Special Relativity Theory, A Theory of Appearances:
The Vision of Superman

            The four formula cited in this essay refer an observer would view a particular object traveling near the speed of light. Time and again scientists state that the theory of special relativity has been proven through experiments and observations.
            At times, I feel as though everyone else must have Superman's vision.
            As far as I know, everyone else is like me. I cannot see a bullet traveling at the speed of sound or even slower than that. One of the lowest velocity bullets is the .45 caliber cartridge/weapon. It has a muzzle velocity of 250-373 meters per second. I imagine everyone else is like me, and could not see that bullet emerging from the barrel of a pistol or in flight.

.45 cal Auto = 250 meters/second - 373 meters/second [Low-velocity]
5.7 x 28mm = 520 meters/second - 770 meters/second [Medium-velocity]
.223 Remington = 840 meters/second - 1140 meters/second [High -velocity]
Photon  =  299,792,458 meters/second [exact]
Actual observation of a bullet at 250 meters/second = 0.00 %
Proposed observation of an object near 299,792,450.0 meters/second = 1%

            What would make a relativistic physicist think that someone could see 1% of an object flying near the speed of light, when nobody can even see any percent of a low-velocity bullet shot out of a pistol around the speed of sound? [One could play with the idea of "seeing" tracer bullets, but then the discussion would center around the point that one is seeing the burning wake of the chemical used to light up the path of the bullet. The .30-06 caliber and the .50 caliber light machine bullets are examples of tracer bullets with similar velocities in the 800-900 m/s range.]

           So, I have always wondered why the relativistic physicists propose that they can only see a certain percentage of an object traveling at the speed of light, even if it is a huge spacecraft. If we cannot see a low-velocity bullet in flight, how can relativists propose that we may observe an object near the speed of light ---at any percentage point? A photon travels more than a million  [1,199,169.8] times faster than the low-velocity .45 caliber bullet.

New Horizons, the fastest spacecraft on Earth: 16.26 km/s = 58536 km/hr or,
10.1 mps = 36360 mph
That's 0.000000033 times the speed of light.
"We're getting there, won't be long now. When we get there,
we can all turn into light".

            All of the relativistic statements about human observation and the observer seeing a certain % of an object traveling near the speed of light is simply fantasy to me.  It is impossible to measure, and impossible to see an object traveling at that speed ---at least for human beings. To talk in terms of an "observer" and reference frames is ludicrous or immaterial at least.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -Albert Einstein

