Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 106

Thread: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Oh... and if you were traveling near the speed of light.... everything around you would appear in your forward vision. You would see almost all 360 degrees directly in front of the ship.

    It would be very confusing to navigate that way.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169

    Talking oo err

    wow

    would that be a similar view to that i would get looking up from the event horizon of a black hole?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    12

    Event Horizon

    Quote Originally Posted by damian1727 View Post
    would that be a similar view to that i would get looking up from the event horizon of a black hole?
    Someone unfortunate enough to be just inside the event horizon of a black hole would see the universe looking perfectly normal. Hostile - lots of really bad radiation rushing inward - but otherwise normal. From the outside. the event horizon is a bizarre interface where in-falling material seems to get "stuck," slowly disintegrating until it can no longer be seen. From the point of view of an object falling in, there is no obvious difference between being on one side or the other (until said object attempts to exit the vicinity, of course).

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,880
    Quote Originally Posted by damian1727 View Post
    yup as wierd as it seems..... known as


    Lorentz transformation (?lör?ens ?tranz·f?r?m?·sh?n)
    (mathematics) Any linear transformation of euclidean four space which preserves the quadratic form q(x,y,z,t) = t2-x2-y2-z2.
    (relativity) Any of the family of mathematical transformations used in the special theory of relativity to relate the space and time variables of different Lorentz frames.

    http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...s/Lorentz.html

    Lorentz is also famed for his work on the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, which is a contraction in the length of an object at relativistic speeds. Lorentz transformations, which he introduced in 1904, form the basis of Einstein's special theory of relativity. They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light.

    ?

    as i understand it the spaceship gets shorter !!:surprised

    jets get a bit (tiny bit) shorter when going fast..
    That's his biography, not the relevant math. Hang on, I'll look it up.

    Ok. after plowing through the Wiki SR article, to the observer on the starship the distances to destinations appear to shrink, because the observer's clocks are running slow. It is as if the star in front of the ship, and the intervening space in front of the star (and the space behind the star), was all moving toward the ship at a high fraction of fthe speed of alight and was length contracted. Neat idea.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2007-Jun-12 at 02:26 PM. Reason: agree; typo

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169

    Smile

    *scratches head*

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169
    where as 4 the observer space does not contract but the ship does !! lol



    my theory is that it takes particals a bit longer to work out where they are in relation to everything when moving fast or in large numbers so they have to slow down a bit

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,880

    ?

    Quote Originally Posted by damian1727 View Post
    where as 4 the observer space does not contract but the ship does !! lol



    my theory is that it takes particals a bit longer to work out where they are in relation to everything when moving fast or in large numbers so they have to slow down a bit
    For which observer?

    To the external observer, the starship is length contracted. To the observer on the starship, the starship is not length contracted, because his meter stick is also length contracted in the direction of motion just enough so that when he measures the length of the starship in the direction of motion, it has not changed. The interesting things occur as he travels to the destination star in what to him is a very short time, because his clocks are running slow.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2007-Jun-12 at 02:35 PM. Reason: More questions

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,650
    Let's do the time warp again...

    I have been trying - for years now - to determine what would happen if the 'Ether' is truly a function of mass, not a change in clock speed. One of the results is that light would travel faster in inter galactic space. But how much faster, and what controls the velocity? I don't have good answers, but the fact that greater gravitational lensing is observed that is predicted (and interpreted as a dark matter effect) could also be a 'no matter' effect -- a slightly greater velocity of light.
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    I would tend to think that there is no limit to the speed of light with nothing to restrict it. But when time is a factor, it becomes a line.

    That sounds confusing.

    If a photon was going its speed in the universe unhindered, and experienced a "nothingness" it would instantly be at the "other side".

    You can't therefore guage its speed.

    I think gravity, and time work the same way.

    That being... if you take out everything (anything) in between.. the effect is right there.

    If there is nothing between the light source and the destination, the distance in null.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Without editing my previous statement, I want to say when I speak of gravity... I mean mass.

    With No mass of any kind... and no electric charge, there can be no force. And therefore no space...which leads to no time.

    There would be nothing to traverse.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,208
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    Without editing my previous statement, I want to say when I speak of gravity... I mean mass.
    When you say mass, do you mean energy? In GR, it's energy that causes the warping of space-time. The amount of energy in a given amount of mass can be found by using E = mc2.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    When you say mass, do you mean energy? In GR, it's energy that causes the warping of space-time. The amount of energy in a given amount of mass can be found by using E = mc2.
    I'm not sure. Don't we have energetic particals that have no mass?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    If a photon was going its speed in the universe unhindered, and experienced a "nothingness" it would instantly be at the "other side".

