mreddie1611

I suppose what it all comes down to for me is an attempt to explain Einstein’s concept of gravity in an accessible metaphor. Space-Time contraction when approaching the speed of light may take a while to understand, but the concept (if not the math) is not outside the ability of an interested pedestrian high-school graduate. Like me. So why not gravity? It may be “pop-sci” cartoons that help the understanding, but I’m a big fan of cartoons. And pop-sci, come to think of it. Aren’t you? How can anybody not like “Futurama”? Einstein’s ideas regarding gravity don’t seem as simple and straight forward as his ideas on time dilation. Yeah, my metaphor is a cartoon, but is it a cartoon that works at least as well as the ones we’ve all seen? Probably not, sure, but I’m certainly not satisfied with what’s out there.

I've been trying to wrap my head around Einstein’s explanation of gravity. I'd like some input to see if they way I'm visualizing could be correct, because it's a little different than what I've been seeing. In typical illustrations of Relativity and the force of gravity, Space-Time is a shown as a two dimensional grid. Mass (a planet) is pictured as forcing the grid down, warping the plane like a heavy weight on a pliable surface, or re-shaping it into a sort of cone-like funnel. What I see (on those iritating nights that thoughts of Relativity are keeping me awake) is the same two dimensional grid drawn on a thin sheet of rubber. The mass is a small rubber ball. Instead of forcing the ball down onto the grid, the ball is inserted into a tiny pin pricked hole in the rubber sheet. The mass displaces the area of the grid where it is inserted, and the lines of the grid are dramatically compressed around the ball. The further away from the mass, the less compression. Even while I'm writing this I see holes in the idea (no pun intended), but bear with me: The sheet of rubber has no tension, or pull, until the rubber ball has been inserted. The strongest "pull" would be at the very edge of the hole. The further away from the displacement, the weaker the pull. Does mass displace Space-Time? If so, does this also occur as mass moves though space, causing Space-Time compression? Would that mean that mass is affecting Space-Time at near light speeds?

I'm not a physics type guy, but I'm interested in Einstein, so this is more of a question than an answer. I've always assumed that the increase in mass was a direct result of the space dilation more than anything else. I know that I'm missing something here because that leaves out the energy being converted to mass, but I just don't have the physics to fully comprehend what it is. Or is that what it's all about? Energy being converted to mass?

The topic description pretty well spells it out. Light travels at 186282 miles per second, a velocity at which time and space fully dilate, and where an infinite amount of energy would be required to for matter to travel at the same speed. OK, fine. So why light speed, in particular? And please don't answer "because if it traveled any faster it would go back in time", or "because that is as fast as it could go in normal space". I want to know why the two are dependent upon each other. A better way of putting it might be "What physical rule in our universe makes it impossible for light speed to be some lesser velocity, and if it was would that necessarily change the space-time dilation threshold to match the new velocity, and why?"

