SRT, speed of light = rate of change

[Quantum Quack]

Yet another complete avoidance of the relevant issues from you. I know James know what rest is and what the concept of absolute rest is. The fact your inability to grasp relativity has lead him to ask that question isn't because he doesn't know what the answer is but more to try and prompt you to think for a moment, something you seem determined not to do.

And it's quite silly of you to try and call me uninformed on relativity when I've proven, time and again, quite knowledgable in it. I notice you completely ignored my comments on Casamir operators and how to construct the mass-energy-momentum equation in special relativity. Not only was I proving a statement of your wrong, I did it in such a way to go completely over your head. Just as I did when I showed any theory built on a Riemannian space has a well defined notion of distance at any moment in time, as SR is and does. That too proved you wrong but went over your head.

Besides, trying to call into question my level of book smarts for relativity is a little silly when you can't name a single book on the topic of relativity you've read in the decade you claim to have been researching it.

Every one of your posts tries to take a shot at me but each time you prove your ignorance and your hypocrisy. If I'm wrong, why don't you explain where I was incorrect in regards to the mass-energy-momentum relation I just mentioned. Or did you deliberately ignore that because you didn't understand?

You simply can't understand can you alphaNumerico. Your attitude and derogatory and slanderous style makes your posts entorely irrelevant.YOu have the credibility far less than mine in fact your posts cannot be clensed of your obvious hatred and arrogance.

Of course you may have a wealth of knowledge about a flawed theory. So what? It aint worth jack sh*t when you can't communicate it in a way that is decent, civil and in the spirit of what these foorums are about.
Your posts are a sad indictment to your failure to comprehend that these forums are for amateurs as well as professionals. They are not some soap box for you to espouse somesort of brilliance in a way that demeens and denegrates others.
Sorry but post away as you are entitled to but none of your posts are taken seriously by me and others who can see that you are not intent on dealing with the issues raised in this thread as your posts 1] never deal with the topic at hand. 2] are constantly being used to self grand stand, to show off and to avoid questions that you are not at all comfortable with.

[Especially those that have the potential to threaten your sense of low self esteem.]

What happens to an object of mass / matter in 1 second of elapsed time according to SRT?

Is more or less the question being asked. And of course the light cones are involved as we are discussing Minkowsky/Einstien space time and of course so to is E=mc^2

As yet you still haven't answered the question or even ventured to discuss it but instead have chosen to launch vitriolic attacks on my person with out any reason to do so except that I refuse to surrender to your extortion. I have already received the answer through PM so it is not so important to me....but it may be to you...and others who may read this thread.

note the key word for today is "DISCUSSION" maybe look it up to find out what it means.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yet another complete avoidance of the relevant issues from you. I know James know what rest is and what the concept of absolute rest is. The fact your inability to grasp relativity has lead him to ask that question isn't because he doesn't know what the answer is but more to try and prompt you to think for a moment, something you seem determined not to do.

I have known JamesR for nearly 4 years and over 8600 posts so I know he knows what absolute rest is, which is why his post was so bewildering. [ and he knows I know what absolute rest is which makes it even more bewildering.]

After all a lot of what I know about SRT has come from his and Petes efforts and postings over the years and many tens of gedankens. Good teachers both of them. [ I am tempted to run another gedanken thread but this time using light gates as reference points. to show again the issue of relative simultaneity vs non-simultaneity on a zero duration HSP]

Of course these sets of posts have nothing to do with SRT nor any new concepts or ideas associated. These postings by yourself and unfortunately JamesR are more about personality issues than science. This is plainly obvious. Not only to me I might add.

So when you are ready to participate in friendly discussion about physics etc let me know...ok or on a lighter note , maybe you would like to discuss "Herbs" or a herb garden, and work out what happens to the Herb Garden over 1 seconds duration according to SRT. Basil is good I believe...but Thyme [ ha get it! thyme! ha] is better.....

but until then we can play "spoony spoonies" until when ever you have had enough....cause I got "for ever" to have fun with this sort of stuff....and besides all you are doing is making me "look good" so thank you very much...

