0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: timey on 10/02/2016 19:21:58 imperceptiblyIf the speed is a constant 3 mph, and the observer is relatively stationary, all the carriages will look the same length to the observer. If the train accelerates, there will be a variation length of the carriages, they will get ''shorter'' the faster the acceleration the more carriages going past at a faster rate.
imperceptibly
Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?
I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation.
. Changes in the gravitational field, change the 'rate' of time.
Quote from: timey on 10/02/2016 20:01:48. Changes in the gravitational field, change the 'rate' of time. Change the rate of time of what?
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 17:02:46I understood length contraction in the first place, a meaningless parlour trick, relative to the object, the object does not contract it just appears to contract to the observation. OK, now that we can agree in part, we should examine how we can determine whether or not the object actually shrinks as it appears to. One thing we should also agree upon Mr. Box, is all the evidence we have to consider this question comes to us through observation and mathematical constructs. You believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the object doesn't actually shrink, it only appears to shrink. What observational evidence or mathematical evidence do we have to support that conclusion?Bare in mind, I'm not attacking you with this question, I am only presenting you with a thought experiment for us to think about.
We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.
I think if the observer spun with an orbiting object there would be no contraction.
Change the rate of time of what?
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 21:38:54We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.I understand your point Mr. Box and that would be the logical assumption. But remember, reality is not always logical and we need to look for evidence other than just logical assumption.Leaving this question for a moment, how about time dilation. Can we agree that time dilation actually takes place? Taking into consideration that our GPS system must account for this factor to accurately map our earth and account for the time differences.
Not of what. Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)
Quote from: timey on 10/02/2016 19:21:58Surely the special relativity effects only apply to the accelerated reference frame?Timey, SR does not in any way address or describe any accelerated frame. SR is only about constant relative speed between observers. It is a good way of describing relativistic time dilation and length contraction "principles" but does not actually apply to any known real situation in the Universe.That is the reason that Einstein kept on working on and finally brought out GR as a way of applying the concepts that SR introduced to real world scenarios.
We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.i,e cars contract in length when they hit a wall fasti.e for something to contract the rear would have to be travelling faster than the front
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 21:38:54We have the evidence that if the actual object shrunk in length, that would be compression of the mass, it would then expand in height, applied force is needed for compression, space offers no resistance to motion.i,e cars contract in length when they hit a wall fasti.e for something to contract the rear would have to be travelling faster than the frontHere you are making the classic mistake of visualising the length contraction as something that matter might do within the space it occupies, therefore occupying less space.That is not the effect we observe or describe. It is the contraction of the spacetime itself. Matter just keeps occupying the same amount of space it always has. It appears to contract because the space it occupies appears to contract. Remember to focus on the word "Appears".It is always how something behaves relatively when viewed from a reference frame other than its own.
Yes! change of time of what?Answer the question please
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 08:36:01Change the rate of time of what?Not of what. Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 21:54:50Yes! change of time of what?Answer the question pleaseHang on I did answer the question.Quote from: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 21:49:38Quote from: Thebox on Today at 08:36:01Change the rate of time of what?Not of what. Change of rate of time. (See that character after the word time? That is a full stop.)
You have not read what Ethos asked.
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 22:00:53You have not read what Ethos asked.Thebox I am trying to directly answer your questions not everyone's.Is that not what you keep asking for?As far as anyone else's understanding if I address them I will do so by quoting them.
that is an incompleteness answer, I may have to quote Gobel. Are you sure the answer is not - a change in the rate of time of the caesium atom?and should time not say timing or synchronisation?
Quote from: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 22:06:38Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 22:00:53You have not read what Ethos asked.Thebox I am trying to directly answer your questions not everyone's.Is that not what you keep asking for?As far as anyone else's understanding if I address them I will do so by quoting them.Yes I understand, But Ethos asked me a question about an actual object and asked how we could disprove the actual object shrank, which I answered. You read it wrong and presumed I was saying an object shrunk .