Questions about physics

[Mr. Pedantic]

I got a book out from my university library a while ago on the recommendation of an acquaintance, Faster than the Speed of Light, by Joao Magueijo. I've since read the book and returned it, and I have some questions related to the content of the book. Unfortunately I can't ask this acquaintance, as he's currently quite busy, so I thought I'd put these questions out here.

1) There is one passage in the book that says:

According to relativity, gravity is simply a distortion of space-time. In flat space, the law of inertia tells you that if no forces act on a body it follows a straight line, moving with constant speed; in other words, it suffers no acceleration. Einstein's theory states that under gravity, bodies are not subject to any force and so they again follow a straight line at a constant speed: in a curved space-time.

So basically, instead of gravity being a force, its influence upon objects' movement can be explained by its topology. On the opposite page it gives a diagram showing this where there is an object orbiting a gravity well, where the object is still traveling in a straight line, but because of the orientation of the space it is traveling through, it orbits the well; it is apparently experiencing no force.

This seems intuitively fine for objects already in an orbit, but what if you just put an object into the influence of the gravity well? It would accelerate towards the well, so it should be experiencing a force. But if gravity is not providing the force, then where does it come from?

2) On a related note, with the 'gravity is not a force' model, how do you explain the effects of gravity on objects themselves; i.e. tidal forces?

3) How fast does gravity travel?

4) If you had a two-body system, with the two bodies initially separated by a vast but finite distance and initially still relative to each other, how fast would the bodies get before they collided? From my limited knowledge of relativity the mass of the bodies would increase as their velocity increases; but I also seem to recall that in a gravitational field this would be offset by the fact that gravity acts more strongly on more massive objects (so, for example, a feather and an anvil in a vacuum would fall at exactly the same acceleration). How does this work?

5) There was quite a vague statement of how general relativity predicts that the universe must have been constantly expanding since 1 second after the Big Bang; could someone expand on that?

6) What evidence is there for the constancy of the speed of light? I remember reading of an article giving observational evidence for a varying fine structure constant, alpha; what evidence is there to suggest that the speed of light in vacuum is constant across all space and has been constant for the entire history of the universe? Or is it just an assumption?

7) On a related note to the two-body question, if you had two objects individually accelerated to, say, 0.6c, and moving directly towards each other, the velocities of body A relative to body B would not be 1.2c; it would be something below c. What's the equation that you would use to calculate this? I thought maybe you used relativistic momentum; in which case the relative speed would be 0.832c; can someone verify this?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Very interesting post. Lot's to think about indeed. ^_^.

At the moment i am occupied with some programming problems. But i really will join later on when i have solved these problems.

 

[Cogman]

1. SOMETHING in the gravity well is providing the force. Gravity wells don't just "appear".

2. Same way we explain electro-magnetic interactions. We don't. We just accept that the universe was built this way.

3. c

4. The mass increase is a very slow going exponential thing. Basically they have to be going near c speeds before they start to see significant gains. How fast they get depends on the mass of the objects.

5.

6. Yes it is an assumption. We have to travel to another place to be able to absolutely say that c is constant throughout the universe. We can measure it in space, but we can measure it some place far away, we just assume that things here are like things elsewhere.

7. dunno

 

[C1]

re:#6
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

re:#7 LHC collides beams of particles each going at near speed of light, but going in opposite directions.

Q: The two beams are both travelling close to the speed of light, therefore in theory, so, when they travel towards each other, what is there relative speed towards each other?

A: Assuming they hit each other head on and are going at 99.99% the speed of light, the relative speed towards each other would be the speed of light times (0.9999+0.9999)/(1+0.9999*0.9999), or about 99.9999995% the speed of light (299792456.5m/s compared to c=299792458m/s).

Note:
The way to view the effect is not in terms of additives of light speed at the collision point, but in terms of the resultant energy.
=========================
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/Schoolgirl_with_magnetic_hands

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/3822/jelenamagnito.png

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

1. SOMETHING in the gravity well is providing the force. Gravity wells don't just "appear".

I know that, but the passage says that it's not gravity, because gravity doesn't provide this kind of force.

This is what my friend had to say as a prelude to answering my question:

"what you've asked is an exceptionally important part of relativity and understanding "acceleration" and the nature of forces."

