0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why would a train on B experience any additional length contraction in the direction of motion of A'?
Quote from: David Cooper on 06/08/2016 21:43:44I will now provide a better description of how the length contraction must be applied to Train B as viewed from Frame A.Except that you didn't do this. Just show us the translations that you are using. Don't introduce some new object, just show us the work.
I will now provide a better description of how the length contraction must be applied to Train B as viewed from Frame A.
The length contraction on each square drawn on the train (see my previous post) should be exactly the same as for the square painted on the rocket co-moving with it, but they are prevented from taking up that shape by the rails.
The problem we have here, which Lorentz, Einstein and co. were apparently too lazy to explore (or at least to do so properly by forcing things to interface with Frame A's Euclidean metric), is simply that the length contraction acting north-south and west-east vectors are not compatible with the length contraction on the angled line which the vectors add up to.
Objects traveling at speeds very close to c can be considered to be approaching a Rindler horizon. So destruction of such objects would be similar to the destruction of objects due to the tidal forces near to small dense masses.
You should be able to see that I'm right without the numbers: the argument is more than clear enough.
Yet you do not want to take the time to go carefully through your example to show that your numbers work out.
I don't understand your attitude. I've told you exactly what to look at in post #30, but no, you can't be bothered to look.
Absolutely shocking that such big names could make such a fundamental error and for no one to spot it until now!
Quote from: David Cooper on 07/08/2016 23:46:11I don't understand your attitude. I've told you exactly what to look at in post #30, but no, you can't be bothered to look. Dude, you are either outright lying or you have no clue what is going on.
Let's see the actual functions you are using along with your actual numbers. Walk us through the calculations.
The only reasonable conclusion is that you are making a mistake. So walk through your example with actual numbers and calculations instead of fudging things with numbers you are cutting and pasting from other sources.
Dude, you are either outright lying or you have no clue what is going on.
QuoteLet's see the actual functions you are using along with your actual numbers. Walk us through the calculations.Do you know how to apply length contraction? Are you able to take a speed like 0.866c and calculate the time dilation and length contraction that is associated with it? If you understand relativity, this should be dead easy for you and you should be able to see that the numbers I use are correct.
Why would I need to cut and paste numbers when they're so ridiculously easy to compute?
I told you to draw a square tilted at about 26.6 degrees in Microsoft Paint (which is free with Windows) and to use the stretch function to reduce the height to 25%, then you'll see the same shape that I provided, and all you have to do is put the 26.6 degree rotation in to get the correct alignment for it. But no, you can't even do that. The truth of it is, you're working outside of your knowledge and pretending to understand a subject which you manifestly don't.