I appreciate everyones input, and I can't say that I disagree with the generally accepted interpretation of Special Relativity. It took me several months just to wrap my head around how Einstein came to his conclusions and what they mean (it really kind of grabs you and doesn't let go, doesn't it?), so I don't really feel qualified to disagree. I just have this itch in the back of my mind that says that there may be room somewhere for a different idea. If you'll indulge me just once more, I'd like to go just a little further and get some feedback on what's really bugging me. I'm not changing the question, I'm just following the idea, right or wrong, to a conclusion... It's impossible for our traveler to attain the speed of light, of course, but lets say for sake of argument that he could. Relativity says that that time for the traveler would come to a complete stop and that space for the traveler would be an infinitely flat plain, because the space-time dilation would be what I'll just call Zero, for lack of a better term. (come to think of it, there probably is a better term out there somewhere) An infinite amount of energy is required to attain and maintain this speed. Not just big, incredible, unknowable amount of energy, an infinite amount of energy. I assume that this conclusion is due to my old nemesis, the math, which I don't understand but can accept that others have correctly worked out. The traveler begins his 100 light year journey now at light speed, and maintains it throughout the journey until he reaches his destination. Einstein says, to best of my understanding, that our traveler experiences his journey as an instantaneous event. Furthermore, he does not really experience it as a journey. Space dilation for our traveler means he has not traveled any distance whatsoever. Our traveler is not really a traveler now at all. He was simply in one place, and then he was in another. Except that's not completely accurate either, is it? He was simultaneously at the starting flag and at the finish line, and every point in between. If his ship were a light source and earth was the destination, we would observe exactly that, in a way: The light from his ship at the beginning of his journey would reach earth 100 years years latter, at the same time that the ship arrived. At every point of his journey, the light from his ship would arrive at the same local time for the observer on earth. Perhaps we would see a luminescent line 100 light years long across the sky. (I know I'm ignoring planetary movement, expansion, and a dozen other factors, but that's all beside the point that I'm getting to) So my question is this: What if what we interpret as light speed is not really a velocity at all? Is there any possibility that what we observe as light speed is actually just the only way we can observe infinite velocity; An instantaneous event that we observe as 186000 miles per second because of our own moving position in time-space? So yes, what if time does "pass" in a way, because we pass through time-space, restricting us to observe a simultaneous event of a single particle existing at all points between point A and point B in the dimension of "space" as a journey of c, because of our moving position through the dimension of "time"? I realize that my argument holds about as much water as a Zeno's paradox, and I also understand that it isn't really an argument as much as a thought. So I'm not really asking if this idea is correct. What I'm asking is could there be a scenario where this interpretation would work, and what would it mean about the nature of the universe? Is the idea any more crazy than what we know about quantum mechanics? Truth be told, I see a few similarities. Let me leave you with this: Why does infinite space-time dilation with an infinite amount of energy occur at at c? Why at the speed of light, in particular? Can someone really give me a good reason? I'm not saying that there isn't one, perhaps I just haven't run into it yet. Or more likely I just don't understand it. But either way, I do think that there is more to c than just how fast a light particle happens to travel. And once light speed is surpassed, and our ship begins to travel into the past, doesn't it cease to exist in our local space-time? And when we describe what happens to our traveler as he surpasses light speed, isn't that the same exact way we would try and describe an event that occurred at a speed faster than "instantaneous"?

Would the exchange of information at a speed faster than c be equivalent to sending information into the past?

I have a different way of looking at Einstein than most, that makes faster than light travel possible, without bending any rules. At least, I think I do. Special Relativity says that space-time dilates at near light speed velocities, and that the time slows down for the traveler. As the old story goes, 100 years pass on earth, while only a few years pass for the traveler on the near light speed ship. This is not merely a matter of perception on the part of the either the traveler or the earthbound observer. This is the reality of the space that both parties inhabit. Relativity says that time doesn't just seem to slow down for the traveler, time actually does move slower. As a thought experiment, lets have our traveler make a 100 light year journey from earth to a distant star in our galaxy, at speeds very close to the speed of light. Space-time shortens, or dilates, but only for the traveler, not for us earthbound observers. From our point of view the traveler's journey takes over 100 years to complete. From his point of view, though, only 50 years have passed, and when he comes to his journey's end, he has traveled over 100 light years in 50 years of his time... or, to put it another way, he has traveled, from his point of view, at NEARLY TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Our thought experiment is not an extreme one. Near light speeds might result in only 10 years passing for the traveler on a 100 light year journey. The scale if infinite, with time coming to a complete stop if actual light speed were possible to obtain. Our traveler looked out the window of his ship and saw the asteroid that marked the halfway point of his trip pass by in just a little over 25 years. The only real question, in my mind, is whether this is a matter of perception on the part of the traveler, or if it is a matter of reality. For those of us on earth to insist that the trip actually took over 100 years is to insist that our reality is correct, and that his is false. Or, to put it another way, he was being effected by Special Relativity, whereas we were... not? Doesn't Special Relativity effect any object that moves through space, even those of us at our computers right now, though at an infinitesimal scale until near light speeds are attained? Can you really say that time is passing for you right now in the exact same way as it is for me? Why is our perception "real" and the traveler's only an illusion? Time, space, and velocity are all relative, aren't they? Is the near light speed traveler actually exceeding the speed of light, at the cost of the dimension of time?