2. Same way we explain electro-magnetic interactions. We don't. We just accept that the universe was built this way.

If we accept random exceptions to otherwise good theories, then these are good theories no longer.

3. c

I know the graviton would propagate at c, but this is only theoretical; there are a few websites I've skimmed through that affirm that gravity "must" (says one) travel faster than c.

4. The mass increase is a very slow going exponential thing. Basically they have to be going near c speeds before they start to see significant gains. How fast they get depends on the mass of the objects.

Yes, I know the mass increase is slow. However, as I said, assuming that distance is not a factor; also, the acceleration of one body is not related to that body's mass; it's related to the other body's mass. I'll explain more a bit later, I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

To continue on from what I previously wrote:

"Yes, I know the mass increase is slow. However, as I said, assuming that distance is not a factor; also, the acceleration of one body is not related to that body's mass; it's related to the other body's mass. I'll explain more a bit later, I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment."

What I meant to say is that acceleration of one body, say body A, is related only to its distance from body B, as well as B's mass. Vice versa is true for body B. At least, this is what I understand from my mechanics classes.

Therefore, if body A and B are equal in mass, then they both accelerate towards each other at the same rate. As they accelerate, they would gain mass, because of relativity; right? (It would be general relativity that applies, unless I'm mistaken; so in what details would general relativity differ from special relativity in this case?) So if body A gains mass, then body B's acceleration would increase completely separate of the distance between them; so as they each accelerated and gained mass, they would in turn accelerate more and gain more mass, causing even more acceleration of the other body; right?

re:#7 LHC collides beams of particles each going at near speed of light, but going in opposite directions.

Q: The two beams are both travelling close to the speed of light, therefore in theory, so, when they travel towards each other, what is there relative speed towards each other?

A: Assuming they hit each other head on and are going at 99.99% the speed of light, the relative speed towards each other would be the speed of light times (0.9999+0.9999)/(1+0.9999*0.9999), or about 99.9999995% the speed of light (299792456.5m/s compared to c=299792458m/s).

Note:
The way to view the effect is not in terms of additives of light speed at the collision point, but in terms of the resultant energy.

Yes, I see that now. I should have Googled this first.

re:#6
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19429-laws-of-physics-may-change-across-the-universe.html

Yes; this is what actually prompted the question in the first place. I would imagine speed is a thing that you actually have to be present to measure. So apart from assumption, there is nothing really that calls for the speed of light to be constant across space and time...

 

[C1]

Fundamental Cosmic Constant Now Seems Shifty - 9/15 Update

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/fine-structure-constant-varies-space-100915.html

 

[Chiropteran]

5) There was quite a vague statement of how general relativity predicts that the universe must have been constantly expanding since 1 second after the Big Bang; could someone expand on that?

First, think of space as a 2-dimensional rubber sheet. Think of the planets and other objects in our universe as metal spheres on this sheet, with mass equivalent to their actual mass. A heavier object creates a large indentation in the rubber sheet, which a smaller object would roll down towards the larger object. If the smaller object is moving the right way, it will roll in a circle along a larger object's indentation without colliding the larger object.

Now, with that understanding, think about the moment of the big bang. For a brief time, all mass and energy in the universe is concentrated in one tiny spot. On the rubber sheet analogy, think of it as a massively huge indentation, basically a crater. Due to forces not completely understood, this mass expanded forcefully in what is called the big bang, think of all the little spheres on the rubber sheet rolling out of a huge crater in the rubber sheet. Now, if you start them rolling at a given speed, they will roll away fast at first, and then slower and slower until gravity stops them, and then they will start to roll back to the middle of the crater.

Since physicists generally agree that the universe is still expanding, naturally that indicates that is has always been expanding- as once an object stops expanding and starts contracting it is just going to continue to contract.

 

[C1]

Dont like that analogy because it intuitively defies the concept of black hole creation which we know a lot more about than any "big bang".
================
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/does-the-universe-have-an-edge-0415/

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

First, think of space as a 2-dimensional rubber sheet. Think of the planets and other objects in our universe as metal spheres on this sheet, with mass equivalent to their actual mass. A heavier object creates a large indentation in the rubber sheet, which a smaller object would roll down towards the larger object. If the smaller object is moving the right way, it will roll in a circle along a larger object's indentation without colliding the larger object.