           One then asks, how could relativistic physicists possibly pose the idea that the theory of special relativity has been proven. I doubt anyone has see the length contraction to 99% of an object traveling near the speed of light, in order to prove the theory.
            And, since the spacecraft does not actually undergo a contraction upon itself, but the contraction is only visible to the observer, then there is no way to measure the object [plus, it's traveling near light speed]. And, we would have to take the observer's word that s/he actually saw the contracted object, 99% shorter than its original length at rest.
            Today, I just looked at a train stopped on the Huey P. Long Bridge here in New Orleans. The engine on the [as well as all the boxcars] appeared to be very small to me. I was probably a mile away from them. They looked to be about one inch in length were I to hold up a ruler to them and eye them that way.
            Objects appear smaller to the observer even when they are stopped and at a distance from the observer, like the train on the bridge. Distance and the fact of perspective in our vision make objects appear contracted, not only lengthwise along their line of travel, but from all directions and lengths [width, height]. 
            There is a perception of length contraction of objects a few feet away from us, a few inches. I think it’s a well-known rule about perspective and drawings of perspectives.
            For the relativistic physicists to state that length contraction near the speed of light only occurs along the axis of travel of the object is totally misleading, if not false. And, to state that relativity is not perceptible at lower speeds is completely erroneous. Objects appear contracted (smaller) to us at our everyday level, and the objects can be totally at rest in our frame of reference.
            The stopped train the bridge, appearing like a tiny little toy engine from my perspective is presenting a case of relativistic perception, I, the observer, perceive it at a certain % smaller than it actually is. And, its smallness or contraction is on all sides, as length, width and height.
            Now, to propose the idea, as the relativists do, that if I, the observer, were to see an object travelling at the speed of light before me, I would see less than 99% of that object's original length at rest.
            I wish I could see something travelling at the speed of light and be able to see at least 1% of its length. That would definitely be close to Superman's vision.  I wish I could see the bullets flying out the barrel of a gun as the fellow in the movie The Matrix was able to do in order dodge the bullets.
            It seems unbelievable that thousands upon thousands, uncountable numbers of physicists and scientists would entertain the idea that a human observer could observe an object near the speed of light that would look like only 99% of its original at rest length.
            If I were to write a scientific tract and propose the idea that I could see only 1% of the bullet's length in flight at ___ feet per second, everyone would tell me I am crazy.  But, for some cultural reason, some historical mass hysteria idea, we are ready to believe that it is possible to see 1% of an object travelling near the speed of light ---and that this idea has already been proven through experiments.
            Literally, one can say, that I am able to see the sunlight coming through my window, travelling at 299792458 m/s, so in a sense, I can see something travelling that fast, such as the light photon itself. Although I can not see or detect with my vision a single photon, other then as they infinitely stream onto my retina.
            But, stop talking about photons and light itself, and speak about a large object that may possibly travel at light speed, and somehow someone suggests that we could possibly see it, but we would see it contracted when the object approaches the speed of light.       
            The four formulas for special relativity represent theses that are incomprehensible, as well as incommensurable by human observers. Humans cannot observe objects near the speed of light at millions of meters per second just as they cannot observe a bullet in flight at hundreds of meters per second.
    Actually, some observers have difficulty in seeing an arrow in flight, much less a bullet.

Fastest arrow shot: 588 fps
Average speed of arrows in flight: 195.0 - 295.0 fps

The sound of the bow/bowstring firing in air travels much faster than the arrow: ca. 1100 fps. Wild game hears the bow being shot before the arrow arrives.

Speed of sound in water: 1,484 meters/second = 4,868.76 fps
Speed of sound in iron: 5,120 meters/second = 16,797.90 fps
It commonly held that sound does not travel through a vacuum, although research in 2010 proposed the possibility that it does between piezoelectric crystals.
            A well-known fact among archers: as arrow mass increases, arrow velocity decreases.

arrow mass increases

           Kinetic energy = weight times velocity squared divided by 2 times acceleration of gravity Momentum = weight times velocity divided by acceleration of gravity.

"Since velocity isn't squared in the momentum formula, arrow mass and velocity play more equivalent roles. The kinetic energy of a moving body increases as the square of the velocity whereas the momentum increases directly as velocity increases. …it's pretty clear that the issue of hunting penetration [of arrows] cannot truly be distilled into a mathematical puzzle."  It would appear by this statement that matter-energy equivalency is much clearer in the science of archery "ballistics" than in everyday relativist physics.
            Weapons ballistics distinguishes between muzzle velocity and muzzle energy. The former refers to the speed with which the bullet leaves the barrel of a firearm. The latter concept concerns the energy of impact a particular size of bullet/mass has on its target when it hits.
            How does muzzle energy work? "Multiply the product of the weight of the pellet (in grains) times the square of the velocity and divide that number by 450240. That last number is a constant created by multiplying two times the acceleration of gravity by 7,000 -the number of grains in a pound." 