 

[James R]

QQ:

why because JamesR doesn't know what absolute rest is or because you didn't.

If you're talking about the ether, then I know what absolute rest is. You're not being clear, QQ.

Are you asking me whether I think there's an ether? Or what?

Of course you may have a wealth of knowledge about a flawed theory.

No flaw has been found by real physicists in 100 years. Do you really think you're up to the job?

Your posts are a sad indictment to your failure to comprehend that these forums are for amateurs as well as professionals.

Suppose you ask for medical advice on the internet. You get one reply from a qualified medical doctor and another from some guy who says he has been reading up about medicine on the internet and teaching himself the theory in his spare time for the past 10 years, but who has also some strange ideas about medicine that the qualified doctor says are wrong.

What's your reaction? "The doctor's theory of medicine is obviously flawed. I'll trust the amateur!"

What happens to an object of mass / matter in 1 second of elapsed time according to SRT?

Haven't I answered this question several times by now?

Lots of things could happen to the object. In terms of how far or fast it moves, the relevant question is: relative to what?

Of course these sets of posts have nothing to do with SRT nor any new concepts or ideas associated. These postings by yourself and unfortunately JamesR are more about personality issues than science.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think what you're getting from us is frustration, because you're not clearly communicating your questions and ideas. Also, you don't seem willing to learn what the theory of relativity theory actually says, because when you're told you dispute it.

 

[RJBeery]

We have three objects of mass/matter in an entire self contained and closed system universe.

I believe with this definition, absolute rest can be considered to be achieved without ether due to the fact that the described objects constitute the entire system, which is by your definition unmoving.

I also believe that the objects only "move through time" if change occurs. In this case, the watch is moving, therefore time is progressing for the watch (but not necessarily for the objects). Whether or not change is occurring for the objects depends upon their nature - are they subject to molecular movement/thermodynamic change? Are they bombarded with photons of the moving watch face? I'm still missing the point of this thread but I don't mind hearing unique perspectives.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You simply can't understand can you alphaNumerico. Your attitude and derogatory and slanderous style makes your posts entorely irrelevant.YOu have the credibility far less than mine in fact your posts cannot be clensed of your obvious hatred and arrogance.

Let's clarify something, okay. I do not get angry and vitriolic at people who know less than me, otherwise I'd just kill everyone in the two classes I currently teach. Knowing less is not a fault, at some point I didn't know quantum mechanics or relativity. The people I talk to most in my classes are those who put their hands up most and 98% of the time they are perfectly pleasant and I'm polite and patient with them. Even after having spent 10 minutes explaining the same thing 5 times to 3 different people sitting next to one another.

However, what does annoy me is willful ignorance. Deliberately avoiding learning. You are showing that's how you behave. You make claims left, right and centre about relativity and claim to have been researching it for a decade but you haven't even opened a book on it. Now I've not opened a book on medicine, but I have seen a lot of episodes of House so do you think a doctor would let me wander round the ER writing prescriptions and setting broken bones? Like **** they would! And they wouldn't consider "But I watch a lot of medical dramas!" as 'research'. Just like I don't think what you've spent a decade doing is 'research'.

Do you think lying, deceiving and willful ignorance are positive character traits?

You call me arrogant but you keep saying how you've got the answers and I don't, yet there's no evidence to back that up. I bet I could give you a physical system to model and you couldn't. Wanna try? Something easy, stuff my 1st years do?

Of course you may have a wealth of knowledge about a flawed theory.

This is a loaded statement. Newtonian physics is wrong. Fluid mechanics is wrong. Maxwell's electromagnetism is wrong. Quantum mechanics is wrong. Relativity is wrong.

But how wrong? Well the answer for all of the above is 'Not very'. If I want to put a man on the Moon I can use Newtonian physics. If I want to build a supersonic jet I can use fluid mechanics. If I want to build an electric generator I can use electromagnetism and Newtonian physics. If I want to build a GPS system I can use relativity.