Now, with that understanding, think about the moment of the big bang. For a brief time, all mass and energy in the universe is concentrated in one tiny spot. On the rubber sheet analogy, think of it as a massively huge indentation, basically a crater. Due to forces not completely understood, this mass expanded forcefully in what is called the big bang, think of all the little spheres on the rubber sheet rolling out of a huge crater in the rubber sheet. Now, if you start them rolling at a given speed, they will roll away fast at first, and then slower and slower until gravity stops them, and then they will start to roll back to the middle of the crater.

Since physicists generally agree that the universe is still expanding, naturally that indicates that is has always been expanding- as once an object stops expanding and starts contracting it is just going to continue to contract.

That just proves it seems logical for the universe to have been expanding. It doesn't follow that the universe must have been expanding since 1 second after the big bang.

In any case, from what I understand galaxies aren't so much moving apart as space is being created in between them.

 

[Chiropteran]

That just proves it seems logical for the universe to have been expanding. It doesn't follow that the universe must have been expanding since 1 second after the big bang.

Sure it does, based on all the laws of physics as we know them. A body at rest remains at rest, momentum, gravity, etc. If the universe was ever not expanding, gravity would start pulling it back together, therefore it has always been expanding. If you are trying to argue that we don't know how gravity works or that the basic laws of physics are flawed that is all a bit out there.

Dont like that analogy because it intuitively defies the concept of black hole creation which we know a lot more about than any "big bang".

Not sure what you mean by that. black holes fit in the analogy just fine- somehow the mass is so great that the curvature of the rubber sheet is straight down. You need to use a little imagination but I don't see how it defies what we know about black holes. Yeah I know some funny stuff happens after you pass the event horizon, but that occurs after the object falls into the hole in the rubber sheet

 

[C1]

Think about it. If all the mass of the universe is concentrated into a tiny spot then isnt this a black hole (ie, matter once compressed beyond a certain point collapses in on itself; this is how black holes become created - it does not explode outward; ie, super nova)?

A couple of speculations/theories concerning origin of the universe include (1) the tiny point you refer to is actually a white hole that is the other side of a black hole and (2) the "big bang" is a resultant of the collision of two universes.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sure it does, based on all the laws of physics as we know them. A body at rest remains at rest, momentum, gravity, etc. If the universe was ever not expanding, gravity would start pulling it back together, therefore it has always been expanding. If you are trying to argue that we don't know how gravity works or that the basic laws of physics are flawed that is all a bit out there.

http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html

Think about it. If all the mass of the universe is concentrated into a tiny spot then isnt this a black hole (ie, matter once compressed beyond a certain point collapses in on itself; this is how black holes become created - it does not explode outward; ie, super nova)?

It's not really 'all the mass of the universe' so much as 'all the universe'. Even if light managed to 'get out', it would have nowhere to go.

 

[Nathelion]

I got a book out from my university library a while ago on the recommendation of an acquaintance, Faster than the Speed of Light, by Joao Magueijo. I've since read the book and returned it, and I have some questions related to the content of the book. Unfortunately I can't ask this acquaintance, as he's currently quite busy, so I thought I'd put these questions out here.

1) There is one passage in the book that says:


So basically, instead of gravity being a force, its influence upon objects' movement can be explained by its topology. On the opposite page it gives a diagram showing this where there is an object orbiting a gravity well, where the object is still traveling in a straight line, but because of the orientation of the space it is traveling through, it orbits the well; it is apparently experiencing no force.

This seems intuitively fine for objects already in an orbit, but what if you just put an object into the influence of the gravity well? It would accelerate towards the well, so it should be experiencing a force. But if gravity is not providing the force, then where does it come from?

2) On a related note, with the 'gravity is not a force' model, how do you explain the effects of gravity on objects themselves; i.e. tidal forces?

3) How fast does gravity travel?

4) If you had a two-body system, with the two bodies initially separated by a vast but finite distance and initially still relative to each other, how fast would the bodies get before they collided? From my limited knowledge of relativity the mass of the bodies would increase as their velocity increases; but I also seem to recall that in a gravitational field this would be offset by the fact that gravity acts more strongly on more massive objects (so, for example, a feather and an anvil in a vacuum would fall at exactly the same acceleration). How does this work?

5) There was quite a vague statement of how general relativity predicts that the universe must have been constantly expanding since 1 second after the Big Bang; could someone expand on that?

