Originally Posted by space at the centre I don’t recall that being relevant in Einstein’s Description, he states that AB is the length of the train, not the contracted length – after all his drawing was God’s view – I really don’t see why you have a problem with that when Albert didn’t! The reason he does not bring in length contraction here is because he hasn’t introduced the concept yet. AND if “things are not at rest or in motion with regards to space-time, but only with regards to some other frame” then you are saying that one cannot consider a single frame in spacetime! I am sorry but now you are talking nonsense.

If time dilation and length contraction are physical effects that change the measurements in the observed frame, then how can that be for multiple cases at the same time? are those changes cumulative or only appliccable to the observer’s frame – for if so it is only that observer’s measurements that are transformed not the Physical measurements in the observed. The moderators here do not take kindly to this kind of conduct.So once again – Lorentz transformations leave the speed of light invariant. I have no idea what you mean by this.[/quote]Sigh.If a body is physically length contracted – to only half its original length (L), (0.8667c – gamma = 2) by the motion of one observer, then what is its physical length if there is another observer moving at 0.6c – gamma = 1.25 ? Is it 0.8L – but no it is already contracted to 0.5L so is it 0.4L? – essay+writing+service+in+uk
but no for if that were accumulative, and there being no distance beyond which the effect is no longer felt, no if it were accumulative there are so many moving bodies in the universe everything would become so small they would vanish!Or perhaps you would say the effect is only within that observer’s frame – so in one frame it is 0.8L while in another it is 0.5L, but how can one body possess different lengths according to how it is observed??Almost like perspective where the body doesn’t change but the size it is measured at depends on the distance – but no that can’t be either because you insist that the observed body really becomes physically shorter. . .Can you please explain this? Multiple observers in the same frame will make the same measurements; if they are not in the same frame then their measurements will differ. However, this does not mean that he judges the flashes to have occurred at the time that he sees them; he judges them to have taken place at some time in the past.

Simultaneity is relative. He is moving with regards to another frame of reference. And who determines the “size” of a unit ? I do not believe this question is necessary! A mobving observer is moving with regards to what he is observing! Exactly.

He then concludes:A priori it is by no means certain that this last measurement (from the embankment) will supply us with the same result as the first(from the train). Originally Posted by SpeedFreek Originally Posted by space at the centre True, there is no Frame of Reference that has any more than one view of Spacetime.Yet that does not mean that Spacetime does not exist as a homogeneous and isotropic entity, the same everywhere in every direction. The connection between the two is the Lorentz transformation.

Again I apologize, by absolute I mean the magnitude regardless of units of measurement for the number of units multiplied by the size of a unit gives the true size. Originally Posted by space at the centre A Frame of Reference is a particular view of Spacetime.This understanding comes directly from Mikowski’s Spacetime. He actually touches on it in the next section. This is where your entire argumentation falls down; there is no absolute frame of reference, things are not at rest or in motion with regards to space-time, but only with regards to some other frame.

I am sorry but now you are talking nonsense. Originally Posted by Janus He determines that they are simultaneous because he is both halfway between and see then at the same time. Exactly, it is the measurements made under different conditions, ie. by a movingobserver, that are different; Not the distances them selves; for as Einstein states: “But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train.” Originally Posted by space at the centre Read Post 42 to see how it really works, that simultaneity HAS to be universal! Nope.

They are not, they are very physically real. There is no absolute frame of reference. Again, that is because you do not understand it. There is no absolute rest or absolute motion.

Putting him at the midpoint just allows him to make this judgement without knowing the speed of light or the actual distance from A to B. This is where your entire argumentation falls down; there is no absolute frame of reference, things are not at rest or in motion with regards to space-time, but only with regards to some other frame. It is there because the observer in one frame cannot prove simultaneity in another frame. You can also consider B to be at rest, then it is A that moves. I have no idea what you mean by this.

Sorry, did you miss this line: Body A is at rest in Spacetime and has properties – length L and duration T Space-time is not a frame of reference. You appear to be under the impression that length contraction and time dilation are only apparent effects. A can be at rest only with respect to some other frame. If one examines it is full of holes ,fudges and inconsistencies.

If however, he knows both and his relative position between A and B he would be able to judge that the flashes where simultaneous by noting the time delay between his seeing the flashes. yes, true, yet much more complicated and requiring more measurements and data than Einstein’s simple test. You just come on here asserting that relativity is wrong, and once we try and explain things to you, you refuse to acknowledge those explanations.Or is it a case that you do not want to understand it ? We have had plenty of cranks like that here, for sure ! You are still holding on to the idea that there must be some intrinsic reality to this subject, something which is independent of what is and can be observed. You don’t even need to know anything about relativity to realize that.

