Standard SRT problem need a standard SRT solution.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Quantum Quack, Mar 26, 2005.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    and you are saying that the second drawing is somehow different than the first?

    Keeping in mind that the only change really is that the background of Nothingness appears to be moving.....the drawings are the same otherwise?

    [software: if you go to the link:
    http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/default.asp
    and download "DrawPlus" you'll have the way.

    Also PhotoPlus has an animation system as well, but it is harder to draw with as it primarilly deals with pics and not drawings.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are calling these antimations. My computer must be broke. Nothing is moving.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    QQ,

    Thanks!

    No, just the perspectives are different. Whenever we're looking at a drawing there is always an implied third perspective (us the viewers with Godlike powers to create or destroy universes...). That's your first drawing. The trick is to abandon that and get into your universe. That's your second one.
     
  8. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    HA! That's the whole problem!!! You are frozen in your universe. Nothing moves for you so you naturally don't accept SRT! It all makes sense now!
     
  9. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Mac,

    They are probably javascript animations (just a guess). Make sure you have Java enabled on your PC.
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    try this version and see if it is any clearer:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    An interesting thought has occured by watching those animation making us all dizzy.....[hit the browser stop button if you want them to stop]

    There is a third reference in our universe and although it has no substance it does provide space or volume for our two objects to exist in.

    The back drop of space [nothing] [lack of substance has value due to it's deficiency.] is a third reference.
     
  12. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Space as a reference... does not compute...
     
  13. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    By taking the view point of one object and claiming it at rest relative to the other you are also assuming that you are at rest in space.....and how can you be at rest to space [nothing]?
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    teh thing is by taking a frames perspective and claiming it as v=0 you are also claiiming relative v to space as zero.

    If you don't claim this then you cannot claim that you are at rest regards the other ship.
    Because you are puttng a value on the space that the ships are in.....by default.
    [this is a difficult point to describe properly.]

    If space has a true value of nothing then a rest reference is impossible.

    You can't anchour an object in space [nothingness]
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2005
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    Handy to have hey? [ just get your frame loops happening amd your fully in business] oops!! did I just say frame loops?......Ha

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    No. I am not assuming I am at rest in space. In modern physics that statement has no meaning. I can only be at rest or in motion relative to another object. The whole idea of an ether assumed that you could be at rest relative to space, or rather the ether that pervaded space. This has been firmly shown not to exist.
     
  18. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Ha - Frames!
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    I do understand this arguement, however in this instance I do not agree that by taking a rest perspective yo are not deeming an absoluteness to that rest.

    In a two object universe with a backdrop of space to claim a position of rest relative to the other object is an absolute statement. That absolute rest is inherant in this case if you do so.

    The other issue is that SRT often uses the terms:
    "Relative to the oither object", and I use the term: "Relative to each other" this is a fundamental difference in perspective that I am working through at present.

    Relative to each other seems to me to be a much more thorough POV that just being relative to the other object.

    If I place two attracted magnets in space and let both go simultaneously which magnet is at rest and which is moving? [The same arguement]
     
  20. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    In the two object universe, I can only assume two things:

    1) B is moving toward me (A) or,

    2) I (A) am moving toward B.

    As A, it is simpler to just assume I am at "rest". Rest is relative. I and evrything in my ship is at "rest" wrt me. If there is no ether, how are you postulating any absoluteness for anything? What about a one-object universe? A is the only object and you are on it. Are you moving? How would you tell one way or the other?
     
  21. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    You are a third reference point with respect to which the two magnets (A and B) were originally at rest. You released them and they took on +/- v wrt you.

    The "magnet people" can say a total of three things about their motion:

    1) They are each moving at v wrt the "magnet god" (G) or,

    2) A is at rest, G is approaching at v and B is approaching at 2v or,

    3) B is at rest, G is approaching at v and A is approaching at 2v

    (I pictured G holding them in outstreched arms and releasing them to converge in front of himself).
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    of course........but to extend this to being at rest to the other object is the issue......

    Any way I see this is not going to be resolved so easilly.

    will think some more
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,503
    If we do take a third perspective and note that both ships are heading towards each other at an equal velocity and we see their light pulses relfeclted on our refelctor are synchronised.
    How can eiither ship then see their reflector pulses showing an ouit of phase state?

    Who is wrong?
    The ships or the third perspective
     

Share This Page