Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
and I saw it written somewhere......
Something like that.
I see what you're saying. The objects mass would bend space.
I still lean away of the gravity wave idea.....
LOL! Yes, it's a very attractive idea that has a lot of weight.
But it is affect, right now.
They are changing though. The recession of our planet is constantly changing for instance, and the angle as well. In 13,000 years, the axis won't point to the north star to towards Vega.
Well, it was a theoretical thing about increasing speed would increase mass.
I'm afraid not. You'll have to be more clear as to how it was relevant to any of my posts.
I don't see anything in that post about how action-reaction has anything to do with velocity addition at relativistic speeds.
A big claim that I yet to see evidence for.
Your thought experiment only considers the reference frame of point C. You should also consider the reference frames of each ship while taking relativity of simultaneity into account. Their reference frames will not be the same as that of point C.
I don't need faith when experiment after experiment has borne out the predictions of relativity.
Your thought experiment implies that both ships reach point C simultaneously in their own reference frames. They do not. They only arrive simultaneously in point C's reference frame.
and you really did read 147?......and you thought about it?
They are only mirror images of each other in point C's reference frame. Don't forget, in a given object's reference frame, it is the one standing still and other objects are the ones that are moving. So from ship A's perspective, it is sitting still while point C and ship B are both moving towards it at different speeds. So ship B doesn't look equivalent to ship A in ship A's reference frame.
No it isn't. Each ship will see itself arrive at point C before it sees the other ship arrive. Let's say both ships are travelling at 0.9c in the reference frame of point C. In ship A's reference frame, it is sitting still while point C is moving towards it at 0.9c instead. Using the equation (u+v/1+uv/c^2), ship B is seen by ship A to be moving towards it at ~0.994c. Let's also say that the initial distance between each ship and point C is 1 million kilometers. Point C has to travel 1 million kilometers to reach ship A and, at 0.9c, this will take ~3.7 seconds. Ship B, on the other hand, has to travel twice the distance (2 million kilometers) and, at 0.994c, ship B will arrive at ship A's position in ~6.7 seconds. Thus, in the reference frame of ship A, it arrives at point C (or point C arrives at it, depending on how you interpret it), before ship B does. The only way to make both ships arrive at the same time in ship A's reference frame would be if ship B was moving twice as fast as point C (1.8c, which is what you would get from simple velocity addition). Since this is a forbidden speed in relativity, it can't happen and both ships must therefore arrive at different times in each other's reference frames.
Again, "I don't see anything in that post about how action-reaction has anything to do with velocity addition at relativistic speeds."
They are moving relative to one another. This is quite simple: consider two cars travelling parallel to one another at the same speed. Sound will repeatedly be detected as being transmitted basically instantaneously between them. Light is much, much faster. But this is all irrelevant. Your argument depends upon the notion that things like "time dilation" apply independently of an observer's reference frame and a violation of Galilean relativity not just special and general (Lorenz transformations weren't the first, as centuries before Einstein Galilean relativity required Galilean transformations). You treat time dilation as if it is supposed to apply to a universal coordinate system rather than an effect dependent upon a specific reference frame, and in concluding as you do you are actually (if unknowingly) arguing against the idea that there exists some universal "time" or "space". In other words, you provide a (admittedly unsound) argument for special relativistic effects and implications.