It is a partial list of your basic misconceptions. There cannot be any intelligent dialogue until you clear your basic misunderstandings.
. Hi conscienta, pleased to meet you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Everyone, perhaps one should start by taking a rigid stick and have multiple observers moving in radials at all angles to and from that stick and then all report back what they 'saw' of the length of that stick. Once collated, would they all arrive at an 'agreed proper length' of that stick in its OWN 'proper' frame from whence they started their relative-motion-based 'seeing' observations? By the way, if lengths are 'seen' to be contracted in the direction of travel only, what will an observer traveling AWAY from the stick in a direction parallel to the stick length 'see'.....will the stick length be seen as 'contracted' or 'dilated' or what? I agree that all 'realities' are 'perceived' realities and none is more valid than the other in a global sense, but when one is starting with ONE 'PROPER' BASE REALITY COMMON TO ALL LOCAL OBSERVERS BEFORE THEY DEPART on their relative-motion-based 'seeings' of that starting 'proper frame' as perceived before, then all other relative 'seeings' of perceived realities must be compared to that original 'proper' stick frame, shouldn't they? Even though we know that the proper frame was just another frame to start with, the point is that any 'chamges' relative to that frame are just that: RELATIVE TO THAT INITIALLY CHOSEN FRAME. So the proper reality is the standard and the other 'lengths' only apply in THEIR RESPECTIVE relative to stick moving observer frames ONLY. In other words, their 'stick length' realities are not the reality of the 'proper stick length' reality. It's when we start talking at cross purposes and start accusing each other of things which are not what the essentials are, then it becomes even more a matter of argument rather than communication. No-one here is challenging the fact that SR provides for 'perceived' realities for each frame. All I can see being said is that perceived realities do not change the 'proper' realities/lengths one started with as a point of departure for gaining relative perspectives from other moving frames relative to the chosen proper frame. I see the cross-purpose misunderstandings and the cross-purpose to-and-fro resulting in yet another interminable internet confrontation frustrating both sides in discussions about this aspect. Let's stop shouting who is right/wrong and just try to get to the bottom of the cross-purpose misunderstanding which makes one side accuse the other etc etc. Oh, and it would be more helpful if the ploy "go read a book' and 'look there' etc etc was replaced by actual supporting arguments aimed at trying to bridge the gap of misunderstandings which will persist if no genuine attempt is made to actually understand the real import of what the 'other side' is saying. Only then can one MAKE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS AGAiNST WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING SAID rather than what was NOT said and so misunderstanding and arguing based on that misunderstanding, hey? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let's be cool and be scientists and not schoolyard kids about this important aspect, hey! Good luck! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . .
In my initial post at the beginning of this thread I stated that a uniform acceleration could be handled within the framework of special relativity but at the expense of making the mathematics more complicated. The point I was trying to make in the post you cited is that this mathematical treatment does not reveal what the difference is between inertial motion and accelerated motion and indeed why there are two types of motion in the first place. It is usually stated that time dilation is not caused by acceleration per se, that only the velocity matters. But to have time dilation or at least a time differential between inertial frames one of the frames must change velocity which is by definition an acceleration. It is kind of a circular argument and what I am trying to get at is what the relationship is between time dilation and changing inertial frames. It is one thing to treat it mathematically it is quite another to answer the question I am posing.
Tach, below is a record of your contribution in this thread. Look through it and tell me how much of it represent constructive discussion and how much is no more than.., what do you call it? Trolling! There are few statements of opinion, on the subject matter. A few definitions, which at times could be debatable on their own. And a whole lot of commentary that has no intrinsic substance or merit of its own, often seemingly intended as insult. You seem to think that by attacking a poster or a post you prove your point. The problem is the only point that is clear is that you attack, the poster. This seems to me to suggest you have no credible argument to offer. If I am wrong explain it. And I will then either accept correction or defend my position. Until you actually post something of merit there is no disscussion.
All of it is a constructive contribution since it points out your errors. BTW, others pointed out the same exact errors. Basically, you deny length contraction, you do not understand the muon experiment, you deny the objectivity of measurement, you confuse distance with frames of reference, you claim that length and distance are different things, only to name a few of your errors.
There is a good argument that suggests that the SR time dilation is completely dependent on velocity, even where acceleration is involved. Accelleration can be treated as an average velocity for the purposes of determining any associated time dilation. One argument is that the classical twin paradox cannot be resolved without acceleration. The traveling twin must change frames several times to return home. It has also been argued that since all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, for a resolution to be achieved both twins must at least begin from a common frame of reference and in most cases they must also return to the same frame of reference. This once again requires that the traveling twin experience accelerations, at different points in his journey. There are some versions that attempt to eliminate accelerations completely. They usually run into lengthy debates. Personally, I would agree that as far a time dilation associated with SR is concerned, velocity or average velocity over time is the more important issue. While, to experimentally confirm this, accelerations are likely required for practical purposes of comparing clocks.
