TrueHeart

Relativity is all about how light behaves, and from that some truth is differentiated from some fiction. Light's behavior is particularly at issue because the cosmos is ever expanding… some of the very distant galaxies are receding from us at near light speed — we find that true while looking in every direction. Getting right into it, if a fleet ("The Fleet") of spacecraft left Earth and sped away at a significant fraction of lightspeed, then how would light (and/or radio, EM) signals behave between us and them? and how would such signals behave among The Fleet members themselves? Would a radio signal sent from Earth take extra time to reach The Fleet, because it is receding away? Yet the reverse is not true?? ie. signals from The Fleet will transit only the predetermined distance through Earth's fixed coordinate system? Who is actually receding from whom?? Does it depend on how Earth is moving with respect to a higher coordinate system, some fixed master coordinate system? In a word no, none of that is true. OK it's all true, relatively true. What's absolutely true is the denial of any master cosmic framework serving as medium for electromagnetic signal transmissions: EM signals find their own way about, somehow transcendent of mortal ciphering. It's uncanny; we don't know the how but we know the how much. We realize now that light behaves relativistically, which means that every clock and every ruler in the world must cede something to accommodate the feat. In the stated scenario, The Fleet astronauts experience one thing while us Earthbound folk experience something altogether different, something that seems contradictory. By all reckoning, the astronauts witness EM signals to be moving at fixed lightspeed with respect to The Fleet's native 3D coordinate system — and by native is meant simply, "that x-y-z frame with respect to which The Fleet is stock still in space." Those astronauts… they witness their outgoing signals as requiring extra time to "catch up" to the receding Earth, yet incoming Earth signals need only travel the predetermined distance from their release point. And all the calculations work out… no, there is no incompetence. And wouldn't you know? Earthlings can make the very same claim. By all reckoning, they witness EM signals behaving as if Earth's native 3D coordinate system is boss. Their outgoing signals require extra time to catch up to the receding space Fleet, yet incoming Fleet signals need only travel the predetermined distance from their release point. And this relativity carries over to within The Fleet itself: its member craft are able to swap messages among themselves, with only their fixed separation distance dictating the transmission delay. Light and radio signals don't take longer to transit in one particular direction because of The Fleet's supposed motion "through space" — that element is negated entirely. And now the final concluding point. Isn't it great that light behaves this way? especially considering that many millions of distant galaxies are flying away from us at tremendous speeds. If light simply moved relative to Earth, or relative to some master cosmic coordinate system (with respect to which Earth is fairly still), then how could those (hypothetical) zillions of aliens who populate those myriad distant galaxies ever live, eh?? they couldn't!! They would live in a giant ever-distorted world, where a simple twisting of the neck would mean drastic changes in their view of the surroundings — all hot and blue-shifted in one direction, pale and red-shifted in the other. They could be burned alive by a single candle flame if its radiations were coming from the wrong side.

Believe in witchcraft at your own risk and peril 1. homicides are being solved with the aid of psychics 2. by definition, anyone who receives a telepathic message is mentally ill 3. also by definition, those who are once deemed mentally ill are forever so 4. all the holy books rail vehemently against 'sorceries' 5. once you accept the validity of any occulted thing, you're driving blind Conclusions: every conceivable variance from sweet normalcy is possible within the limits of some Planck constant function or somethin' -- but as a human being it is your highest calling to NOT DIGNIFY such things. Instead, make your modest contribution to vanilla mundanity and then get the hell out of stinkin' Eternity for freakin EVER and ever and ever and ever.

