0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Per SR y’=y
[Then, Ct’=y’=y=CtThen Ct’=Ct
The length of the light clock in frame K’ is Ct’, y’=Ct’.
Hi David,I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.Thanks,Butch
Looked at from either frame, the light path in the other frame appears longer because it is not perpendicular. Each account is consistent within itself, judging that one frame is not moving and that the other is moving, while the light paths in the moving one are not perpendicular. The two accounts do contradict each other though, so they cannot both be true, but this is ignored in SR because truth is not considered to be a scientific idea.
It is ignored in SR because there is no such thing as "moving" or "not moving". Objects move (or not) relative to one another: there is no universal frame of reference.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/01/2014 08:29:41It is ignored in SR because there is no such thing as "moving" or "not moving". Objects move (or not) relative to one another: there is no universal frame of reference. Which destroys the very mechansim by which things supposedly work. If you want to understand the contradictions, see http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?147499-Two-beefs-with-SR-%28special-relativity%29.
You do realize because of the extreme speed of light a light path would be as near as damn it vertical at the scales we are used to. No significant angular deflection would be observed. At relativistic speeds the time dilation and length contraction factors actually balance out all the elements of the system anyway. Gravity and momentum are connected implicitly.
Imagine you are moving at 10 miles an hour. The frequency of the gravity waves you would you encounter from the surrounding universe be much less than at relativistic speeds. You are then moving though the gravitational field at huge velocities.