I'm not going to waste time arguing over this but I thnk it is clear just who is being sloppy and who isn't.
It seems that the reference frame that is accelerating has magical qualities to it. If the train were an open at the top boxcar and an apple suspended on a string were lowered into the confines of the boxcar just as it began to accelerate the the apple would be considered accelerating also, though there would be no measurable forces perturbing apple or string. I thoughNewton had the apple question asnswered a long time ago. It seems from my going through your and James R's last exchanges is that James R changes definitions as determined by what happens to a physical object and this is confusing, designed on purpose to be so. I understood from James R that a physical object moving with constant velocity is an inertial frame, so why he dances all over theplace, only his therapist knows.
Agreed. It is also a reinforcement that given correct analysis he (they) will refuse to honorably agree but will resist any answer given by a non-Relativist. For two years I have argued that time dialtion at best was an illusion of motion and that it was not and could not be reality. I have been called almost every thing imaginable and told I am stupid, ignorant, uneducated, lost, etc, etc,. Yet in a currently running thread James R has just shown that differential clock times are 100% accounted for by length contraction to the exclusion of any clock tick rate change or time dilation. When cornered on that issue he made the statement that the other clock cannot account for the differance in time and therefore concludes that time dilation MUST have occurred. What a lot of crap. He has just stated that physical clock times show no time dilation and that time dilation is an illusion. Exactly what I have argued for two years. But I was wrong, I was stupid. I introduce here some links to the arguement and its conclusion. I do not do so for the purpose of changing topics and will not debate this issue here. Any comments can therefore be made in the thread this comes from. I introduce it here to bolster the proof as to the duplicity, lack of candor and lack of honesty in answers being given by Relativists. [post=703543]My original Scenario[/post] [post=703574]James R Reply[/post] and an extract of his own calculation of time differential displays causes. [post=704089]My Clarification of Actual Cause of Displayed Time Differentials[/post] and an extract: [post=704113]James R Reply[/post] and an extract: [post=704638]James R Reply[/post] and an extract of his statement: Now clearly this says exactly what I have said for two years; noting the exception however, that I further say even this illusion is BS but at least that this is what Relativity shows that there is no time dilation or actual changing of tick rates in clocks and that it is an illusion of motion. Relativists speak with forked tounge. Beware. Welcome to the club James R.
geistkiesel: I gave you concise definitions of both "acceleration" and "inertial reference frame". It's not my fault if you can't understand them.
MacM, Why must you try to import every argument into multiple threads? Please at least make some effort to stay on topic.
I stated it is not a change of topic but only clarification of the duplicity of answers being given in many threads. This issue is germaine to all threads including this one.
MacM: This topic is about "What is a reference frame?" If you wish to discuss the definition of a reference frame, or surrounding issues, do it here. If you want to talk about something else, do it elsewhere. It shouldn't be that hard to restrain yourself.
If U have 0,0,0 as reference frame, then that means Whenever some one is waiting at that point then they will have a zero universal speed ?
0,0,0 is a point in some undefined reference frame. It's not a reference frame in itself If you are waiting at point 0,0,0, then you have zero speed in some reference frame, but not in other reference frames.
So we have a train and a track, The train is deemed to have a velcoity of [x] by the track. The track is deemed to have a velocity of [x] by the train. If the frames are applied properly each frame will record the same dilation effects. But as each frame is stationary to itself and has zero velocity what dilation should if assume it has. As far as the track is concerned the train has the dilation and is irrelavant to the track. As far as the train is concerned the track has the dilation and is irrelevant to the train. So in summary neither frame will record dilation affected result. Because to do so would be for that frame to assume some of what the other frame thinks it should have. If you treat each frame as separate and take each frames perspective individualy with out corrupting the frame with the other frames dilation figures. You find that each frame records exactlly the same distance and time. [using SRT reasoning whih fails to adequately deal with dilation] I think what is happening is that to give a frame dilation effects you have to assume an absolute frame of reference for either frame, but SRT forbids this. So the SR reasoning in use is flawed.
if there is any actual dilation involved then it must be shared equally with both frames, thus both frames will still record the same result.
QQ: You're reasoning is confused and hard to follow. It seems you don't know what length contraction and time dilation are. Length contraction and time dilation are not properties of any object. They are effects of comparing measurements from two different reference frames. But I've explained this to you before. Are you having trouble understanding? It really isn't hard.
JamesR, What is confusing is that both objects would record the same results even though they may be seen by one frame to be contracted and dilated. Simple scenario Earth and object B. Their distance of separation is 10 earth light years Their distance of separation is decreasing at a rate of 0.8c Earth is deemed at rest and sees B coming towards it. estimated time of arrival = 12.5 years. swap to B B is deemed at rest and sees the Earth coming towards it ETA = 12.5 years. When both come together they compare their records and both show 12.5 years. Is this correct?
No. Because for B, the original distance of separtion was only 6 light yrs and it will only take 7.5 years for the Earth to reach it.
QQ: When you say "Their distance of separation os 10 earth light years", you mean "as measured by somebody on Earth". That means their separation as measured by somebody on the spaceship will be shorter.
QQ, here's what we are talking about. Check out this image: http://www.geocities.com/janus58.geo/length.html The black and white striped bars are measuring rods moving attached to B and the Earth. This image is from B's perspective. Note that since from B's view, The Earth is moving, the Earth and its respective measuring rod are length contracted. Thus when B is opposite the 10th unit mark of the Earth's measuring rod, there are only 6 unit marks separating B from the earth according to B's measuring rod. So B measures its distance as 6 units from the Earth.
<img src=http://www.geocities.com/janus58.geo/length.jpg> Posted the image just to show it in context better. Janus, thanks for your input. My question really relates to what each RF will record not what it's mathematics sees. Using Earths perspective Earth is deemed at rest and B has all the velocity in this Thought Experiment. So earth has to wait 12.5 years for B to arrive. ( b's dilation is irrelevant to Earth) You contend that the Ship B will see 6 and take 7.5 years. But I would suggest that this is suggesting an absolute reference and not a relative one. Because as far as B is concerned Earth has all the velocity in this thought experiment and will wait 12.5 years for the Earth to arrive. Earths dilation being irrelevant to the Ship B. If SR is applied identically to both RF and each perspective taken fully both RF will assume the other as dilated. But both frames will never record contracted distances So in summary Earth will wait 12.5 years for ship B to arrive but state that the ship will record 7.5 years from it's perspective which of course is not correct because from the ships perspective Earth records the 7.5 years which of course is also not correct. Do you see the logic loop I am trying to expose?
for B to record contracted distances it woudl have to assume it has velocity but B would assume it was at rest. So it will not show contracted records. Unless of course It assumes it has velocity simply because Earth says so......but isn't that more LR and not SR?
