[yor_on]

That they move 'together' means that you, if standing at any of those rods, would see the other one 'tick' the exact same as the rod-clock you're standing on, just like they did at Earth.

But think of this | one now, and imagine a light-corn bounce between its endpoints. When the light travels from the end, furthest away from its motion, it will have he* of a distance to travel to catch up to the foremost tip. In fact it will take too long time to make sense. The return time instead, bouncing back, meeting the rearward endpoint will be extremely quick.

How can that be?

I see the two rods moving together, but they no longer 'tick' the same? But if I teleport, being at rest with with them they will?

[yor_on]

In fact I'm not sure if this is the best example really, thinking of it. But it's correct in that if the rod | pointing that way, relative you, are moving at 95.5 c and are 186 000 miles long, the same length it takes a photon to travel in one second. Then you, having them beside you on Earth, would see them 'tick' one second per bounce.

But, when later, traveling at that speed the 'forward bounce' (in the direction of the overall motion) seen by us 'Earth still' relative it, suddenly takes 200 seconds, and that can't be right?

Can it?

so how the he* do I explain that?
I have to assume a length contraction, that's what I have to do..
But, what about the other rod then?

Well, remember that if you were standing on the | rod .. Both the _ rod and itself would 'tick' the same, and look the same as on Earth, as you were 'at rest' relative them, joining the 'system' so to speak. So building from that what would you expect?

Will that one also contract?
Or is it only the | that shrink?

And how much did that | rod shrink if so?
According to what I understand about 90 %.

(For the rod directed | it will take it 19.9750 seconds to travel with the rods motion to 'catch up' the overall motion. Bouncing back will take it 0.05 seconds getting a 'round-trip' of 20.025 seconds)

===

Also, remember that I said they didn't 'tick' in time, synchronized after starting to move relative us? But if that rod 'shrinks' then we should get a synchronization again, at both 'places', or positions in SpaceTime. That as you, when on the rods, won't notice their length contraction, instead you will find SpaceTime to be the one 'contracted'. As I understands it, that is.

[yor_on]

So can you object to it?

Well, one of the first postulates of light is that it will move at the same speed in a vacuum the 'frame of reference' notwithstanding.

So if I assume that I am at the 'top end' of that | watching the light bounce towards me, I will measure its speed to the exact 186 000 miles It should have, but of a weaker 'energy' as it would become red-shifted working its way towards me, as I imagine it

But, can you see my problem objecting?

I changed frame of reference doing it, didn't I?

[yor_on]

But when we look at the rod being parallel _ the question becomes another. We made that rod very long, didn't we? 186 000 miles. How the he* can the same light that, according to us on Earth, slow down and then speed up in the first rod, the | , in the other not care a iota about that the whole rod moves as it merrily bounce between the rods mirrors?

And that's a weird one alright

What we do know though is that if I was standing on any of those rods I would see them 'tick' in time, synchronized the same way they were on Earth. And if I do that I'm forced to assume that the light in that _ rod will find the mirrors even from my point of view standing on Earth.

So, would that too contract

[yor_on]

So why do I find it a bad example?

Well, consider yourself watching the light from Earth. Assuming that it have the same speed in all frames of reference you can't ever notice it 'speed up' or 'slow down'. All of this with light-clocks in 'reality', whatever that may be :)takes place in the 'mind-space' I discussed earlier. It's very imaginative and as far as I can see right too, but only from the 'mind-space' reality.

So what would you see?

Nothing at all.
 
(Ah, except from the blue and re-shift that is, if you could measure it somehow.)

That's why a time dilation only can be proven when coming back to your place of 'origin' aka Earth.

But the length contraction then?

Yep, that one you actually would see
Weird as it may be.

[yor_on]

And according to my reference only the rod | would show a length contraction?
Now, that one I'm having a hard time assimilating.

First of all, and lastly, why?

