Relativity

[Wiploc]

Could remaining relative to the point of the Big Bang be considered an ideal location for the makings of an imaginary grid from which to base absolute rest points?

Every point is the point of the big bang.

Whether any given point is moving (and relative to what) is a matter of your personal whim.

 

[bilby]

Could remaining relative to the point of the Big Bang be considered an ideal location for the makings of an imaginary grid from which to base absolute rest points?

Sure. But the minor problem with that is that everywhere in space is the point of the Big Bang. So the entire universe would be at 0,0,0 on such a grid, rendering it a little less than entirely useful.

"Captain, we have moved from point 0,0,0 to point 0,0,0"

"So, helmsman, you are saying we are still in the universe?"

"Yes Sir!"

 

[Artemus]

Could remaining relative to the point of the Big Bang be considered an ideal location for the makings of an imaginary grid from which to base absolute rest points?

Every point is the point of the big bang.

Whether any given point is moving (and relative to what) is a matter of your personal whim.

Some would argue that it is reasonable to use the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background as an absolute reference for motion. (Which is of course a "personal whim." )

 

[skepticalbip]

Could remaining relative to the point of the Big Bang be considered an ideal location for the makings of an imaginary grid from which to base absolute rest points?

Every point is the point of the big bang.

Whether any given point is moving (and relative to what) is a matter of your personal whim.

Some would argue that it is reasonable to use the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background as an absolute reference for motion. (Which is of course a "personal whim." )

But then the cosmic microwave background is everywhere in the universe. And can microwave energy (light) be said to have a "rest frame"? After all it is moving at the speed of light with respect to any inertial reference frame you select.

 

[fast]

Is there a faulty premise in the notion itself that one can actually travel relative to c?

If I am in a plane traveling just shy the speed of a bullet, appearances will match facts. For instance, if the plane is traveling at 999.5MPH and the bullet is traveling at 1000MPH, the facts will be measured as such and the appearance will be that we can reach out and take notice that it's moving very slow, as we could notice at will its spin through the air-as if we could reach out and examine it.

But, posters here are reporting, "no," though speeds are in fact fast as can be, appearances will be such that light will appear as fast to us no matter how fast we travel, be it .5c or .25c. Awe, but if that's the case, then maybe it's not the case at all and any attempt to propose that we're traveling relative to c is misleading.

For instance, if I'm traveling 0MPH relative to c, then light shall zoom away from us at the exact factual speed it will, and we'll be left with the fact matching feeling that light is super fast to us, so if we increase our speed relative to something else, we will not increase our speed relative to light.

Freaky stuff.

 

[Wiploc]

Is there a faulty premise in the notion itself that one can actually travel relative to c?

That doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the speed of light has a frame of reference.

If I am in a plane traveling just shy the speed of a bullet, appearances will match facts. For instance, if the plane is traveling at 999.5MPH and the bullet is traveling at 1000MPH, the facts will be measured as such and the appearance will be that we can reach out and take notice that it's moving very slow, as we could notice at will its spin through the air-as if we could reach out and examine it.

But, posters here are reporting, "no," though speeds are in fact fast as can be, appearances will be such that light will appear as fast to us no matter how fast we travel, be it .5c or .25c. Awe, but if that's the case, then maybe it's not the case at all and any attempt to propose that we're traveling relative to c is misleading.

I don't think that anybody here proposes that we are traveling relative to c.

For instance, if I'm traveling 0MPH relative to c,

I don't think that makes sense. It's not a thing.

then light shall zoom away from us at the exact factual speed it will,

?

and we'll be left with the fact matching feeling that light is super fast to us, so if we increase our speed relative to something else, we will not increase our speed relative to light.

Okay, this part you've got right.

Freaky stuff.

Yes!

 

[skepticalbip]

Is there a faulty premise in the notion itself that one can actually travel relative to c?

It certainly would be if anyone proposed it.

When a speed of something like 0.5c is cited it is a speed with respect to some reference frame such as with respect to a star or some other reference point (such as when describing the speed of a plasma jet from an active star). This speed could have been cited as 150,000 Km/sec with respect to the star but 0.5c with respect to the star is handy shorthand.

Freaky stuff.

Indeed!

 

[fast]

Some implications of this stuff: if ya wanna know how much faster a light is moving compared to a moving object, no math is required.

A pudgy 6 year old girl and her athletic 16 year old brother decide they're gonna have a foot race, and he's much faster than her. They run from the marker to the wall. When dad fires the gun towards the wall to signal the commencement of the race, the wife (mother) shines a light towards the wall:

A: sister
B: brother
C: light
D: bullet

How much faster is a than b? Requires subtraction
How much faster is b than a? Requires some math, right?
A to d, d to a, same thing: pull out the abacus

From slowest to fastest, we have a, b, d, c

If we want to know how much faster is c than a, no math required. C to b, no math needed.