You have a vivid imagination. Without having even attempted to discuss the issues, you have drawn conclusions, not even close to reality.
Not at all, I simply listed some of your more egregious errors. Syne pointed out some of the same errors as well. Try paying attention.
It is a small price to pay in order to get the correct explanation for what is going on. In my initial post to you, I have linked a complete solution , as calculated from the PoV of either twin.
Dimensionally length and distance are both L. Lets say that we have a relativistic rocket, at constant acceleration g_earth, going to the andromeda galaxy. Lets say over the entire path the rocket average speed is .999999999c. Using the formula Tach wrote down D'=D(1-v^2)^1/2 Or D_rocket=D_earth(1-v^2)^1/2 D_rocket=2E6ly(1-.999999999^2)^1/2=2E6ly(4.472136E-5)=89.44272ly The distance from earth to andromeda, measured in the earth frame, is 2 million light years. The distance from earth to andromeda, measured in the rocket frame, is 89.44272ly.
The distance itself must be determined from a frame of reference at rest relative to the distance. Once the rocket starts off it is no longer measuring the distance from a frame of reference at rest relative to the distance. The only means the rocket has to calculate the distance is relative to its velocity over time. The problem is that its clock is time dilated compared to the frame of reference where the distance is at rest, so the calculation does not return a true distance. If it were possible for the rocketeer to take instantaneous measurements along the way, the distances in those instantaneous measurements would be the same as if the rocket were at rest in the frame of its starting point and the distance to be traveled and it would always be the same. The same issue comes up for twins, where neither can say which one is in motion and both think the other's clock is running slow. The rocketeer is smarter than some though and realizes that his clock is affected by time dilation. Properly incorporating the Loentz factor he agrees that andromeda really was 2 million LYs distant from the earth and as a result of time dilation his clock is keeping time at a rate that is not the same as the rest frame of the distance.
Nope, SR teaches you how to determine the distance from ANY frame. You are denying the very basis of relativity.
This much is true, but that is not what you have been contending. And when done properly with sufficient information, all observers in all frames will agree on the distance. They aren't all trolls.
That is not in dispute, Tach. So your pointing and cheerleading is not getting the discussion any further. The frame measurements are what they are because they use whatever in-frame tools for that measurement applies. No-one is questioning that. In fact, that is the very point being made. Measurements differe by an amount proportional to relative velocities from any other frame. The whole universe is not in relative motion with itself, is it? Hence any relatively moving frame is by definition a relative frame. Just because we don't know what the universal 'frame' says about distance/length in any one frame does not mean there is nonesuch irrespective of how relative realities affect each frame locally AS reality therein. By the way, this article at PhysOrg implies a 'primordial' starting pattern of quantum fluctuations exists and persists which coincides with the galaxy pattern observed from here/now...... http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-physicists-physics-primordial-quantum-fluctuations.html Can such primordial pattern be used as a universal reference basis for all other local frames here and now to arrive at some agreed distances/lengths irrespective of relative motions between local frames here and now? Just curious to see your thoughts on this aspect. Thanks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .
You have been denying the "reality" of length contraction. You have claimed repeatedly that length and distance are different entities. You have denied that contraction applies to distance. See proof? You are denying that distance is observer dependent once again. You are denying the very basis of relativity.
Hmm, the introductory textbooks contradict your above claim, the mainstream formula says: \(D'=D \sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}\) Are you making up your own formulas?
As far as I have read OnlyMe, he is not denying the "reality" of "perceived length contract" FOR THE frame in question. He has only stated that that frame's "reality" is the perceived one compared to the original one which was common to both frames before relative motion of one frame. Your characterisation of what OnlyMe is 'claiming' is subtly different to what he is actually saying. He is not denying what Relativity is all about. Only examines what actually exists irrespective of relative frames regarding lengths/distances before relative motion occurs (as in AT THE BIG BANG, where everything started from a COMMON UNIVERSAL FRAME and started inflating/expanding from there). Please see this link for further context on this aspect of a possible primordial reference frame etc.... http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-physicists-physics-primordial-quantum-fluctuations.html Let's get on the same page before further cross-purpose assumptions arise, hey? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cheers!
There is nothing "perceived" in length contraction. Length contraction is a real, measured effect. Besides, you are wrong, your buddy has repeatedly denied the applicability of contraction to distance while claiming that contraction only applies to the length of material objects.
Tach is using a standard debate tach-tic! I continue to think he does know the difference. I just have some difficulty understanding why he is so intent sidetracking so many threads with the same ..., routine!