6) What evidence is there for the constancy of the speed of light? I remember reading of an article giving observational evidence for a varying fine structure constant, alpha; what evidence is there to suggest that the speed of light in vacuum is constant across all space and has been constant for the entire history of the universe? Or is it just an assumption?

7) On a related note to the two-body question, if you had two objects individually accelerated to, say, 0.6c, and moving directly towards each other, the velocities of body A relative to body B would not be 1.2c; it would be something below c. What's the equation that you would use to calculate this? I thought maybe you used relativistic momentum; in which case the relative speed would be 0.832c; can someone verify this?

You raise a number of good points, most of which are fundamentally tricky parts of modern physics, some of which are still contested.

1) Space is curved so that "standing still" is really what looks (to us) like "accelerating toward the other body". Yeah, that still bothers me too.

2) Tidal forces are just a change in the curvature of space time. As the curvature changes, the equilibrium positions of - in this case - oceans change, and they move.

3) The "speed of gravity" is contested. It is widely assumed that it is the same as the speed of light, and that all massless particles travel at the speed of light. No experimental evidence has been forthcoming, however.

4) There are relativistic equations for this, but I'm too lazy to dig them up. Maybe I'll come back and figure it out later. Suffice it to say that they will accelerate toward each other the way you would expect until they reach a very high speed, at which point their acceleration would slow down (relative to each other). I think time dilation is how the "slow down" part would be explained.

6) The constancy of the speed of light has been widely assumed without any evidence. Lately, however, there have been theories proposed where the speed of light does, in fact, vary.

7) I may get back to this later if I have time, it will involve rummaging through some old physics textbooks.

 

[ModestGamer]

Lets just stop right here. the problem begins here.

First, think of space as a 2-dimensional rubber sheet. Think of the planets and other objects in our universe as metal spheres on this sheet, with mass equivalent to their actual mass. A heavier object creates a large indentation in the rubber sheet, which a smaller object would roll down towards the larger object. If the smaller object is moving the right way, it will roll in a circle along a larger object's indentation without colliding the larger object.

Now, with that understanding, think about the moment of the big bang. For a brief time, all mass and energy in the universe is concentrated in one tiny spot. On the rubber sheet analogy, think of it as a massively huge indentation, basically a crater. Due to forces not completely understood, this mass expanded forcefully in what is called the big bang, think of all the little spheres on the rubber sheet rolling out of a huge crater in the rubber sheet. Now, if you start them rolling at a given speed, they will roll away fast at first, and then slower and slower until gravity stops them, and then they will start to roll back to the middle of the crater.

Since physicists generally agree that the universe is still expanding, naturally that indicates that is has always been expanding- as once an object stops expanding and starts contracting it is just going to continue to contract.

 

[AstroGuardian]

Too much time needed to get as technical as you guys... Read this post but would not interfere

 

[CitanUzuki]

Lets just stop right here. the problem begins here.

What is the problem with using an analogy to allow us to have a better understanding of something that may be difficult to comprehend? The brain has evolved to deal with the type of environment in which we live, that is, an environment where things move slowly, are small on a cosmic scale, and are large on a quantum scale. Just because certain phenomena can't be instantly distilled so that everyone can immediately comprehend or understand, doesn't mean that the physics is complete bullshit as you constantly seem to imply. Certain aspects of the physical world may be necessarily difficult, if not impossible, for our brains to physically comprehend.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Sorry for some of the skippage, but I had to chime in a bit...

Guys, the one thing you must always remember is that analogies are not exact representations of the real thing. A good example would be this. Draw a 3D object.

You can draw it and it is indeed what it would look like, from one particular perspective, with one mode or point of perception (one eye open). But it does not come in "3D", it also does not change the same way as a real object would when you rotate the paper, therefore that analogy is not an exact representation of the real thing.

Same thing with the rubber sheet. The nature of gravity, kinetic energy, mass and elastic behavior of materials matches the general behavior of gravity enough to take a 3+ dimension interaction of forces and represent it in 2 dimensions with the third representing something besides "up and down".

Where this goes to pot is when you start stretching that sheet to infinity. When you go outside the realm of where our own perceptions were developed, where particles like gravitons may or may not exist.