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

 

[Bomb#20]

Some would argue that it is reasonable to use the rest frame of the cosmic microwave background as an absolute reference for motion. (Which is of course a "personal whim." )

But then the cosmic microwave background is everywhere in the universe. And can microwave energy (light) be said to have a "rest frame"? After all it is moving at the speed of light with respect to any inertial reference frame you select.

Any given photon in the microwave background has no rest frame, but that doesn't mean the photons can't all have a collective rest frame, based on the statistical distribution of their directions and wavelengths. The CMB is said to have a temperature of about 2.7 degrees K, but that's an average. It's a little bit colder in one direction than in the opposite direction, because it's a little bit more red-shifted in one direction than in the opposite direction. If you imagine pointing your rocket in the direction of the maximum red shift and accelerating until the effect goes away and you measure the CMB to have the same temperature in all directions, that's the CMB rest frame.

 

[Wiploc]

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

The snail and the bullet both see light as traveling at the same speed (relative to themselves, even thought they are traveling at different speeds).

Sara stays home. She is stopped relative to herself.
Joe flies away at .9c relative to Sara.
Mitch flies away faster. He's going the same direction, but at .9c relative to Joe.
Alethea goes faster yet, in the same direction, at .9c relative to Joe.

A Newtonian would argue that their speeds must be as follows:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: 1.8c.
Alethea: 2.7c.

But here's what Sara observes:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: .99c.
Alethea: .999c.

Please note that these are made up numbers. Since I don't know how to do math, I enlisted the aid of fiction. The point being illustrated is that objects with mass approach the speed of light asymptotically. They can come closer and closer, but they can never get there.

 

[beero1000]

Some implications of this stuff: if ya wanna know how much faster a light is moving compared to a moving object, no math is required.

A pudgy 6 year old girl and her athletic 16 year old brother decide they're gonna have a foot race, and he's much faster than her. They run from the marker to the wall. When dad fires the gun towards the wall to signal the commencement of the race, the wife (mother) shines a light towards the wall:

A: sister
B: brother
C: light
D: bullet

How much faster is a than b? Requires subtraction
How much faster is b than a? Requires some math, right?
A to d, d to a, same thing: pull out the abacus

From slowest to fastest, we have a, b, d, c

If we want to know how much faster is c than a, no math required. C to b, no math needed.

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

Yes, math is needed. You cannot just add and subtract speeds if you want to be accurate to the level of relativity. They do not simply add, even at the speed of a snail.

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

The snail and the bullet both see light as traveling at the same speed (relative to themselves, even thought they are traveling at different speeds).

Sara stays home. She is stopped relative to herself.
Joe flies away at .9c relative to Sara.
Mitch flies away faster. He's going the same direction, but at .9c relative to Joe.
Alethea goes faster yet, in the same direction, at .9c relative to Joe.

A Newtonian would argue that their speeds must be as follows:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: 1.8c.
Alethea: 2.7c.

But here's what Sara observes:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: .99c.
Alethea: .999c.

Please note that these are made up numbers. Since I don't know how to do math, I enlisted the aid of fiction. The point being illustrated is that objects with mass approach the speed of light asymptotically. They can come closer and closer, but they can never get there.

WolframAlpha is pretty amazing: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=add+velocities,+.9c,+.9c

 

[steve_bank]

The CBR appears as a black body. Heat an object and toss it into deep space and it will go towards equilibrium with the cosmic background.

Photons are never at rest. For example light is emitted from a lamp, photons are in flight, when photons interact with a photo detector they are absorbed converted to an atomic change in energy.

Electrons can be brought to rest to a frame.

That was Hubbles's big discovery, everything is moving away from everything with no discernible point of origin. The BB accounts for for most or all we seetoday, but has conceptual problems.

For those struggling with concepts, you feel you are standing still on Earth, but the Earth is spinning, The Erath is circling then Sun, the solar system is circling the galactic center, the galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies...etc etc etc. I hope you are not prone to motion sickness when it all sinks in.

If you are on the highway in a car you can make the car your frame as if the car is motionless and everything else is moving . Mathematically complicated, but it would work. We are conditioned to look at motion in certain ways, but it is emotionally subjective. It used to seem as if the universe rotated around the Earth.

 

[steve_bank]

No matter how you define time and distance C will be measured the same. You could use a sand clock for time and although probably very small you could use Trump's penis for length. C will appear constant.

 

[fast]

Yes, math is needed. You cannot just add and subtract speeds if you want to be accurate to the level of relativity. They do not simply add, even at the speed of a snail.