    You can't therefore guage its speed.
    .

    is that not the way it is ? ie if time stops at c then the photon is instantly at the other side ?

    i guess we live in a fractured fallen shadow of the real world where light lives

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by damian1727 View Post
    is that not the way it is ? ie if time stops at c then the photon is instantly at the other side ?

    i guess we live in a fractured fallen shadow of the real world where light lives

    My best guess would be "yes".

    If we lived at light-speed, we would live all of our entire life at one instant.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    This is where the movie "Contact" had it completely backward.

    Yes.. they used "wormholes' but the same principal was in effect. (I think)
    No, it's not in effect. The wormhole idea was developed for Sagan by Kip Thorne (I think that's who is credited). The idea is a sort of a bridge between two points of spacetime.
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    If we lived at light-speed, we would live all of our entire life at one instant.
    The question is, whose instant?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    169

    Question

    lol if there is no time at c then there can only be one instance!!!

    mine!!!

    one love....

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2
    As to seeing the ship frozen in time... This is hard to grasp for the following reasons:

    The ship starts out a minimum set distance from earth in space. Lets just say this point provides an instantaneous image for our viewing pleasure.

    At this motionless state, it is emitting a constant light image of the craft which is traveling at roughly 300,000 km/s. The coordinates of the ship is the source point for all the light providing this image.

    The ship kicks into light speed, ignoring acceleration time.

    One second later, the ship is 300,000km away, and the object that was providing the image is no longer present in the same spot.

    The light once provided by the image must reach us and then change relative to the ship's motion. How can the ship appear frozen in time if it is no longer present?

    If the ship away from us at 300,000 km/s and light moves toward us at 300,000 km/s, we should experience a time dialation, but we will still see the object receeding.

    Consider a fighter plane moving away at 500 m/s and firing missiles aft at 500m/s every one second, just as the ship/light traveling at indentical speeds in opposite directions.

    1s - 1st missile position 500m
    2s - 1st missile position on target, 2nd missile postion 1000m
    3s - 2nd missile position 500m, 3rd missile postion 1500m
    4s - 2nd missile position on target, 3rd 1000 m, 4th 2000 m

    1X ->

    2X- ->

    3X - ->

    4X- - ->

    5X - - ->

    Missiles arrive every 2 seconds even though they were fired every one second.

    Now given an infinite number of frames of course with actual light and ship, but would this not be the way it happens? Wouldn't we see the light of ship in 1/2 time elapsed and not frozen?

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2
    This is the same reason I don't understand the description of the event horizon of a black hole. Sure, the light would be suspended there, but since it is trapped and frozen, the light can't reach our eyes. As to the slow-moving light infinitely escaping the point just before the event horizon, it is also receeding and diminishing infinitely. The object gets trashed and compacted but leaves it's signature behind in the event horizon. The output image has to get fractionally reduced in brightness and clarity forever until it is undetectable and negligible. Nothing can duplicate energy from nothing, and recreating an image from a non-existant object violates multiple laws of physics.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    4 years for someone on earth. Travelling at c, the ship would experience no time for the trip (this assumes there is no acceleration or deceleration time, getting to and stopping from c.)
    And even when you state it in its most extreme case you cannot see that it is PURE Sci-Fi

    Time does NOT stop just because something is traveling at "c"

    Everything is 'Relative', including a single photon traveling at "c".

    Even though that single photon has 0 velocity, in its own frame, for every 186,000 miles it travels, 1 second of Time passes.

    And this whole thing shows the absolute falicy in defining light in 'its own reference frame' as having 0 velocity, because that winds up defining the whole path of light from its source to its sink as "Instantaneous", which is "Impossible", even in its own frame!

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    Even though that single photon has 0 velocity, in its own frame, for every 186,000 miles it travels, 1 second of Time passes.
    But that is from an observer's perspective. Not the photon's.

    For the photon (or ship) the trip was instantaneous.

    It wouldn't know that 1 second has passed (in a 186,000 mile trip) until it arrived and found out related to the welcoming party.

    Imagine instead of a ship...a magical doorway. You walk through and are instantly somewhere else across the solar system where your twin is waiting.

    For you.... but not for your twin. They are older than you are when you get there.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by EvilEye View Post
    But that is from an observer's perspective. Not the photon's.

    For the photon (or ship) the trip was instantaneous.

    It wouldn't know that 1 second has passed (in a 186,000 mile trip) until it arrived and found out related to the welcoming party.