All of those theories are wrong in some domain. But all of them are very accurate in other domains. General relativity can't explain quantum processes, or vice versa but quantum mechanics can explain quantum phenomena very well, so we use quantum mechanics, not general relativity, to build lasers or electronics. Newtonian physics is wrong everywhere, but usually only by a little bit. If you throw a ball into the air you can use Newtonian physics to predict where it lands to a very accurate level. You should use special relativity if you want better accuracy but you generally don't need that for throwing balls about. You do when building particle accelerators or understanding the structure of Gold (special relativity is the reason Gold is gold and not grey like most metals).

So even though I know that every single one of the areas of physics I am competant at is flawed in some way, each one of them allows me to describe, to acceptable accuracy, a little corner of Nature. And when you put them all together there's few areas of currently known Nature which don't have at least some model for it.

So yes, having knowledge in a limited theory may mean there's things I can't describe but it means that I am able to give practical and useful descriptions of some phenomena.

Name me one phenomenological area you can accurately model thanks to your decade of 'research'. I can give plenty for my 6.5 years at university.

It aint worth jack sh*t when you can't communicate it in a way that is decent, civil and in the spirit of what these foorums are about.

I am perfectly pleasant to those who make it clear they are capable of trying. There's people in the maths forum who ask what I consider very easy questions and who struggle greatly with even that but I'm happy to help. I tell my students they can knock on my office door any time or email me and I'll try to help. You do not want to learn. You believe you already have 'the answers', you've stated that many times. You ask a question about a problem you think you see in relativity, I explain why it's not a problem and you ignore it or say its wrong because you don't understand. You whine about a theory you know nothing about. Rather than think "Maybe its my understanding of the theory and not the theory?" you just assume you're right and everyone else is wrong. The fact a century of experiments by the largest and most expensive machines ever built hasn't yet found a flaw in special relativity doesn't make you think it might be you whose in the wrong here?

Why should I bother being polite to someone who basically says "Despite having done no work, no reading, put in no effort and having no knowledge of any physics beyond the layman, I am certain you and all the other people who've devoted decades of hard effort and work to devise and test this theory are certainly wrong in the most obvious way."

Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining. You want a bit of respect, show you're worthy of it by putting in some iota of effort and stop proclaiming you're the sodding Messiah of Physics. I'm somewhat arrogant about physics because I can do it. Why are you arrogant about your physics 'knowledge'?

They are not some soap box for you to espouse somesort of brilliance in a way that demeens and denegrates others.

But your posts can be used 'to espouse somesort of brilliance in a way that demeens and denegrates others' because you have the answers and I don't? Yet more hypocrisy.

I'm not 'brilliant' but I'm better than average. I can and have proven that both here and in real life. I didn't magically start that way, I got knowledgable by effort and learning. You claim you're right about relativity without effort or knowledge. Step down from your soapbox first please.

Is more or less the question being asked. And of course the light cones are involved as we are discussing Minkowsky/Einstien space time and of course so to is E=mc^2

You said examining the light cone leads to E=mc^2. That's not true. Don't try to back peddle now you've been shown wrong. Again.

 

[swivel]

Wow, Alphanumeric. Just... wow.

I guess I have a spanking fetish that I never knew about.

I'm off to see if they have websites out there devoted to this sort of stuff...

 

[RJBeery]

Yeah, swivel, wow is what I was thinking too. QQ must've really gotten under AN's skin to devote 30 minutes of his life to write that. I've seen AN have rants like this before though.

Anyway, QQ, why don't you get more explicit on how exactly E=mc^2 can be derived from the light cones? I suspect that the math might work out if you calculated vector components in the "direction" of time and space but if that is your position you have not done a good job explaining it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yeah, swivel, wow is what I was thinking too. QQ must've really gotten under AN's skin to devote 30 minutes of his life to write that. I've seen AN have rants like this before though.

