms … right?

[mini-rocket …]No. Incorrect composition of velocities. Or, more simply, you are adding the speeds wrong.

How am I adding their speeds? Look, a rocket takes off from Earth and flies off at 0.7 x C.

How fast is the rocket going relative to Earth? 0.7 x C!

Okay so now a rocket takes off from the little asteroid and flies off at 0.5 x C.

How fast is the rocket going relative to Asteroid? 0.5 x C!

What are you claiming is different this time?

Franko:
In other words, isn’t Relativity always applied to two points of reference and no more?

Upchurch:
It can be applied to more than two reference frames as long as the situation can be broken down into multiple two reference frame situations. But that's really just a problem solving method. The short answer to your question is yes.

And there you go …

You don’t see the problem with that Upchurch?

Franko:
When you calculate the maximum speed an object can travel isn’t it ALWAYS relative to some other Single object (point in space)? So why can’t one of the asteroid ships launch it’s own rocket as I suggest above.

Upchurch:
No reason it can't. I'm not arguing the existance of the situation. I'm saying your math is wrong.

I know what you are saying, but you are missing my point.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, and 420,000 kms is faster than the speed of light (300,000).

I was pointing out that the units km/s is that of a velocity. Units of kms aren't really anything that I can think of.

Right, but for an observer on Earth to see ship C traveling away at 0.7 and if he knows that C to B is 0.94 then he can compute that B is also moving directly away from Earth at 0.7 which means that C would know from the POV on Earth he was moving away from B at 420,000 kms (140%) instead of only 282,000 kms (94%).

[broken record]
Only if ship C were to use the Newtonian method of adding velocities, which is inaplicable in this case.
[/broken record]

You’ve already agreed that both ships will reach their destinations 10 years relative from the Earth, so how can this possible be wrong? The only way they reach their destination on time is if they are separating at 420,000 kms … right?

No. From the Earth frame of reference, each ship is traveling at 0.7c. By using Einstein's method of adding velocities, they seperate at 0.94c to reach their destinations. Remember, for the ships, they only have to travel something like 7 light years to reach their destination, not the 10 seen by Earth.

How am I adding their speeds? Look, a rocket takes off from Earth and flies off at 0.7 x C.

How fast is the rocket going relative to Earth? 0.7 x C!

Okay so now a rocket takes off from the little asteroid and flies off at 0.5 x C.

How fast is the rocket going relative to Asteroid? 0.5 x C!

What are you claiming is different this time?

Nothing. So far, so good.

And there you go …

You don’t see the problem with that Upchurch?

Problem with what? Breaking hard problems down into simpler ones so that they can be solved and then put back together again? It's a common problem solving method...

I know what you are saying, but you are missing my point.

Aparently. What exactly is your point? That things can move faster than the speed of light? That light doesn't always travel at c in a vacuum? That relativity is wrong?

These are the common themes that seem to have come up in the last few pages, as I see it.

 

[Upchurch]

Instead of going around and around again (which I'm sure we'll get back to), I'd like to interject a quick question to Franko:

What do you think the premises, principles, conclusions, and/or consequences of Relativity are? Either Special, General, or both?

In other words, what do you think is meant by the Theory of Relativity?

 

[Franko]

Only if ship C were to use the Newtonian method of adding velocities, which is inaplicable in this case.

If the two ships are moving apart at a rate of 420,000 kms and that is the answer you get, then how can you claim it is “inapplicable” in this case? I would say your answer of 282,000 kms was “inapplicable” because clearly it is wrong.

Franko:
You’ve already agreed that both ships will reach their destinations 10 years relative from the Earth, so how can this possible be wrong? The only way they reach their destination on time is if they are separating at 420,000 kms … right?

Upchurch:
No. From the Earth frame of reference, each ship is traveling at 0.7c.

And ergo separating at a rate of 420,000 kms!

Upchurch:
By using Einstein's method of adding velocities, they seperate at 0.94c to reach their destinations. Remember, for the ships, they only have to travel something like 7 light years to reach their destination, not the 10 seen by Earth.

… and since they are moving at relativistic speeds it will seem like they traveled even less than 7 years (from the crews POV) … correct? Never-the-less, from the POV of an observer on Earth the two ships would be separating at 420,000 kms, and if each ship is headed towards a different planet in opposite directions they will be separating at 420,000 kms. You seem to want to claim that because Einstein says they are only separating at 282,000 kms then they are actually separating at 282,000 kms. But if that is the case, then how are the ships reaching their destination in the allotted 10 years? At a separation rate of only 282,000 kms they would never make it within the 10 year time frame.

Let’s try something else a second … I know that according to Relativity nothing is suppose to be able to travel AT the speed of light (although, I don’t know exactly what that means, because unless you have a fixed point that ALL things are relative to …). Okay, so lets suppose that your could travel at the speed of light … what would happen? What would it be like … ?

For starters, the distance between You and any point in the Universe would drop to zero – correct? You could reach any point in the entire Universe instantaneously from your POV? … sort of like being everywhere in the Universe at once?

 

[Upchurch]

If the two ships are moving apart at a rate of 420,000 kms and that is the answer you get, then how can you claim it is “inapplicable” in this case? I would say your answer of 282,000 kms was “inapplicable” because clearly it is wrong.

My calculation is wrong? Can you point out the error in the math?

And ergo separating at a rate of 420,000 kms!

Could you please show your calculation in determining this? Try to use notation as specific as mine, please.

… and since they are moving at relativistic speeds it will seem like they traveled even less than 7 years (from the crews POV) … correct? [a little more, 7.14 years] Never-the-less, from the POV of an observer on Earth the two ships would be separating at 420,000 kms, and if each ship is headed towards a different planet in opposite directions they will be separating at 420,000 kms.