    Imagine instead of a ship...a magical doorway. You walk through and are instantly somewhere else across the solar system where your twin is waiting.

    For you.... but not for your twin. They are older than you are when you get there.
    SO, how do they/you justify that light from differing distant sources, even in the frame of the light paths taken, straight line if no massive body curves it, goes from the source to us "Instananeously"?

    In other words, the light that is emitted from say Alpha Centauri gets here instantaneously just like the light from a Quasar 13 billion light Yr's away?

    Sitting in my chair typing this, I am 'at rest'/0 velocity in numerous frames. 0 velocity in the earths rotation frame, 0 velocity as earth is traveling around the sun, 0 velocity as our solar system is traveling around the Milky way, BUT Time goes by one second at a time.

    I am certainly NOT arriving at any distance in any of those frames instantly, and time is always relative to what reference frame you are measuring it against...1 day for me to go 1 revolution around as the earth rotates in that frame, even though I have 0 velocity sitting in my chair...1 year for earth to go around the sun,,ETC ETC.

    Each individual photon is no different than me in my chair.

    Even in the frame of light traveling at "c", Instantaneous travel from point A to point B at any distance is Impossible!!!

    Your "Magic Door" is exactly the right terminology..."Magic".

    It is equivilent to the analogy of a 'worm hole' bending space to such a degree that two points are in the same place at the same time.
    Last edited by RussT; 2007-Aug-23 at 01:54 AM.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    138
    As I see it, light speed is not the fasted speed ever. Given the fact that there are partial that already travel faster then speed of light. To travel faster then light, special methods are needed.

    I know this sounds bit loose, but I am figuring out how to say it so it can be understand properly.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by jonfr
    Given the fact that there are partial that already travel faster then speed of light.

    I am not aware of any such 'fact'.

    What is a 'partial'?

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    11,545
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT View Post
    I am not aware of any such 'fact'.

    What is a 'partial'?
    Particle, surely, but the theoretical particles that go faster than light (tachyons ?) aren't a fact, I don't think. "Despite a recent raft of reports in the media..."

  25. #55
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    Even in the frame of light traveling at "c", Instantaneous travel from point A to point B at any distance is Impossible!!!
    Actually, it's important to note that in special relativity, a reference frame moving at the speed of light relative to another reference frame is not actually valid. There just is no such thing. Yes, you can sort of bend the rules and say, "well, if this were a valid reference frame, then time would stand still", but that's a big "if". There is no such thing as the rest frame of a photon. No matter what valid reference frame you choose in relativity, light always moves relative to that frame at the same speed, c. So it's actually meaningless to talk about what a clock might measure if it were travelling along in the rest frame of a photon, because it's not physically possible for a clock of any sort to do so. So, you're right here, I think (in that it doesn't make sense to talk about how a photon behaves in its "rest frame"), but not quite for the reasons that you think you are.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Actually, it's important to note that in special relativity, a reference frame moving at the speed of light relative to another reference frame is not actually valid. There just is no such thing. Yes, you can sort of bend the rules and say, "well, if this were a valid reference frame, then time would stand still", but that's a big "if". There is no such thing as the rest frame of a photon. No matter what valid reference frame you choose in relativity, light always moves relative to that frame at the same speed, c. So it's actually meaningless to talk about what a clock might measure if it were travelling along in the rest frame of a photon, because it's not physically possible for a clock of any sort to do so. So, you're right here, I think (in that it doesn't make sense to talk about how a photon behaves in its "rest frame"), but not quite for the reasons that you think you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    SO, how do they/you justify that light from differing distant sources, even in the frame of the light paths taken, straight line if no massive body curves it, goes from the source to us "Instananeously"?

    In other words, the light that is emitted from say Alpha Centauri gets here instantaneously just like the light from a Quasar 13 billion light Yr's away?
    So Grey, how have you been able to justify or ignore this?

  27. #57
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,174
    Quote Originally Posted by RussT
    So Grey, how have you been able to justify or ignore this?
    Because it's not true. There is no valid relativistic reference frame in which light gets from any point to any other point instantaneously. In every valid reference frame, light (when travelling through a vacuum) travels at the same finite speed, and so there will be a measurable amount of time between its emission and absorption.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Because it's not true. There is no valid relativistic reference frame in which light gets from any point to any other point instantaneously. In every valid reference frame, light (when travelling through a vacuum) travels at the same finite speed, and so there will be a measurable amount of time between its emission and absorption.
    But NOT measurable by the photon's perspective. It is instantaneous for the photon.. not for the person measuring it.