More like 10 minutes, I type pretty fast and didn't need to refer to anything to point out QQ hypocrisy, lies or mistakes.

And I'll reiterate that he's not annoying me because he's made me think relativity is wrong (he hasn't), he's annoying because he thinks he knows all about relativity but admits to not reading it or doing it.

Anyway, QQ, why don't you get more explicit on how exactly E=mc^2 can be derived from the light cones? I suspect that the math might work out if you calculated vector components in the "direction" of time and space but if that is your position you have not done a good job explaining it.

Then you'd suspect wrong. Might I suggest opening a book on relativity?

Einstein derived the mass-energy-momentum equation using a particular physical system emitting energy. A more modern and elegant way is to see that Minkowski space-time has a symmetry group which is the Poincare group, which is a Lie group. The generators of this Lie group are such that there's 4 generators associated with boosts and they form a subalgebra of the Lie algebra of the Poincare group. Further more, by combining them in a particular way (which basically constructed the D'Alembert operator) you get a new object which commutes with all generators, thus it can be used as a physical label for a system. That label is mass.

Now I'm sure neither you or QQ followed that but its bread and butter stuff to any physicist worth their salt. You can't even get onto a PhD course without being able to do that stuff in your sleep.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yeah, swivel, wow is what I was thinking too. QQ must've really gotten under AN's skin to devote 30 minutes of his life to write that. I've seen AN have rants like this before though.

Anyway, QQ, why don't you get more explicit on how exactly E=mc^2 can be derived from the light cones? I suspect that the math might work out if you calculated vector components in the "direction" of time and space but if that is your position you have not done a good job explaining it.

ahh and this is true I have done a lousy job of it....'tis obvious yes?

I shall try to put together a better explanation of the issue and post it later today.

At present though it goes along the lines of :

we have a light emitting filament that is emitting "white" light.
Over the course of 1 second the white light has managed to change to red.

Has change occurred within the filament?

At what rate has it change at?

Say the fillaments emissions stay white and don't change to red.
Has change occurred with in the fillament?
At what rate has that change occurred?

or something like that......


My answer would be at this stage:
If mass is energy, according to the light cones that mass even though stationary as seen externally must undergo a light speed transition during that 1 second of elapsed time.
Therefore the mass is changing at the rate of 'c'. Thus the light it is emitting is traveling through time at the same rate as the object of mass [light emitting fillament] is.
Therefore the entire universe of matter /mass is changing constantly at a invariant rate of 'c' - thus we have a basic description of why we have inertia. {invariance of light}
The light cones therefore demonstrate the basic premise of E=mc^2 because all objects in Minkowski / Einstien space time must adhere to the flow of energy as described by those light cones.

you will note from this rather excellent diagram [c/o wiki] that it mentions an observer at the HSP but fails to specifically mention the mass that the observer must be.
Put a lump of light emitting iron in the middle of the diagram and you can see that the rate of change universally must be a universal constant of 'c' regardless of relative velocity.

Light IS time

 

[Quantum Quack]

I just remembered where I first found pseudo confirmation of this proposition about 3 years ago.
The hypothesis was put to Albert Einstien apparenttly in 1909 where by a one Harry Zeigler put forward what has since been called the Luxon hypothesis
H. Zeigler proposed in 1909 that relativity phenomena would be a natural result if the most elemental particles of mass were made of smaller particles that all moved at the constant speed of light. Although the idea easily developed the Lorentz transformations for the most obvious examples of relativity phenomena, it was never fully explored to find if it could explain all phenomena. [...]

H. Ziegler realized this in 1909. He said, "If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter-like states and electrodynamics phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted."

Stated more simply, Mr. Ziegler was saying that if the most basic components of mass all moved at the speed of light, relativity would be the natural result. He saw the cause, constant speed of the components of mass, and the effect, relativity

links are many but this one in particular:
http://www.tardyon.de/other.htm

As to the veracity as usual with web references please exercise caution.