The snail and the bullet both see light as traveling at the same speed (relative to themselves, even thought they are traveling at different speeds).

Sara stays home. She is stopped relative to herself.
Joe flies away at .9c relative to Sara.
Mitch flies away faster. He's going the same direction, but at .9c relative to Joe.
Alethea goes faster yet, in the same direction, at .9c relative to Joe.

A Newtonian would argue that their speeds must be as follows:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: 1.8c.
Alethea: 2.7c.

But here's what Sara observes:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: .99c.
Alethea: .999c.

Please note that these are made up numbers. Since I don't know how to do math, I enlisted the aid of fiction. The point being illustrated is that objects with mass approach the speed of light asymptotically. They can come closer and closer, but they can never get there.

WolframAlpha is pretty amazing: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=add+velocities,+.9c,+.9c

I don't know if you're getting what I'm putting down. I didn't mean to suggest we can simply add or subtract. If we're talking about comparing objects with mass, then sure, there is math to be done, but there is something special about light that is so different that we need not calculate a thing to arrive at the answers for the specific question posed.

Let's do some math, and see that no math is required.

The light is going faster than the girl. How much faster? The answer is x

The light is going faster than the bullet. How much faster? The answer is y

Intuition says x and y will yield differently values, but the implications of what you've been saying is that they're the same.

What is x? It's c. No math required!

What is y? It's c. No math required!

What's the difference? 0-0=0

 

[Juma]

Yes, math is needed. You cannot just add and subtract speeds if you want to be accurate to the level of relativity. They do not simply add, even at the speed of a snail.

The snail and the bullet both see light as traveling at the same speed (relative to themselves, even thought they are traveling at different speeds).

Sara stays home. She is stopped relative to herself.
Joe flies away at .9c relative to Sara.
Mitch flies away faster. He's going the same direction, but at .9c relative to Joe.
Alethea goes faster yet, in the same direction, at .9c relative to Joe.

A Newtonian would argue that their speeds must be as follows:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: 1.8c.
Alethea: 2.7c.

But here's what Sara observes:
Sara: 0c.
Joe: .9c.
Mitch: .99c.
Alethea: .999c.

Please note that these are made up numbers. Since I don't know how to do math, I enlisted the aid of fiction. The point being illustrated is that objects with mass approach the speed of light asymptotically. They can come closer and closer, but they can never get there.

WolframAlpha is pretty amazing: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=add+velocities,+.9c,+.9c

I don't know if you're getting what I'm putting down. I didn't mean to suggest we can simply add or subtract. If we're talking about comparing objects with mass, then sure, there is math to be done, but there is something special about light that is so different that we need not calculate a thing to arrive at the answers for the specific question posed.

Let's do some math, and see that no math is required.

The light is going faster than the girl. How much faster? The answer is x

The light is going faster than the bullet. How much faster? The answer is y

Intuition says x and y will yield differently values, but the implications of what you've been saying is that they're the same.

What is x? It's c. No math required!

What is y? It's c. No math required!

What's the difference? 0-0=0

There is nothing special with light. The reason that we refers to the fastest speed as c, the speed of light, is that light is easy to observe.
ANY massless particle will always travel with the speed c.
Its simply the fastest relative speed there can be.
Speed is ALWAYS relative two reference frames.
When a ference frame is moving relative another reference frame the spacetime is rotated so that space dimensions become time dimensions.

 

[skepticalbip]

Some implications of this stuff: if ya wanna know how much faster a light is moving compared to a moving object, no math is required.

A pudgy 6 year old girl and her athletic 16 year old brother decide they're gonna have a foot race, and he's much faster than her. They run from the marker to the wall. When dad fires the gun towards the wall to signal the commencement of the race, the wife (mother) shines a light towards the wall:

A: sister
B: brother
C: light
D: bullet

How much faster is a than b? Requires subtraction
How much faster is b than a? Requires some math, right?
A to d, d to a, same thing: pull out the abacus

From slowest to fastest, we have a, b, d, c

If we want to know how much faster is c than a, no math required. C to b, no math needed.

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

This is a "paradox" you are creating for yourself because you continue to insist on not citing a reference frame.
Let's designate the ground is the reference frame for all the measurements and the race is to be for one Kilometer.
A: assume the sister runs at 1 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
B: assume the brother runs at 10 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
C: light moves 1,080,000,000 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
D: assume the bullet moves at 100 Km/Hr with respect to the ground

It will take the sister one hour to complete the race, the brother 1/10 hour to complete the race, light 1/1,080,000,000 hour to complete the race, and the bullet 1/100 hour to complete the race. It should be obvious that the speed difference between any two of the racers (with respect to the specified reference frame) is easily seen including light. Obvious since speed is distance per unit time and the distance designation requires a frame of reference.