    I still can't get pastthe fact that time stops at the speed of light. And if c is c, then c is c, and for the photon the trip is instant. It has not aged.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    5

    Natural coincidence in Special Relativity

    Special Relativity/The interpretation of special relativity
    From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
    < Special Relativity
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Special Relativity

    [edit] Geometrical interpretation

    [edit] Natural mathematics, Einstein's "practical geometry" and the Ryskamp objection of "natural" coincidence
    Note that the metrical interpretation of the 1905 paper disguises, but does not avoid, the "natural" coincidence of points M' and M ("fallt zwar...zusammen") which Einstein, following the program of natural mathematics which he had adopted from Poincare's SCIENCE AND HYPOTHESIS (1902), put in the train experiment in his book RELATIVITY (1916). This work receives little attention from scholars because it is regarded as a popularization. However, Einstein valued it highly and recently it has been claimed as the clearest exposition of the relativity of simultaneity--of "practical geometry," which was Einstein's term for natural mathematics.


    Previously, Einstein's devotion to "practical geometry" was regarded as problematic in relation to relativity, because it could not be seen precisely where it operated in the mechanics of special relativity. John Ryskamp's contribution was to explicate this operation, in the course of which he drew a fundamental objection. Although RELATIVITY had been around for upwards of ninety years, he was the first commentator to draw attention to "natural" coincidence as THE application par excellence of "practical geometry," in "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085. See also the Discussion section for this issue. This paper also lodged a "natural" coincidence objection against many fundamental theories, and claimed that it invalidates the Pythagorean theorem--although to date he has not indicated where "natural" coincidence is lodged in any given proof of the Pythagorean theorem.


    Here is the crucial passage from the paper (pp. 13-14):





    Consider this passage from Lawson’s accurate translation of Einstein’s Relativity:


    Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative. When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to be embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length AB of the embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M1 be the mid-point of the distance AB on the traveling train. Just when the flashes (as judged from the embankment) of lightning occur, this point M1 naturally coincides with the point M but it moves…with the velocity…of the train.


    This passage is by now so familiar that we think there can be nothing new to be seen in it. But there is: it is the term, “naturally coincides.” This term (“fällt zwar…zusammen” in the German) leaps out at us because we are looking at it with twenty-first century eyes, not twentieth-century eyes; indeed, perhaps the most difficult cultural task now before us is simply to realize that we are not living in the twentieth century.


    “Natural” coincidence is otherwise known as a spacetime point. Einstein has already spent twenty-odd pages of this very brief book laying out the assumptions which underlie the train experiment. He is very careful about being consistent with them, and he is a devoted and very strict Euclidean. But Einstein was not, it appears, quite careful enough. We know that he is assuming, along with Euclid, that the definition of the coincidence of two points is a point. However, we have never gotten (and never get, in any of Einstein’s writings) a definition of a “natural” coincidence of two points. This alone prevents us from going on and this argument, which defined the twentieth century, abruptly ends. We also have a problem if we try to resolve the issue ourselves. If we simply drop the term “naturally” we run into a situation in which Einstein has told us to assume two Cartesian coordinate systems, but now leaves us with one, since, following from the definition of the coincidence of two points, if two parallel coordinate systems coincide at one point, they coincide at all points and are one coordinate system, not two. We have been led to a contradiction.





    Ryskamp's idea that the presence of "natural" coincidence disproves the theory, is new among the many lodged against special relativity over the decades. Remarkably, and unlike other objections, it disputes NONE of the hypotheses, assumptions or principles of special relativity--the way critics of relativity previously proceeded. This is because, in Ryskamp's view, natural mathematics imports ideas into arguments which have no logical relation to any part of the argument: according to the point of view of natural mathematics, this must be done. At the same time, if it is recognized that that is what is going on in any given natural mathematics argument, it leads us to wonder where this importation has occurred.


    Ryskamp's accomplishment seems to be, to have definitively located such an importation into relativity. According to natural mathematicians, this is no great accomplishment, because such importations must occur. However, it is mortifying for advocates of relativity who feel relativity has been proved, because Ryskamp's objection is, if an accurate description of what is going on in the relativistic argument, manifestly and incontestably a disproof of relativity. According to natural mathematics itself, there are no grounds on which to contest it, which makes it the most alarming of all comments on relativity.


