Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Aug 30, 2002.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I hope you can get back to me on this. Having thought about it and researched it, your comment doesn’t make sense to me. It’s my understanding that the length contraction formula yields a result that is comparable amongst frames. More intuitively, the before measurement is accurate, and so is the after measurement. Both distance measurements were taken by me. They should be comparable.
Seemingly lending support to my thinking is this page about the twin paradox, which points out that "The usual version of the twin paradox qualifies as a pure SR problem." The twin paradox compares distance or time measurements amongst relatively accelerating frames, like the story above does.
If I'm off track, can you elaborate as to why?
OH MY GOD, Ive had a revelation.
Not to say that I completely understand or believe in the properties of relativety completely, but I think ive hit on something. I Know much more about conceptual Relativity than I know about mathmatical relativity, so those equations ill just ignore.
OK, james R told me that in a gravitational field, the stronger you are under the influence of it, the slower your clock goes. When your accelerating twin accelerates, he is producing a gravitational free-fall look alike on the "stationary" twin.
I admit I don't understand this concept of gravitational/acceleratory time dialation fully, but I think that what I said above might be important to relativities fix to the paradox.
James R can be hard to understand sometimes, but Maybe he can elaborate on this.
Also a question concerning the many time dialations: Where does aplying the diferentiations of speed to time dialation stop. Like the differences in speed go into time dialation, acceleration is the first derivative of speed and that is another frame of reference factor, why can't there be frames of reference associated with the third, fourth, and fith derivatives of speed?
Separate names with a comma.