What one could assume is that all length contraction would be in the vector of its motion, a little like considering a fast ship breaking waves, with more speed the closer the waves. But assuming that you would first of all introduce the notion that 'Space' somehow had a 'field' that aligns against your velocity contracting? Which makes me rather confused as we now seems to speak of something 'existing' like a 'aether' maybe, with 'distance' behaving like inertia.


Anyone that can shine some light on that one?
I can't, I knew this actually but I'm afraid I've just accepted it.
There should be a reason.

As it destroys my lovely idea, at least forces me to reevaluate it if it is this way.

And when it comes to gravity wells, like planets. It's the room time geometry that will change your time relative 'the outside' not 'gravity' as a 'force'. Thought that some may take it as I treat gravity as a 'force' so I added this just to be sure you don't

[yor_on]

Well, let us consider a ring, like you throwing a pebble in the water, a sphere growing is even better. Now assume that we 'pump it up' at .99 c. Would it have a length contraction?
==

I think it would, as each point of it could be seen as accelerating away from a common center.
so that one wasn't that good.

It doesn't destroy the idea I have of distances, but it puts an awful lot of importance on motion it seems?
And I don't believe in motion

As long we're not talking bikes of course?

[yor_on]

A question. Would that mean that our 'arrow of time' might have a vector too?
Awwwhhh ...

And if it was a vector the _ rod (versus Earth) also would need to show a contraction of 90% in its 'thickness', shouldn't it?

[yor_on]

Well, I believe in the concept of motion when it comes to matter, more than I do with light at least But .. ?

[yor_on]

So let's change our point of view. We've been speaking of 'contractions' for quite some time, but how about 'expansion'? Why does it only take part in Space, and as I understand it outside the galaxies, not inside, so make that deep space

Does it have a relation, a vector too perhaps??
Or does it work as a sphere 'popping up' out there?

If contraction only works in the motions vector my 3-D points will have a hard time too I guess, depending on where they come to be size-wise. Then an idea of singular dimensions may make more sense, maybe?

[yor_on]

What's interesting with that idea is that we actually believe SpaceTime to add more of 'nothingness' into itself, and thereby growing our 'distances'. Anyone more than me having difficulties with that concept?

[yor_on]

We assume that SpaceTime is a place where 'stuff' only gets transformed. We don't lose anything, no leaks so to speak. But then we have singularities which have to take energy away from SpaceTime as the possible Hawking radiation can't be that quick. We also have the 'Expansion' which, if you believe in distances, must bring more energy into SpaceTimes fold, even if it will be in equilibrium. That means that we don't get an 'added energy' per area, rather that we keep the proportions 'Space' have intrinsically, that is if you believe in fields and quantum foam/fluidity whatever And I think I do believe in that.

[yor_on]

There is one way to resurrect my idea of 'everything' contracting, but it doesn't build on what we see happening, we have to go up in that mind-space again for that one. Imagine that sphere we discussed, I said that all points in it should contract as you could imagine them as all being a 'straight line from the center, right?

Well, in that mind-space we have one thing that seems sure, that no matter which way I turn that rocket I will meet this length contraction. So in a way I can say that space is isotropic, unchanging no matter my direction. Looked at that way space is contractible everywhere The only thing missing being my motion.

I agree, it's not that good is it? But we can at least assume it to be a sort of 'property' of space, when meeting the right ingredients, proper mass or motion.

[yor_on]

Okay, back to basics. Let's see, what made Einstein think of time dilation? Well as I understands it it was his insight that light 'propagates' with the same speed in a vacuum in all reference frames possible. And that in its turn falls back to how to define motion. We use uniform motion where it's not possible to define (following geodesics) we use uniform acceleration which in a black box becomes 'gravity' (One constant G) and then we have non-uniform acceleration that defines us as the ones moving.

