is relativity logically necessary?

[TrueHeart]

...

Anyway, the consensus seems to be--

No, relativity is not logically necessary, at least as far as anyone can tell.

 

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!

[npts2020]

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!

 

Why would anything shift, blue or red without relativity?

[TrueHeart]

Why would anything shift, blue or red without 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.

Edited November 13, 2008 by lightSword

[npts2020]

Well, I am not a physicist but I thought the whole reason photons shifted to begin with was because of relativity. If you do away with relativity, why would photons shift at all?

[Pete]

Why would anything shift, blue or red without relativity?

The existance of red shift and blue shift does not require relativity. The existance of red/blue shift can easily be understood in terms of the Doppler effect. Are you familiar with it.

[fatoumata]

i think it's an true fact, relativity holds significance for the major physical aspects of the world and after all don't you think that scientists would be hampered in their research if the theory of relativity did not exist?

 

now I have a new question for you: what would our world look like if the Light speed was 10m/s?

[Royston]

The existance of red/blue shift can easily be understood in terms of the Doppler effect. Are you familiar with it.

 

That is only true to an extent, for large distances red shift will be observed whichever angle you care to pick...that's standard cosmology. Besides, I think the source of the confusion is that lightsword isn't using the correct terminology, and his argument is b*llocks anyway.

 

master cosmos-wide space/grid reference frame.

 

Yuk, you mean absolute space...in any case, the frequency of light due to your position is hardly going to make a system unstable. After reading your post I stupidly thought the Unruh effect would cause instability, but that only holds if the frame of reference is accelerating...and at such large distances there's no problem if what you said is correct, which it isn't.

 

It gets worse, a static or steady state Universe works fine with relativity, despite it being claimed as Einsteins biggest blunder, there's nothing to assume that relativity can't hold if the Universe is static, relativity works because it's dependant on a frame of reference, that's all.

[TrueHeart]

I think the source of the confusion is that lightsword isn't using the correct terminology, and his argument is b*llocks anyway.

...

Yuk, you mean absolute space.

...

It gets worse, a static or steady state Universe ...

 

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.

[Royston]

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"?

 

Well yes, I'm more than happy that a change in frequency won't mean 'super-potent destroyers', whatever the crap that means. Considering I'm bombarded with much higher frequency radiation, I'd like to see you prove your argument...go ahead.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Snail

[TrueHeart]

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

[Royston]

Fortunately, that's not the mode of the World

 

Which is good, and besides this entire discussion is daft, relativity has been tested again and again, we've even based technology on it's predictions, so to speculate on a Universe without it, is pointless.

 

This is really a reply to apologize for my crankiness yesterday, it's not really a good idea to be posting on a forum if I'm upset over other stuff, and venting leads to poor discussion.

[TrueHeart]

Yeah, those energies can wreak destruction, do the math!

 

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 --