0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

(x-)=(x+)=y_{t}

I didn't read it in detail, but is this thread a variation on the twins paradox?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Consider a space ship traveling from Earth to the nearest star system: a distance d = 4 light years away, at a speed v = 0.8c (i.e., 80 percent of the speed of light).(To make the numbers easy, the ship is assumed to attain full speed immediately upon departure-even though it would actually take close to a year accelerating at 1 g to get up to speed.)The parties will observe the situation as follows:[14][15]The Earth-based mission control reasons about the journey this way: the round trip will take t = 2d/v = 10 years in Earth time (i.e. everybody on Earth will be 10 years older when the ship returns). The amount of time as measured on the ship's clocks and the aging of the travelers during their trip will be reduced by the factor {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}} \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}, the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor. In this case ε = 0.6 and the travelers will have aged only 0.6 × 10 = 6 years when they return.The ship's crew members also calculate the particulars of their trip from their perspective. They know that the distant star system and the Earth are moving relative to the ship at speed v during the trip. In their rest frame the distance between the Earth and the star system is εd = 0.6d = 2.4 light years (length contraction), for both the outward and return journeys. Each half of the journey takes 2.4/v = 3 years, and the round trip takes 2 × 3 = 6 years. Their calculations show that they will arrive home having aged 6 years. The travelers' final calculation is in complete agreement with the calculations of those on Earth, though they experience the trip quite differently from those who stay at home.If twins are born on the day the ship leaves, and one goes on the journey while the other stays on Earth, they will meet again when the traveler is 6 years old and the stay-at-home twin is 10 years old. The calculation illustrates the usage of the phenomenon of length contraction and the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation to describe and calculate consequences and predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity.

Consider a space ship travelling from Earth to the nearest star system: a distance d = 4 light years away,

The Earth-based mission control reasons about the journey this way: the round trip will take t = 2d/v = 10 years in Earth time (i.e. everybody on Earth will be 10 years older when the ship returns). The amount of time as measured on the ship's clocks and the aging of the travelers during their trip will be reduced by the factor {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}} \scriptstyle {\epsilon ={\sqrt {1-v^{2}/c^{2}}}}, the reciprocal of the Lorentz factor. In this case ε = 0.6 and the travelers will have aged only 0.6 × 10 = 6 years when they return.

BUT there is no actual dilation of time.

Quote from: Thebox on 28/08/2017 17:44:59BUT there is no actual dilation of time. Every experiment that has looked for it has found it.Time dilation is real.If your opinion doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

While Lorentz and Einstein would like you to believe that all that matters is the ticking of the clock and the length contraction of the light clock on board the spaceship, the light outside the spaceship continues as per normal . If I make the light clock bigger, i.e 4 light years between ticks. Both the star system and Earth ignoring any radius variation would have synchronised ticks outside of the spaceship . So ''your'' spaceship and clock are within my time measurement and not a part of the measurement.

Quote from: Thebox on 28/08/2017 17:50:07While Lorentz and Einstein would like you to believe that all that matters is the ticking of the clock and the length contraction of the light clock on board the spaceship, the light outside the spaceship continues as per normal . If I make the light clock bigger, i.e 4 light years between ticks. Both the star system and Earth ignoring any radius variation would have synchronised ticks outside of the spaceship . So ''your'' spaceship and clock are within my time measurement and not a part of the measurement. The earth and the star are assumed to be the same frame.The earth twin edith and the anaut twin alice have synchronized clocks even though alice is moving faster. Synchronization does not determine aging, speed does. The Alice clock runs slower and that decides who is younger.If you used some type of standard space-time drawings, with time and space scales, your examples would be easier to understand.

@Thebox Stop winding up other members. You should know better.

THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on the direction “in space” is in itself improbable. 1 In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school. Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise. 2 Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been removed. If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we havew = c - v.The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. 3 But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage—a result contradictory to the principle of relativity. 4 In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity. The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course. The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optical phenomena connected with moving bodies show that experience in this domain leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence. Prominent theoretical physicists were therefore more inclined to reject the principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found which were contradictory to this principle. 5 At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the special theory of relativity.

However, the relative timing of light travelling from each observer to the other observer remains synchronous. The time it takes light to travel from themselves to the observer in motion is the same time it takes for the light from the observer in motion to reach the relative stationary observer showing both observers clocks are inaccurate and faulty.

It is quite clear that I have learnt quite a bit of science, ''you'' have helped me to learn over the years.

I do not understand why though as science minded people, you do not want to discuss some ''real'' science.

I am not difficult to talk to, my notions involve mainstream.

But if anyone can tell me how am I as a science minded person suppose to ignore the truth, I would like to hear it?

My notion are observations of the Universe, they are not made up things , they are possibilities. Why do so many readers of my posts ''fear'' engaging in the discussion of the notions?

No answer is the validation of the truth, it means you are at a loss for an answer which means you have no disagreement in my notions which by silence means agreement.

If a spaceship travels at 0.5c for 8 light year, the astronaut experiences 8 light year. The person on earth observing also experiences 8 light year and can even predict this before the journey starts.

No length contraction see....no time dilation see....just some really incomplete thoughts by science.

Quote from: Thebox on 27/08/2017 15:07:38However, the relative timing of light travelling from each observer to the other observer remains synchronous. The time it takes light to travel from themselves to the observer in motion is the same time it takes for the light from the observer in motion to reach the relative stationary observer showing both observers clocks are inaccurate and faulty.You can assert that as much as you like, but it won't make it true.Quote from: Thebox on 28/08/2017 15:21:42It is quite clear that I have learnt quite a bit of science, ''you'' have helped me to learn over the years.All you have learned is to put your fake science into more scientific-sounding language. You steadfastly refuse to learn any actual science.QuoteI do not understand why though as science minded people, you do not want to discuss some ''real'' science.Your idea of "real science" is sticking with half-baked ideas which are riddled with basic errors while denying that the errors are there.QuoteI am not difficult to talk to, my notions involve mainstream.The problem you have is that you can't see your errors no matter how clearly they're pointed out to you, which makes talking to you a rather unrewarding.QuoteBut if anyone can tell me how am I as a science minded person suppose to ignore the truth, I would like to hear it?Why would they bother when you ignore any proof that's set before you.QuoteMy notion are observations of the Universe, they are not made up things , they are possibilities. Why do so many readers of my posts ''fear'' engaging in the discussion of the notions?The only thing people fear is that they will waste a valuable chunk of their life holding yet another pointless conversation with you over many pages.QuoteNo answer is the validation of the truth, it means you are at a loss for an answer which means you have no disagreement in my notions which by silence means agreement.The only thing they're at a loss for an answer to is how you can fail to see things that are put in front of your eyes.QuoteIf a spaceship travels at 0.5c for 8 light year, the astronaut experiences 8 light year. The person on earth observing also experiences 8 light year and can even predict this before the journey starts.Do you realise that a lightyear is a distance and not a time?QuoteNo length contraction see....no time dilation see....just some really incomplete thoughts by science.The incompleteness is in your thinking. Here's an illustration of why moving clocks run slow and why there must be length contraction if perpendicular co-moving clocks are to tick in sync:-http://www.magicschoolbook.com/science/Lorentz.htm