Since you said my calculation of the added velocity is incorrect, I need to see your justification for this number. To my eye, you are using Newtonian mechanics, but if you are not, please explain.

You seem to want to claim that because Einstein says they are only separating at 282,000 kms then they are actually separating at 282,000 kms.

Well, Einstein has since gotten a lot of experimental support for believing this is the case.

But if that is the case, then how are the ships reaching their destination in the allotted 10 years?

They are reaching their destination in the 10 years according to the Earth reference frame because in the Earth reference frame they are traveling at 0.7c. In the rocket reference frame, they are making the trip of 5ly in 7 years by traveling at 0.7c.

At a separation rate of only 282,000 kms they would never make it within the 10 year time frame.

Neither rocket is traveling at 0.94c. That's an addition of velocities and irrelevent to their sepereate trips. Regradless, each rocket can make the trip in 7 years at 0.7c because they only have to go 5 ly.

Let’s try something else a second … I know that according to Relativity nothing is suppose to be able to travel AT the speed of light (although, I don’t know exactly what that means, because unless you have a fixed point that ALL things are relative to …). Okay, so lets suppose that your could travel at the speed of light … what would happen? What would it be like … ?

I really couldn't say within the framework of Special Relativity, since v > c makes gamma an imaginary number. Also, at v = c, gamma requires deviding by 0, which is undefined in mathematics.

For starters, the distance between You and any point in the Universe would drop to zero – correct? You could reach any point in the entire Universe instantaneously from your POV? … sort of like being everywhere in the Universe at once?

I have no idea. It's theoretically impossible so I can't theorize about it in context of the Theory of Relativity. It's like asking what sound frequency is red. It's not defined.

edited to add:

Also, please don't forget to address my question concerning what you think the Theory of Relativity means.

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
My calculation is wrong? Can you point out the error in the math?
Franko:
And ergo separating at a rate of 420,000 kms!
Upchurch:
Could you please show your calculation in determining this? Try to use notation as specific as mine, please.

If two spaceships leave the Earth at 0.7 times the speed of light and are headed in opposite then they are separating at a rate of 420,000 kms. You said the rate was only 282,000 kms (0.94 x 300,000 kms).

From the POV of an observer on Earth the two ships would be separating at 420,000 kms, and if each ship is headed towards a different planet in opposite directions they will be separating at 420,000 kms. You seem to want to claim that because Einstein says they are only separating at 282,000 kms then they are actually separating at 282,000 kms. But if that is the case, then how are the ships reaching their destination in the allotted 10 years? At a separation rate of only 282,000 kms they would never make it within the 10 year time frame.

Franko:
I know that according to Relativity nothing is suppose to be able to travel AT the speed of light (although, I don’t know exactly what that means, because unless you have a fixed point that ALL things are relative to …). Okay, so lets suppose that your could travel at the speed of light … what would happen? What would it be like … ?

For starters, the distance between You and any point in the Universe would drop to zero – correct? You could reach any point in the entire Universe instantaneously from your POV? … sort of like being everywhere in the Universe at once?

Upchurch:
I have no idea. It's theoretically impossible so I can't theorize about it in context of the Theory of Relativity. It's like asking what sound frequency is red. It's not defined.

Hehehe … funny how you A-Theists can imagine “No Time Existing”, or a present not based on the past, or acausal magic occurring for no objective or logical reasons, yet you are unable to draw a simple logical conclusion from a theory you claim to understand so well?

If something could travel at the speed of light, the distance between it and all points in the Universe would drop to zero. It would be like be everywhere in the Universe at once. I believe Einstein said something like that himself.

 

[Upchurch]

If two spaceships leave the Earth at 0.7 times the speed of light and are headed in opposite then they are separating at a rate of 420,000 kms. You said the rate was only 282,000 kms (0.94 x 300,000 kms).

Allow me to restate my calculation:

Relativistic composition of velocities: u = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 v2)^2 / c^2)
Where,
u = total velocity between v1 and v2
v1 = velocity of one ship in reference to Earth = 0.7c
v2 = velocity of the other ship in reference to Earth = 0.7c

u = (0.7c + 0.7c) / (1 + (0.7c 0.7c)^2 / c^2)
u = (1.4c) / (1.49)
u = 0.94c

Noting that u < c, which is consistant with Relativity.

Mathematics don't lie unless the theory behind them are wrong. If you can find no error in my mathematics, then the only conclusion is that the Theory of Relativity is wrong. If you see an error in my math, please point it out. If you do not, do you see an error in the Theory of Relativity? If so, what?

It appears that you are using Newtonian physics in reaching this number. i.e.:

Newtonian composition of velocities: u = v1 + v2
Where,
u = total velocity between v1 and v2
v1 = velocity of one ship in reference to Earth = 0.7c
v2 = velocity of the other ship in reference to Earth = 0.7c

u = 0.7c + 0.7c
u = 1.4c

Noting that u > c, which is inconsistant with Relativity, not to mention Electromagnetic theory if the ships are replaced with photons.

Is this how you arrive at 420,000 km/s? If so, how do you reconcile this answer with the Relativity and Electromagnetic theories?

You seem to want to claim that because Einstein says they are only separating at 282,000 kms then they are actually separating at 282,000 kms. But if that is the case, then how are the ships reaching their destination in the allotted 10 years? At a separation rate of only 282,000 kms they would never make it within the 10 year time frame.

This is a copy and paste from a previous post. I stand by my above response.

If something could travel at the speed of light, the distance between it and all points in the Universe would drop to zero. It would be like be everywhere in the Universe at once. I believe Einstein said something like that himself.

Source?

Also, please explain what it is that you think the Theory of Relativity means, as per my earlier question.

edited to correct typos