How can you measure speed when time does not exist? What is distance if it is warped within the perception of the object that is traveling through it? These are questions that are VERY difficult to answer for a number of reasons.

1. We cannot really perceive and test most of them. Just like sub-atomic theory, the best we have had to try to find out the workings of a very expensive swiss watch is to look and listen at the outside, and then throw it against the wall as hard as we can and try to pick up all the pieces that fly out. (atom smashing).

2. It is INSANELY complicated. Anyone who has taken even the first course in Modern Physics will tell you that all the rules you learned in Classical do not really apply. Mass, velocity, force, EM potential, just about everything starts behaving weird when you get outside the "normal" range.

That being said, there are some really interesting things happening. I believe I read somewhere where they split and separated some subatomic particles (i do not know which) and found that one responded to influences that the other was subject to instantaneously. IOW, as if they were still connected.

This goes into the sub-sub atomic realm of the, what was the term? I think it was micro dimensions or quantum... it may even be in String Theory. the base of which is that there may be ADDITIONAL dimensions that are not present in the macro-verse that we are in. Ones that allow you to subject a quark to an EM field, and halfway around the world, its other half reacts to it instantly.

We have just stumbled on the beginning of Subspace Radio/communication! Maybe not now, but who knows. Look back 200 years at what we were doing and compare it to the CONSUMER technology available today and you will see that amazing things CAN happen.

I can get into the specifics of your question later, but just realize that when you are talking about physical phenomena like Gravity, Time Dilation and Energy, introducing Tidal Progression is not an easy thing to just throw into the mix (you have not only gravity, but also mass and gyroscopic effects, thermal effects, topographical effects. It makes it hard to explain simply. You would probably have an easier time on a perfect sphere relating the two than on our own Globe.....).

Anyway, i think I have said enough. Sorry if I crashed this, but living Classic Physics almost all my life and dabbling in Modern Physics Prose, it is hard to avoid something like this!

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

1) Space is curved so that "standing still" is really what looks (to us) like "accelerating toward the other body". Yeah, that still bothers me too.

But if you're standing still with reference to another body, you're not moving. If you're not moving, how could you be accelerating wrt that body?

2) Tidal forces are just a change in the curvature of space time. As the curvature changes, the equilibrium positions of - in this case - oceans change, and they move.

I meant tidal forces as in the things that pull planets apart, not tides.

3) The "speed of gravity" is contested. It is widely assumed that it is the same as the speed of light, and that all massless particles travel at the speed of light. No experimental evidence has been forthcoming, however.

Surely this would be pretty easy to test...? All you have to do is move something that has a gravitational effect on something else, and see how it moves, and when it changes its movement. AFAIK we have a sufficient grasp of general relativity to allow this to be done precisely enough.

4) There are relativistic equations for this, but I'm too lazy to dig them up. Maybe I'll come back and figure it out later. Suffice it to say that they will accelerate toward each other the way you would expect until they reach a very high speed, at which point their acceleration would slow down (relative to each other). I think time dilation is how the "slow down" part would be explained.

But then the Lorentz factor is the same one that 'drives' the increase in mass and dilation of time, right? So since this is the same factor, they'd cancel each other out? I haven't made any calculations for this yet, I'm (again) in a bit of a hurry at the moment.

6) The constancy of the speed of light has been widely assumed without any evidence. Lately, however, there have been theories proposed where the speed of light does, in fact, vary.

So I guess the question is, why did people ever assume from a few isolated experiments that the speed of light was constant everywhere, and every time? You know what they say about assuming...

 

[Nathelion]

So I guess the question is, why did people ever assume from a few isolated experiments that the speed of light was constant everywhere, and every time? You know what they say about assuming...

Well, they had to assume something, didn't they? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the simplest assumption is that the speed of light is the same everywhere. So that's what they assumed. It's difficult to test, either way. We'd pretty much have to go somewhere else in the universe to really test it, and that is pretty hard.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Well, they had to assume something, didn't they? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the simplest assumption is that the speed of light is the same everywhere. So that's what they assumed. It's difficult to test, either way. We'd pretty much have to go somewhere else in the universe to really test it, and that is pretty hard.

And now the assumption is so ingrained that even lay-people scoff when varying speeds of light are mentioned. Whoopdee doo.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Um, hello?

I guess I posted too much to even acknowledge as a n00b?