 

[Tnerb]

Light IS time

lol

You should seriously elaborate

 

[Quantum Quack]

no way hozay!



further to the previous post about the Luxon Hypothesis there is reference to Diracs equation as well.

 

[RJBeery]

Then you'd suspect wrong. Might I suggest opening a book on relativity?

You would do well to reserve such definitive judgments. Your textbook does not mandate how the world actually works. If QQ is wrong, and I'm not saying he is right, then so be it; but your attitude seems to be "if that's not the way it was explained to me in class then it is WRONG", and this is NOT the attitude of an instructor that belongs in an institute of higher learning.

Anyway, my main objection with QQ's premise is that he had given no mechanism which would describe a stationary object's movement "through time", and I claimed that an object without change does not move through time at all. From the link he provided that mechanism appears to be the concept that elementary particles move through time via their internal structure of "basic", massless particles orbiting each other at the speed of light with a de Broglie orbital frequency.

Now, if a configuration of basic particles is moving, the field binding them is contracting by a factor of gamma (1/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)), which accounts for space dilation. The orbital period is extended by the same factor (gamma), which accounts for time dilation. This concept was proposed by Zeigler in 1909 but has apparently not gained widespread acceptance.

QQ can say whether I've summarized his thoughts or not. But I think it's pretty clear that you, AlphaNumeric, are too quick to denounce ideas unfamiliar to you. Where exactly do you teach?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Anyway, my main objection with QQ's premise is that he had given no mechanism which would describe a stationary object's movement "through time", and I claimed that an object without change does not move through time at all.

And a reasonable objection it is.....

It is actually as you have written, the main area of concern to me and that is that there appears to be a belief that "an object with out [externally apparent] change does not move through time at all"

Maybe I have read this wrong and you will correct me accordingly I am sure.
It appears to be the currently held conception that even a human observer whilst stationary unto himself does not change whilst time passes.

Obviously I have extended the discussion using an extremely obvious example that being a human object of mass/matter rather than a lump of iron.

So the human has aged by 1 second and I ask according to SRT what is the rate of that aging or change.

Using the light cones as the premise I find the only answer to this question must be 'c'.
The mechanism for such a rate of change has yet to be determined however the Luxon Hypotheses makes certain suggestions. Which I find in abstraction of some appeal.
This thread is not about providing a mechanism for that change as I am ill equiped to do so, but more about in the first instance describing that, that change at the rate of 'c' must be occuring according to SRT.
I would further go onto say that if the object [ human in this case] is somehow suffering suspended animation which if course is obviously not true then SRT is not being understood properly.
The reason why this is so important as an issue to raise even against the vitriolic and ego centric nature of the flaming by certain posters is that if what I am suggesting is correct then the entire universe whilst appearing to be as it does can be said to have an inherant and fundamental rate of change that is invariant at 'c'
It also aid in explianing phenonema such as cosmological expansion, time dilation, length contraction [which I do not subscribe to] and no doubt a few other aspects associated with spacial inflation and changes to dimensions with out change being experience as proposed by the typical effects of relative velocity suggested by SRT.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You would do well to reserve such definitive judgments. Your textbook does not mandate how the world actually works. If QQ is wrong, and I'm not saying he is right, then so be it; but your attitude seems to be "if that's not the way it was explained to me in class then it is WRONG", and this is NOT the attitude of an instructor that belongs in an institute of higher learning.

You said "Anyway, QQ, why don't you get more explicit on how exactly E=mc^2 can be derived from the light cones?". QQ claimed the light cone diagrams of SR, which he's now posted, lead to the energy-mass-momentum equation. They don't.

The answer to the question "Does relativity derive its energy-momentum-mass relation from an analysis of light cones" is "No". Opening a book on SR will demonstrate that. QQ isn't talking about a pet theory, he's making another incorrect claim about a theory he knows nothing about.

