The frame in which they are at rest in - that is what I meant. Did you really think that I thought an object could only exist in one frame? Sometimes people don't pick the best wording and I admit I fault here sometimes. But come on...
Responding to the first post without reading the rest of the thread: I'm not sure what you mean by this assumption... it doesn't seem necessary, so I've ignored it. Yes. (Note: The reason given is insufficient on its own - it is also necessary that the two scout ships began at the same position in the direction of travel, which they did.) "Reads" seems like a strong term - to me, it implies actual communication with signal delays. If that's what you're asking, then at the moment of its acceleration, S1 would actually read a time of 100 / (1 + v/c) = 22.9 on the clock of S1'. However, I suspect you're asking "What does SR predict to be the time shown on the clock of S1' simultaneously with S1 accelerating". In that case, the answer is frame dependent: The clock of S1' reads 100 / γ = 43.6 simultaneously in the S frame with S1 accelerating. The clock of S1' reads 100 γ = 229 simultaneously in the S' frame with S1 accelerating. I think you're implying a simultaneous measurement in the S' frame, which would make the answer you want 229. 100 + 10/γ = 104 Again with the "reads"... What do you actually mean? This time, the time of the clock in question at the event in question isn't frame dependent. So, I'll assume you're asking: "What time is shown on the clock of S2' at the moment it decelerates" Answer: 120 / γ = 52.3 S2 would actually read this time some time later when the signal arrived. 120, of course! Now, let me catch up and see what discussion has resulted...
It's not an unknown idea on these forums, unfortunately Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is this really a problem? Obviously it looks like a problem... but does it actually produce any real difficulties? Does it stop us from effectively being able to address any physical situations? Say S1 wanted to interact with S2', or S1 wanted to predict if some other object will interact with S2'. Can it be done? Does the situation you point out pose an actual problem? Such philosophical questions aside, the issue can be resolved by considering what S1 actually sees. So, what does S1 actually see of S2'?
We are assuming S1 can measure S2' without explaining how. In all actuality, probes from S1 would have to be left before and after each acceleration and these probes would have to gather the actual measurements of S2' in these frames. Then the probes can later be collected and analyzed appropriately. But regardless, the probes just collect the data for the respective time intervals they apply to. Thus - this is actually what S1 should "see" of S2'. If you want, you can assume the time intervals are in seconds and distance would be measured in light-seconds. Then the delays are not as long.
Yes, but if you consider what s1 does actually see... the problem goes away. No discontinuities. S2' is always apparent, always apparently moving at a well defined speed, first in frame S', then frame S. The after-the fact analysis of the observations would show up awkward things as far as timing goes... but really, so what? To me, it just doesn't matter if something at a distance jumps back and forth in time in my frame. So long as there are no local discontinuites, where's the problem?
Like I said, relativists wouldn't see any problem with what I call nonsense here. I must say that I am thoroughly impressed with the faith you people show in this religion Relativity. :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (OK - I don't really regard it as a religion - but the faith is almost synonymous). This was originally the full version of a thread I started titled "A simple relativity problem". But sciforums went down and I was unable to complete it.
I take exception to your question. You can not put Newtonian mechanics on the same level as Relativity as far as theoretical proof is concerned. I can add a few random terms to the relativity equations that would equally disappear when c approaches infinity. Just because Newton's equations are recovered from the relativity equations is not proof of anything except consistency.
I edited my post as I foresaw this question coming Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, try thinking of it as light cones. Changing frames is the same as altering the tilt (and angles) of your light cone, wrt. the original one. That means that distant events can jump from future to past (to future) quite easily, like we see it here for S1's view of S1', when changing frames between S and S'. The relativity of simultaneity means that order reversal of events is possible. This is not a problem.
Thanks James R , That was the best defination of what a frame is I had ever heard. I know now what a frame is, but thats gona be more trouble for U.
The relativity of simultaneity means that order reversal of events is possible. This has never been proven to be true and is nonsense. :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't consider it nonsense, mainly because causality is conserved. Common sense is actually not a very good guide to doing physics, once we leave the orders of magnititude human lives are lived on...
causality has nothing to do with this! We are just taking measurments - of course what we did were not measurements but calculations according to SR on what our measurements would find. If it turns out our measurements are different, then we have big problem as SR didn't do a good job predicting our measurments. Fucking bullshit. You call relativity of simultaneity not nonsense just because some theory dictates it, even though it has never been observed. The relativity of simultaneity would only be considered common sense after it is observed. After all, common sense comes from observation in reality. Don't you spit your "theoretical common sense" on me - it is not common sense no matter how many ways/times you say it.
Temper! I'm not saying that relativity of simultaneity is common sense, because it decisively is not. I'm saying that calling it nonsense because it defies common sense is not an argument, because in modern physics things that defy common sense are commonplace, and you should fucking know this!