>sigh<

What EVAH!

 

[Paul98]

The "gained mass" is only from those observing another object that is accelerating. The object isn't actually more massive than it started, it only looks that way due to how velocity additions and such are calculated. It's relativistic mass increases, but it's rest mass stays the same.

If you had two spaces ships flying at each other, if they each tried to accelerate at a constant rate they could. Not counting the fuel needed it would always take the same energy to keep up on that acceleration. Now when they look at the other ship it would not look to be accelerating to them as fast as when it started. But the accelerating felt on each ship would not change.

I meant tidal forces as in the things that pull planets apart, not tides.

It's the same thing.

Surely this would be pretty easy to test...? All you have to do is move something that has a gravitational effect on something else, and see how it moves, and when it changes its movement. AFAIK we have a sufficient grasp of general relativity to allow this to be done precisely enough.

So how exactly would you do this test? If it was easy to test it would have been already.



You should try to learn more about this subject and your questions will be answered.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

It's the same thing.

Not really.

So how exactly would you do this test? If it was easy to test it would have been already.

Is that the best reason you can come up with as for why it hasn't been done?

Anything that's moving will have a moving gravitational field. The only question should be how the field is moving. So, for example, if you had A orbiting B, and C happens to come along, then A and B's motion will be affected by C's gravitational field - but is there a delay between how they react to C's changing position, or is it instantaneous?

You should try to learn more about this subject and your questions will be answered.

I'm trying, aren't I? It's not like I can get out and read a textbook on physics from the library; I'm already studying something else and I don't really have enough time to go through any significant text before I have to return it. So in lieu of that, I'm asking you questions. If you can't answer them, then just say so and I'll stop asking (you).

 

[Ninjahedge]

If an object is moving its mass is effected, so somehow mass and velocity are intertwined.

The thing is, Gravity does not SEEM to be effected by speed. I do not think it HAS a speed. I also think this is somehting that would be very difficult to measure due to a couple of factors.

1. Any test subject would have a myriad of other velocities in its own relative area that are not accounted for.

2. Any mass that we could experiment on would be so small compared to neighboring masses (Eart, sun, Moon, etc) that it would be difficult to measure such small differences in something we could actually accelerate to levels where significant changes in transmission time would be apparent.\

3. Time dialation would be another factor. Accepting the fact that Gravity may not be a transmitted particle, but an effect of spacial distortion due to "solidified energy" (mass) and that it occurs instantaneously, its effect is still measured in relation to time (acceleration).

The problem with your last question is simple. When you have masses moving in Newtonian space, the "speed" of gravity, if it indeed had a measurable speed, is so fast compared to what is happening it would be difficult to see the actual lag effect. (how much closer would object C be in the time it would take the gravity effect to reach A and B if gravity traveled at, say, the speed of light in a vaccume?).

Once you start moving closer to Einstien(ian) speeds, the perception of time also gets skewed... but here, think of this. If you shoot a beam of light ahead of you from a spaceship, it will travel ahead at 186K mi/sec. If you are traveling at, say 0.99C, light will still travel at that same 1.0C, but how?

Time for someone observing from a "stationary" point will show teh beam of light barely progressing faster than the ship, but if you are ON the ship, time has slowed to an extent that it looks like the beam is flying away from you at C.

Some interesting things though. How would this be possible? Is time dialation linear or exponential?

If time slows down at close to the speed of light, what happens to light rays that are striking perpendicular to the ship? Would the level of perceived ambient light start to increase as its perceived rate of exposure increases?

How would the increased mass of the shp effect the light. As was already theorized, gravity warps light, so would you actually bend MORE light towards the ship going close to the speed of light?

Isn't the increase in mass exponential? If the perceived mass increases, how is that related back to the E=MC^2 equasion? The M in that equasion is at rest, is the formula more related to the perceived mass rather than the actual?

Does the mass ACTUALLY increase, or is it an effect of the perception of space time on the object (if time slows down, acceleration as perceived on the object will increase, but was that something that was experimentally reproduced as an actual increase in mass as observed by the stationary observer? IOW, have they proven that mass increases, and how would an increase in mass, coupled with time dialation, effect the object?).

There ae so many questions. The problem being, the ones that actually know what is happening usualy do not know how to tell anyone but OTHERS that know what is basically going on!