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. 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 times faster than the low-velocity .45 caliber bullet.
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.
Average speed of arrows in flight: 195.0 - 295.0 fps
Speed of sound in iron: 5,120 meters/second = 16,797.90 fpsIt 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. Kinetic energy = weight 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 length0.5 x 1,672,739.894 = 836,369.95 inches in diameter = 6,947.49 feet in diameterAnd, 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. 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. The distance of the observer to the object in motionObviously, the question regarding the 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 distance and the perspective or the the actual length measurement of the object. 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. |