You can interpret frame A to be at rest, then B moves. If you are trying to deliberately misunderstand everything I write, try to do so logically!I will repeat: a body is at rest in spacetime unless there is something else that it can be moving relative to. You can test this directly via particle acceleration experiments; for example, if you accelerate two heavy ions ( like gold or lead, which are normally spherical in shape ) to relativistic speeds and let them collide, you measure collision dynamics not of spheres, but of flattened obloids.

If viewed from the red frame or the blue frame then they would be the ones drawn square and seeing simultaneity!My goodness that is such an Obvious error! Man, what are you talking about ? Going into the red or blue frame would mean a rotation of the entire grid, including the event points. Pick an arbitrary frame – the observer in that frame measures exactly c. Hence the title of the chapter. [/quote]Then tell me what is wrong with the logic in post 42! Originally Posted by space at the centre Relativity of Simultaneity is how simultaneity appears in different frames.

That is because the normally spherical ions are length contracted along their trajectory of motion with respect to the stationary particle collider. Events according to the embankment frame (according to anyone located anywhere at rest with respect to the embankment):Same events according to the train( according to anyone on the train): [/quote]No, the second one is according to how the observer on the embankment will conclude that the observer on the train will see it. Now pick another arbitrary frame which is in uniform motion with respect to the first frame – you go into that one by performing a Lorentz transformation. They are not, they are very physically real.

If one considers a single body in spacetime, then that body is ‘at rest’ as their is nothing in relation to which it can be moving! Sorry, did you miss this line: Body A is at rest in Spacetime and has properties – length L and duration T Space-time is not a frame of reference. He starts out by describing how one would go about measuring the length of the Train (from `A to B`) from within the train and from the embankment. A can be at rest only with respect to some other frame. You are still holding on to the idea that there must be some intrinsic reality to this subject, something which is independent of what is and can be observed.

Multiple observers in the same frame will make the same measurements; if they are not in the same frame then their measurements will differ. Thus the length of the train as measured from the embankment may be different from that obtained by measuring in the train itself. There is so much here that no one ever questions because they just repeat what they were taught! Typical crackpot argument.This is all very logic and straightforward stuff, but of course you need to understand it first. It is there because if events are simultaneous in a rest frame, they are not always simultaneous as judged from a frame in motion relative to that rest frame.[/quote]Exactly – not simultaneous as judged, yet simultaneous in fact![/quote]In this case, as “judged” by a frame is the same thing as “in fact” in that frame.

Refer here :RHIC | Physics of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider And how can the speed of light still be c? I would advise you against refusing to acknowledge explanations already given. Once again, you arrive at c.If you like you can think of it this way – the speed of light is a function of vacuum permittivity and permeability :Since both of these are universal constants of a medium/vacuum, and thus observer independent, all observers necessarily see the same speed of light, and the Lorentz transformations ensure that this is indeed the case. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke Originally Posted by space at the centre The substance existing at any world point can always be conceived to be at rest, if time and space are interpreted suitably Precisely – what that means is that you have to choose a reference point. Have you ? Judging by your lack of understanding the answer seems obvious – no you haven’t. Nope.

You can test this directly via particle acceleration experiments; for example, if you accelerate two heavy ions ( like gold or lead, which are normally spherical in shape ) to relativistic speeds and let them collide, you measure collision dynamics not of spheres, but of flattened obloids. Of course the red or blue grid would then be the ones with squares drawn, but A and B would no longer lie along the same grid line. You appear to be under the impression that length contraction and time dilation are only apparent effects. As seen from the green frame!If viewed from the red frame or the blue frame then they would be the ones drawn square and seeing simultaneity!My goodness that is such an Obvious error!

Yes, of course. If time dilation and length contraction are physical effects that change the measurements in the observed frame, then how can that be for multiple cases at the same time? are those changes cumulative or only appliccable to the observer’s frame – for if so it is only that observer’s measurements that are transformed not the Physical measurements in the observed. Yes! the Measurements differ! I can agree with that.

You seem to think Minkowski spacetime exists as a real entity in which the ordering of events is real! Yes Spacetime is real, it exists – or are you saying it is imaginary? I will leave you with a Minkowski diagram showing two events that are simultaneous in the green frame, but not simultaneous in either the red or blue frames.

You may wish to also take a look here :Modern Tests of Relativity Have any of you actually worked through it and checked it? Yes, for the past several decades, maths and empirical experiments. He then in the next sections goes on to show that this is indeed the case; the distance `A-`B is different when measured from the embankment than it is as measured from the train.

Categories: EssayHelpForHire

Comments are closed.