I'm still hoping someone knows the math. Um, can the frequency at most nearly double due to blue shift? ..like in our actual World when a steady light source moves toward the observing station at near lightspeed? But that frequency doubling would more than double the energy, wouldn't it? I suppose, if it merely doubles (at most), then my thesis is questionable. But I think there is a non-linear energy boost, as when velocity is squared to derive K.E. -- not sure --

1. it's not hard to prove, in fact other readers feel I've said sufficient already 2. it's impossible to describe a world without relativity because none exist Relativity cushions each area of the World in sweet normalcy regarding the behavior of light. It matters not your galaxy's velocity "through space" or relative to some other station. Were it not for this cushioning, it's simple to compute the enormous up-shift in energy of a visible light beam when the observing station approaches the light source at 2/3 lightspeed, while the photon stream (additively) approaches the observing station at full light speed. Yeah, those energies can wreak destruction, do the math! Fortunately, that's not the mode of the World

Sure, "absolute space" is synonymous with that which I identified as being affirmed non-existent. That's right, I can't address any hypothetical universe, only our Real One. That said, are you positive you want to allege invalidity to my remark, "If not for relativity, the motion of matter through the cosmic grid would result in enormous blue-shifting, turning even low-energy photons into super-potent destroyers"? After all, the topic is the necessity of relativity. Of course, no such cosmic grid comes into play, and light doesn't actually behave that way. And so I maintain that my statement above does verily point out the crying need for relativity.

I wish you could've just plain SEEN that, without my having to explicate. Can't you understand? if photons moved relative to the master grid, and a galaxy were speeding 500 million miles per hour relative to that grid, then the oncoming photons would be powerfully blue-shifted, making them deadly. the Universe wouldn't last long. Of course, that's OUR universe to which I refer; some hypothetical steady-state non-Hubblized universe could conceivably fair -- but I doubt it.

Consensus or no, relativity is indeed an absolute necessity. If there wasn't relativity, then light would simply propagate predictably relative to some master cosmic coordinate system. Because that is the essence: relativity affirms the non-existence of a master cosmos-wide space/grid reference frame. So, lacking relativity, those distant galaxies that we see everywhere, speeding away from our own, would suffer serious instability and inevitable destruction. Relativity prevents the force of powerful photons from destroying everything out there. We know that distant galaxies are moving with very great speed relative to our own. If not for relativity, the motion of such matter through the cosmic grid would result in enormous blue-shifting, turning even low-energy photons into super-potent destroyers!

Less well?? Less well?? that doesn't jibe with Earth's proficiency at space travel to the moon. But no matter. You go ahead and mentor YT, and you might BOTH end up with similar mental blocks. I won't waste another alpha wave sticking around this den of stumblebums. Good riddance. [Those who, in my absence, search for and read my accumulated 78 posts, will find a veritable treasure trove.]

Well then you have my sincere sympathies. And to prove just HOW sincere are those sympathies, I have tried to call your attention to the website explainrelativity.com, which takes a radically different tack than others have... others, who mindlessly repeat the same old tired canned verbiage, amidst endless idolatrous acclaim of the scientists' personalities! Okay, okay, alright! but as I said, let's not mucky up the waters with fruitless asides. Keep to the thread at hand.

Okay, so now I at least know what you meant. But your assertions are not accurate. One does not 'become' more massive the faster one 'goes'. Going, ie. moving, is all relative; there is NO SUCH THING as a body's ABSOLUTE UNEQUIVOCAL velocity (through space), so there is no such thing as a body ABSOLUTELY becoming more massive. Get it?? I AM sorry, but I decline to lead your hand further until you make some earnest effort to research the subject of relativity. Hey, you OWE it to yourself.

I don't know what "personal digs" you're referring to and SURE, I can explain why "NOW" is not a constant. But I don't think this forum is the logical venue in which to begin a 3000-word dissertation, which is about what would be required to indictrinate a total novice, which you readily admit that you are. THAT and ONLY that is why I instead -- politely -- referred you to other resources. [Harrumph!]

You call yourself "The Resourceful One", so find some good websites on Relativity and learn what it's all about. I personally favor explainrelativity.com, but that's just me... just me.

Ah, alas, that's what poor Sir Isaac thought. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Never wrestle with a pig, my friend.