            Such mathematical formulas are limited in meaning. Consider the possibility that the lead pellet/bullet had the shape of one particle behind another, instead of being of say a .38 or .45 caliber dimension. The structure/shape of the pellet/bullet influences the kind of impact, not simply the weight of the projectile. There are too many conditions and circumstances to take into consideration here for offering an opinion as to why some mathematical formulas are bias. The low-velocity .45 caliber auto cartridge/pistol was designed to literally knock down a human being when being struck by one of these bullets. A thin narrow caliber (.17 cal for example) was designed for penetration, of say body armor.  Energy is not an absolute concept of equivalency of mass without reservations. Relationships determine the likeness and the differences.
            Such basic considerations would necessarily have to be taken into consideration when talking about mass|energy levels and types regarding bodies near the speed of light. Such basic considerations are not taken into consideration in that manner in the science literature.
           I think muzzle energy is a false measurement of killing power. It really has very little relevance in the real world." -[http://thehighroad.org/archive/index/php/t-572717.html, Blog commentator.]
"In all fairness…, it takes a whole lot less energy to drive a broadhead through a deer than it does a bullet. You could push that arrow into a deer with one hand thanks to the razor sharp nature of the tip and small cross section." -[http://thehighroad.org/archive/index/php/t-572717.html, Blog commentator.]
                      Speed of light in a vacuum = 299,792,458 mps = 983,571,057.9 fps
            Spacetime/motion logic might have it that in order for an arrow to reach the speed of light in a vacuum, it would need to shed its mass in order for it to near the speed of a photon/electron.
            The statement in relativist physics that a body cannot reach the speed of light because it would need infinite mass seems without reason to me. This proposal would be imply an analogy whereby the arrows dimensions would increase with the increase of its speed heading towards the speed of light.

A 27.0" long x 0.5" diameter arrow travels at 588 fps.
983,571,057.9 / 588 = 1,672,739.894 ratio speed of light greater than speed of cited arrow

           Proportionately, that same arrow would require the following dimensions in order to reach the speed of light at 983,571,057.9 fps.
27.0 x 1,672,739.894 = 45,163,977.14 inches long / 12 = 3,763,664.76 feet in length
0.5 x 1,672,739.894 = 836,369.95 inches in diameter = 6,947.49 feet in diameter

            And, then, near the speed of light, an arrow that long would be seen to be only about 37,636 feet long to a human observer.
            Anyone may believe the previous example to be silly. One must also consider the silliness in asking whether an arrow (or any massive body) might travel at the speed of light and then wonder what that body might look like to a human observer.
            The theory of special relativity in that it concerns the perspective of the observer and the possibility of measurement, there is an additional category that is omitted from its computations. The distance of the observer to the object in motion must be considered in the calculation of the percentage of the length contraction of said mass. There is no reference within the four formulas for special relativity regarding the distance between the observer and the object being observed.
            Obviously, the question regarding the distance and the perspective of the observer from/to the object must be taken into consideration. When it is stated that there is a length contraction of the object at rest to a certain degree of proportionality in percentage points as a ratio, then obviously one must specify if the mass at rest means the actual length measurement of the object or the measurement from perspective at a distance. [One young observer on the Internet made the critical comment about length contraction, that it would be necessary to theoretical establish that contraction occurred not only amongst the particles, but amongst the space between the particles.]
            For example, does the computation of the formula for length contraction of the object at its face value. Or, is the length contraction understood within the already reduced size of the object observed at a distance, for example, the train that already appears to me one-inch in length when stopped.
            Would the 99% less in length contracted be then from the original size of the train in real life or from my prior observation? These points are not referenced, much less clarified in the formulas of length contraction, etc.
            At one-mile distance from the observer [me] the stopped train the bridge appears to be one inch in length. Would the appearance of the train near the speed of light be 99% less than that one-inch number or 99% less than its original length? The problem is that if the measurement is computed from its original size in length, actually I never see the train at its original length, even if I am standing next to it. It is all a question of human vision, human perception and relationships.
            If I stand close, next to a stopped locomotive, it will appear to be extremely long to me, much longer than its actual size/length no doubt.
            There is no need to go into the theoretical problems of different perceptions received by different observers. For example, the stopped train appeared to me to be one-inch length on the bridge. To my friend standing next to me, he thought it was longer, possibly two-inches in length. Individual perception by individual observers is a question that the theory of special relativity simply avoids. It presents the equations for human observation as though every individual human being perceives and observes with the same eye for measurement, with the same scale of perception.
            It is like an eye-witness count of an event. I saw the spacecraft around 99% less than its original at rest length, while some other observer saw it to be around 98% less in length. Are you beginning to get the picture? Not only is the distance of the observer from the object and the resulting perspective not taken into account in the formulas of special relativity, but individual measurement capabilities are ignored.

©2014 Copyrighted. Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.