I'm not saying its impossible to find the relation through a different analysis, it just wouldn't be anything to do with relativity, which is the theory QQ is making all his incorrect claims about.

So don't put words in my mouth just because I have the audacity to say "Hey, put some effort in and learn something". I don't smack down people who are wrong, I smack down people who are wrong because they haven't made the slightest effort to check or justify their claims. I'm perfectly polite to my students.

From the link he provided that mechanism appears to be the concept that elementary particles move through time via their internal structure of "basic", massless particles orbiting each other at the speed of light with a de Broglie orbital frequency.

Elementary particles with internal structure? An oxymoron. Further more, what has that got to do with his claim about deriving a relativistic equation? That's quantum mechanics. And its not even consistent quantum mechanics because it doesn't explain the method by which the internal components interact.

But I think it's pretty clear that you, AlphaNumeric, are too quick to denounce ideas unfamiliar to you.

No, I denounce things I know are categorically false. The answer to the question "Does relativity derive its energy-momentum-mass relation from an analysis of light cones" is "No". Further more, the link you mention doesn't nothing to alter that. And QQ has made it clear he struggles to even understand concepts fundamental to physics and is not above simply lying without reserve, so he's hardly someone I'm going to put a lot of faith in when it comes to evaluating and understanding physics. Numerous claims of his about relativity are wrong. On its own, that's not too annoying. His refusal to even look at any sources of information and his continued willingness to lie and ooze hypocrisy is what's annoying.

Where exactly do you teach?

That's irrelevant to this discussion and as I said, my manner here is quite different to my manner with students.

I'm perfectly willing to go through basic concepts in relativity to help people understand. I'm happy to go through such things as using metrics to measure space-time distances, which is something relating to a number of QQ's misconceptions. He obviously doesn't want to engage in a discussion about relativity. He obviously doesn't want to even lift a finger to find out about relativity. His attitude is like walking into a class room during a lesson and just stand at the back yelling "Wrong, that's wrong too, wrong!" and when asked to either demonstrate why or leave he just points at something else and goes "Wrong!". Now if someone really did do that in a demonstrating class I'm in I doubt I'd be particularly polite to them.

Why comes to a physics forum if you neither want to read or discuss physics?

 

[Quantum Quack]

You said "Anyway, QQ, why don't you get more explicit on how exactly E=mc^2 can be derived from the light cones?". QQ claimed the light cone diagrams of SR, which he's now posted, lead to the energy-mass-momentum equation. They don't.

The answer to the question "Does relativity derive its energy-momentum-mass relation from an analysis of light cones" is "No". Opening a book on SR will demonstrate that. QQ isn't talking about a pet theory, he's making another incorrect claim about a theory he knows nothing about.

I'm not saying its impossible to find the relation through a different analysis, it just wouldn't be anything to do with relativity, which is the theory QQ is making all his incorrect claims about.

So don't put words in my mouth just because I have the audacity to say "Hey, put some effort in and learn something". I don't smack down people who are wrong, I smack down people who are wrong because they haven't made the slightest effort to check or justify their claims. I'm perfectly polite to my students.

Elementary particles with internal structure? An oxymoron. Further more, what has that got to do with his claim about deriving a relativistic equation? That's quantum mechanics. And its not even consistent quantum mechanics because it doesn't explain the method by which the internal components interact.

No, I denounce things I know are categorically false. The answer to the question "Does relativity derive its energy-momentum-mass relation from an analysis of light cones" is "No". Further more, the link you mention doesn't nothing to alter that. And QQ has made it clear he struggles to even understand concepts fundamental to physics and is not above simply lying without reserve, so he's hardly someone I'm going to put a lot of faith in when it comes to evaluating and understanding physics. Numerous claims of his about relativity are wrong. On its own, that's not too annoying. His refusal to even look at any sources of information and his continued willingness to lie and ooze hypocrisy is what's annoying.

That's irrelevant to this discussion and as I said, my manner here is quite different to my manner with students.