The first one (uniform motion) makes it possible to define any of two objects 'A' and 'B' meeting each other in space as being the one moving, as we can't say who it is without using for example 'fix stars'. But on each of those objects Maxwells equations should be obeyed telling us that light will move with 'c' in a vacuum.

And if that is correct, at the same time as I can decide that 'A' moves with 100 000 miles /h, or Null miles, depending on my mood there have to be something compensating for that lights invariance. So what can we compensate it with? Time, right?

I could say that on my 'A' sending out a beam, instead of it going faster than light should be able too according to the experiments made, it has to do with time somehow. So, what is speed? A distance measured over time right? So finding that I send out a beam over a defined distance that takes a certain invariant time no matter how fast I'm moving as I send it away what can I blame it on? Assume that we decide that it's not the time, then we'll have to blame distance Like Lorentz did, although he knew that time would vary too he saw it as firstly as a mathematical notion, not applicable on reality. And it took him some time to accept Einsteins later ideas. Or we can blame it on time, or as Einstein did, both time and distance.

Well, that's how I understands it, maybe there is a better way of seeing it though?

[yor_on]

Going back to our expanding sphere, let's throw away motion for a while and test if we could see it as 'times and distances inertia'

Let's try it from 'distance' first. Assume that there is a inertia to distance, gotta love physics, and dreamers

Would that work?

[yor_on]

So how does the red and blue shift come to be? If you look at the question above you'll see that we have two alternatives when it comes to explaining why light don't act as a ball thrown from a speeding car contrasted to someone throwing it from the sidewalk. Light keeps the same speed in both cases.

And we have two possibilities to why it does so, a length contraction and a time dilation. Well as far as I can think of it for now? And considering that all speed is made of those two, distance and time, what can we translate them into when it comes to a wave?

A wave have its 'energy' expressed in its frequency. With a length contraction applied to a wave you will compress it in 'time' and so find it gaining 'energy'. all those jagged zigzag lines coming together as it is, somewhat like compressing a accordion. That's a blue-shift.

In an 'expansion' if a wave wanders into it the idea is that the wave gets 'stretched' and so less 'compressed'. You can see the same effects with objects moving from each other, if sending out light they will find each other waves being 'red shifted' as their motion 'works' against the direction light propagates. And the other way around, it becomes 'blue-shifted' as the objects move towards each other.
 

[yor_on]

And that is the real effect you will see when observing objects using light-clocks, that and a 'contraction'. And that's the mystery to it, and also I guess why Lorentz found his 'length contraction' as being somewhat more 'real', as it should be directly observable for a distant observer as well as inside.

The way to turn it around? How about light not moving

[yor_on]

That doesn't change anything when it comes to how light seems to behave, the rules that Einstein and Maxwell and Newton and Lorentz saw will still be here. But it makes for one more interpretation, as I think? Depending

So how to make an argument for that light can't move?

I think the first argument should be just what we observe, that light keeps it speed in any frame possible to observe it in, and from.

[yor_on]

To me that always have felt like a 'field', like something (a property) resting behind everything we see. And if that might be, then why don't we see the 'field'. But I think we do see it, even though we can't prove it. We call it a lot of things, a fluid or a foam, or gluons or virtual particles or perhaps even loops and strings, I think I can make that list pretty long. But what they all have together is that they are non-observables.

We can only 'see' them 'indirectly'. We can't 'observe' them like we do a billiard ball or even a 'atom'. But we are pretty sure they are needed. They are what we call the 'energy carriers', those remarkable 'thingies' that we believe to be responsible for exchanging 'energy'. As long as we discuss them as 'moving' we have a problem though, then we expect them to be able to 'pop in and out' of existence to influence all atoms there is, as well as space.

[yor_on]

But if they 'exist everywhere'?

Here, as well as in the deepest emptiest space, shouldn't they be looked at as a property instead? And if you look at that way, you're no longer bound. For a property there is no distance, the law of lights speed in a vacuum stops to exist, and there is no 'motion' as we think of it.