Mathematical Challenge to the Consistancy Claim of SR

Would it be true that B can assume based on SR that observer A will measure the distance between A and B as 1.71 lhr and that when A and B meet A's clock will read 1.89h?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

2inquisitive,
You again are braking the main rule: asking about ruler and meters, you have to notice whose ruler and meters you are talking about. Right question should sound like this: “How many B’s meters are in the A’s ruler?” Until you will not learn this rule you will mislead others and yourself…
The answer is:
3.92 yr*300 000 m/sec * 24 *365* 3600 sec/yr = xxxxxxxxxx m
What is xxxxxxxxx – calculate by yourself

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I may not know what I am talking about but here's my way of thinking about relativity to avoid the kinds of confusions this thread is raising. We can tell one object is moving towards another by the changing relationship to the rest of the universe. A is moving towards B if B's motion wrt the rest of the universe remains the same. If A is moving wrt B then its relationship with all other objects will also be changing.

It seems to me that in a universe with only A & B, the relativistic effects of motion on the part of one would apply equally to both.

But I may be way off base...

Cheers,

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Uh, Yuriy, A is on one end of the ruler and B is on the other end, according
to you in your previous posts. I asked how many meters were in the ruler
according to B. I know how to calculate meters, but you seem to have made
a mistake. 3.92 yr ??? Shouldn't that be hours? If so, then you are stating
B thinks there are 42336 * 10^8 meters in the ruler. Is that correct? Rulers
can be measured in meters, can't they? I have to go now, but I will be back.
EDIT: By the way Yuriy, light travels at 300,000 KILOMETERS per second, not
meters. And there are 3600 seconds in an hour, not in a year.

 

Dear mapsdnasggeyerg,
Absolutely.

 

2inquisitive,
in my post yr and lyr are the same.You should read 3.92 lyr, but remember that this lyr will be canceled by yr in
3600 sec/hr*24hr/day*365day/yr.
So, simply multiply the numbers...

 

Dear contrarian,
May be you could believe, but, in spite of some ambiguous terms in your post, I think that you have expressed the most smart thought I ever heard in this Forum.

 

2Inquisitive, I wouldn't change a thing. He is trying to get you to agree that A can dictate what B sees and vice versa.

Put ruler extensions on both clocks such that each is making a direct comparison under relative motion and indeed you will see that both see the same thing.

Both measure distance as being at rest and seeing the other in motion.

The trick of SR is that they have A at rest claim B is in motion and then unjustifiably calculate the Lorentz adjustment as though that is B's view.

It isn't.

 

No, MacM, I know what I am doing. It doesn't matter how many meters he chooses.
You haven't caught on the SR's 'trick' yet.
EDIT: I really do think it is time that I, personally, gave it a rest. A point
has been shown in the past and there is no need for me to keep rehashing
it. The anti-SR situation does seem to be getting out of hand with the same
'challenges' popping up again and again. If the physics community deems it
necessary to make any changes, they will.

 

I definitely have found one but you may know another. I step aside and we where the yellow brick road goes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

s.

Ah, I had read your ost earlier and came back and posted. I missed your edit in the interim.

Let me suggest that there will be no changes until it becomes a matter of survival for them. If others do not clearly point out the falicies they will continue to ignore them just as they have for 100 years.

Until they stop laying with themselves there will be little if any major breakthroughs in physics.

 

I have rasied this very issue and calculation before. You will note that Yuriy didn't respond to it.

 

Why would either observer measure any difference, they are at rest after all when they do the measuring, A at rest measures [x] B at rest measures the same thing [x]

So how do we get different measurments?

 

QQ,
Apply it to case [x] = velocity of some body C, and you will recognize where the right answer could be found...

 

given that both frames take their measurments from a perpective of being at rest and have no need to consider dilation or contraction why woudl they measure a different result?

 

QQ,
Even in Newtonian mechanics you have law of addition of velocities V' = V - u.
This is why...

 

so Yuriy you are now saying that the frames are not considered at rest when they take their measurements yes?

 

or is it one frame can consider itself at rest but some how the same luxury is not afforded the other frame when it takes it's measurements

 

Are you talking about two frames, A and B, that are moving in respect to each other or are in rest in respect to each other?

 

at all times one frame is considered at rest and the other frame is moving. Is the correct way of looking?

 

other wise we would be talking a global perspective I would think