0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

That calculation is wrong because the observer in each frame knows that the other is moving (because the received clock pulses are out of sync) and therefore applies the necessary relativistic correction to the signals he receives, and calculates 300,000 km . Every subsequent step is therefore incorrect since it begins with an incorrect assumption. In short, you are assuming relativity is incorrect in order to prove that it is incorrect. All that is necessary to prove that it is correct is to state that each observer knows that the other has an identical clock.

How is light then constant seeing as B has been monitoring it for less local time than A?

Here's one I thought about reading this, its the confusion about how the speed of light is constant for all observers, and time dilation.1. Observer A is stood at point A and shines a packet of light to a far away point C2. Observer B is on a rocket ship traveling at speed to point B somewhere between point A and C3. The packet of light will be travelling at c to both observers4. But if observer B is having time dilation, travels to point B and back to point A, time will have passed slower for him than observer A but if light hasn't got to C by the time he gets back to point A it will arrive at C simultaneously for both observers 5. How is light then constant seeing as B has been monitoring it for less local time than A?

B stops at A..

How does each of them know that the light has reached C?

No, it was all with reference to A.Actually wiht more investigation I found that B was not an inertial frame of reference as it undergoes acceleration.. So I rephrased my question to.If B is travelling at constant velocity towards AWhen A calculated B is going to arrive at that point (without stopping) in 1 year he emits a light signal towards a reciever 1 light year away at point C.At the exact point B reaches A the reciever detects the light the time of which takes 1 year form A's point of reference, but obviously less time from B's point of reference.

If I considered the ladder paradox, would this mean that the distance between A and C appears smaller to B? So that B can calculate the speed of light to be constant.So would that mean that the faster you travel, the closer things appear to be to each other?

Is this why its hard to find a parking space?

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register].

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.