You seem to be constantly switching reference frames in your arguments. In this case you seem to be changing the reference frame for light willy-nilly from a reference frame of the ground to a reference frame of whichever racer you are comparing the speed of light to.

While it is true that the speed of light is constant with respect to any chosen reference frame, it is not true that once a reference is chosen that the difference between the speed of light and the speed of everything else moving in the same reference frame will be the same.

 

[beero1000]

I don't know if you're getting what I'm putting down. I didn't mean to suggest we can simply add or subtract. If we're talking about comparing objects with mass, then sure, there is math to be done, but there is something special about light that is so different that we need not calculate a thing to arrive at the answers for the specific question posed.

Let's do some math, and see that no math is required.

The light is going faster than the girl. How much faster? The answer is x

The light is going faster than the bullet. How much faster? The answer is y

Intuition says x and y will yield differently values, but the implications of what you've been saying is that they're the same.

What is x? It's c. No math required!

What is y? It's c. No math required!

What's the difference? 0-0=0

tbh, I'm pretty sure you're the one who isn't getting what you're putting down. The same math that calculates relative velocities < c works to calculate relative velocities at c. It's the same math that you insist on ignoring, going into yet again another thought experiment that's ill-defined due to inconsistently specified reference frames.

 

[Wiploc]

WolframAlpha is pretty amazing: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=add+velocities,+.9c,+.9c

Wow. Amazing. Good to know. Thanks.

 

[steve_bank]

Then fact that C is independent of frame is what makes RADAR posible.

No matter how fast a jet goes on board RADAR yields true distance to a target based on C.

It is sinking in that comprehension begins with grammar school arithmetic. Without that you can never catch up.

I listened what was supposed to be an education expert say primary education math does not serve to teach logic and reasoning. I'd say he is wrong.

 

[fast]

Some implications of this stuff: if ya wanna know how much faster a light is moving compared to a moving object, no math is required.

A pudgy 6 year old girl and her athletic 16 year old brother decide they're gonna have a foot race, and he's much faster than her. They run from the marker to the wall. When dad fires the gun towards the wall to signal the commencement of the race, the wife (mother) shines a light towards the wall:

A: sister
B: brother
C: light
D: bullet

How much faster is a than b? Requires subtraction
How much faster is b than a? Requires some math, right?
A to d, d to a, same thing: pull out the abacus

From slowest to fastest, we have a, b, d, c

If we want to know how much faster is c than a, no math required. C to b, no math needed.

Light is equally faster than a bullet than is light to a snail. (That's an implication of what I'm being told)

This is a "paradox" you are creating for yourself because you continue to insist on not citing a reference frame.
Let's designate the ground is the reference frame for all the measurements and the race is to be for one Kilometer.
A: assume the sister runs at 1 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
B: assume the brother runs at 10 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
C: light moves 1,080,000,000 Km/Hr with respect to the ground
D: assume the bullet moves at 100 Km/Hr with respect to the ground

It will take the sister one hour to complete the race, the brother 1/10 hour to complete the race, light 1/1,080,000,000 hour to complete the race, and the bullet 1/100 hour to complete the race. It should be obvious that the speed difference between any two of the racers (with respect to the specified reference frame) is easily seen including light. Obvious since speed is distance per unit time and the distance designation requires a frame of reference.

You seem to be constantly switching reference frames in your arguments. In this case you seem to be changing the reference frame for light willy-nilly from a reference frame of the ground to a reference frame of whichever racer you are comparing the speed of light to.

While it is true that the speed of light is constant with respect to any chosen reference frame, it is not true that once a reference is chosen that the difference between the speed of light and the speed of everything else moving in the same reference frame will be the same.

And there I was thinking my switching was 'relative' to who I was talking to.

If I'm moving relative to the ground and light is moving relative to the ground, then we should be able to measure both my speed relative to the ground and measure the light's speed relative to the ground. If I increase my speed relative to the ground, the speed of light relative to the ground doesn't change. When I express my speed relative to the ground as a percentage of the speed of light relative to the ground, I should not get the same percentage when I speed up.

If I'm traveling at a speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/4c relative to the ground and later increase my speed relative to the ground that puts my speed at 1/2c relative to the ground, then I'm now traveling 1/2 the speed of light relative to the ground. In both cases, whether I'm traveling at the slower speed or traveling at the higher speed, the speed of light relative to the ground hasn't changed.

Yet, something's amiss. I get the sense that not everyone shares the view that we can even travel at any proportional speed of light relative to the ground since light relative to me will always appear to travel away from me at the same speed no matter how fast I'm going. Not travel at but away. If I'm traveling at 1/4c relative to the ground and shine a light that takes off at c relative to me, then how is that reconciled with its speed relative to the ground?