I'm perfectly willing to go through basic concepts in relativity to help people understand. I'm happy to go through such things as using metrics to measure space-time distances, which is something relating to a number of QQ's misconceptions. He obviously doesn't want to engage in a discussion about relativity. He obviously doesn't want to even lift a finger to find out about relativity. His attitude is like walking into a class room during a lesson and just stand at the back yelling "Wrong, that's wrong too, wrong!" and when asked to either demonstrate why or leave he just points at something else and goes "Wrong!". Now if someone really did do that in a demonstrating class I'm in I doubt I'd be particularly polite to them.

Why comes to a physics forum if you neither want to read or discuss physics?

so go start your own thread and go for it....
The issue about deriving the energy mass equiv principle from the light cones is not the topic of this thread.
The topic of the thread is as the OP asks and the title given. "SRT - Speed of Light = rate of change"

 

[Quantum Quack]

AlphaNumerico,
Can you provide a sound ration-al for cosomological expansion, time dilation, length contraction, inflation theory and most importantly provide a mechanism for such phenonema?

If the universal rate of change is 'c' then a possible mechanism can be found.

May be start a thread and explore those things.....

 

[Quantum Quack]

I must admit I didnt realise that E=mc^2 had anything to do with momentum or what ever it is you are talking about....I shall have to do a little research as to how E=mc^2 becomes such a beast...Í was under the impression that E=mc^2 was simply and energy mass equivilence formula. Obviously I am mistaken yes?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The issue about deriving the energy mass equiv principle from the light cones is not the topic of this thread.The topic of the thread is as the OP asks and the title given. "SRT - Speed of Light = rate of change"

You brought it up.

AlphaNumerico,

Do you have some problem with spelling or is this some very poor attempt to insult me by perhaps Italianising my name?

Can you provide a sound ration-al for cosomological expansion, time dilation, length contraction, inflation theory and most importantly provide a mechanism for such phenonema?

Translation : Can you provide me with evidence for special and general relativity and cosmology

So because you can't be bothered to find it yourself the onus lies on me to provide it for you? It's like someone sitting an exam putting their hand up and saying "I haven't revised for this so unless you can provide with evidence the answers to these questions exist I demand I get 100%".

In your 'decade of researching relativity' didn't you find these things out? If you didn't and you never opened a book on relativity where exactly was this 'research' you were doing? How do you define 'research'?

must admit I didnt realise that E=mc^2 had anything to do with momentum or what ever it is you are talking about....I shall have to do a little research as to how E=mc^2 becomes such a beast...Í was under the impression that E=mc^2 was simply and energy mass equivilence formula. Obviously I am mistaken yes?

E=mc^2 is the mass-energy-momentum formula with p=0. The actual expression, which is Lorentz invariant is $$p_{\mu}p^{\mu} = -m^{2}c^{4} = -E^{2}+|\mathbf{p}c|^2$$. This is usually in the first chapter or two of a book on special relativity. All the 1st years here who've done the required course 'Relativity and Motion' know of that formula.

Once again you show you have nothing from that 'decade of researching relativity'. You're behind people who've only done 6 months more than standard education!

 

[Quantum Quack]

Translation : Can you provide me with evidence for special and general relativity and cosmology

nope I definitely said:

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Can you provide a sound ration-al for cosomological expansion, time dilation, length contraction, inflation theory and most importantly provide a mechanism for such phenonema?

By accepting, even in abstraction, that the universal change rate is 'c' a mechanism for those pheno could be found, unless you already have a mechanism, which I am pretty confident you don't.

An answer that could possibly be found is that:
"Light speed is invariant for objects/space within the universe however for those who can, in abstraction, "step outside" the universe light speed is in fact variable thus allowing a mechanism for phenonema like time dilation, length contraction cosmological expansion and inflation." ~yet retain the universes light speed invariance simultaneously as experienced or observed from with in the universe.

But to do this and visualise it you require an imagination.

And no I don't even have to look for a text on it as far as I can tell there are none.