    The physics community has found it extremely difficult to deal with the Ryskamp objection, apparently because physicists themselves have a natural mathematics point of view. They are now trying to disentangle themselves from this point of view, but it is proving to be a monumental task due to the mountainous physics terminology built on the foundation of "natural" coincidence. It is not surprising, then, that the objection has not yet been overcome by any commentator, no matter how high up in the physics hierarchy. At the very least, the objection has had two consequences: first, it anchors Einstein firmly within the natural mathematics polemic. Second, it clarifies other objections which, while not on point, are now evaluated as more or less unfocussed warnings that there may be something wrong with the geometry of special relativity. As the new mathematics historiography proceeds, more embarrassing material on the terms of natural mathematics is being revealed: it can now hardly be said to be a point of view; it is more akin to a religion or a cult. No scientist wants to be seen as partaking of any such doctrine.


    Among the other contentions of Ryskamp's paper, he claims that Einstein, as a devotee of natural mathematics, could NOT have sought, in formulating relativity, to make relativity internally consistent, because it is the position of natural mathematics that arguments with a program of internal consistency lead invariably to paradox. While commentators had long noted problematic aspects of Einstein's argumentation, the universal approach to relativity was that Einstein had at least intended to make it internally consistent. Ryskamp contends that this was never the case, which if true would mean that an entirely different approach has to be taken to relativity. Indeed, it may be that Einstein's 1921 lecture, "Geometry and Experience," in which he used the phrase "practical geometry," constitutes Einstein's summary of the degree of refinement to which he was able, in RELATIVITY (1916), to bring his expression of natural mathematics.


    Approaching relativity as an argument which was never intended to be internally consistent--an eye-opening approach, to say the least--and identifying "natural" coincidence by applying that approach, emerges from a recent trend in the historiography of physics: to examine a facet of Einstein's work which has not traditionally been examined in isolation--his rhetorical approach. Historians of physics have recently become much more sensitive to Einstein as a textual architect--an "artful" writer, as one commentator puts it--and the role this may play in evaluating the logic of special relativity. This would seem to be in order: if relativity was never intended to be internally consistent, then unification is a misdirected project based on a faulty understanding of relativity.


    This approach is at the heart of two recent works: Don Howard and John Stachel, eds., EINSTEIN: THE FORMATIVE YEARS (2000) and Thomas Ryckman, THE REIGN OF RELATIVITY (2005). The approach is an attempt to break out of an apparent dead end in quantum electrodynamics by looking to see if new insights of a synthetic nature could be gleaned from the historical record. As Ryckman points out, terms coined decades ago are still used even by advanced physicists in order to frame and present physics research--without any consideration that such terms may be themselves problematic or incorporate problematic notions in relativity.


    A recent phenomenon, historical perspective is finally being brought to bear on the early career of relativity. Ryskamp's own approach is novel and entirely unexpected: through the history of set theory. The result is that readers may now approach Einstein's work with the idea that it may need to be regarded as dated, as an historical anachronism addressed to a past audience which shared Einstein's general intellectual approach--closer, argument for argument, to Newton than to contemporary understanding. At the very least, the Ryskamp objection is waving a big red flag of caution.

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/The_interpretation_of_special_relativity"

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    Because it's not true. There is no valid relativistic reference frame in which light gets from any point to any other point instantaneously. In every valid reference frame, light (when travelling through a vacuum) travels at the same finite speed, and so there will be a measurable amount of time between its emission and absorption.
    And yet Tensor said...
    http://www.bautforum.com/861168-post3.html
    [4 years for someone on earth. Travelling at c, the ship would experience no time for the trip (this assumes there is no acceleration or deceleration time, getting to and stopping from c.)]

    And this 0 time for the astronauts would be true according to SR, regardless of how far (Alpha Centauri or the Quasar 13 billion Ly's away) the 'other star' they would be traveling to was away

    Those "Counter Intuitive"..."That's relativity for ya'" have been trying to tell you something all along

    SO, when I asked how you 'justify' or 'ignore' this...you chose 'Ignore'

    For the Frozen Time scenario, you questioned that with a big "IF", BUT for the instantaneous part, you did choose 'ignore' by just defining the frame as 'invalid', be defining photons in their own frame as 'having no rest frame'...[There is no such thing as the rest frame of a photon.].

    BUT, each individual photon is at rest, just sitting there, at 0 velocity, traveling at "c", just as I am sitting here in my chair typing this, at 0 velocity in numerous reference frames.

    NOW, how do I determine anything from my 0 velocity 'rest frame'?

    Everything coming to my "Now" is delayed. so to determine anything that is not right in front of my senses, eyes, ears, we have a thing called Time which involves measuring distance. So, the first thing we do to determine time, is go to the reference frame of the rotating earth.

    We have 24 hours for one rotation of the earth which gives us our standard for Time.

    SO, I cannot Measure anything "REAL" from my 0 velocity 'rest frame'. I MUST go to whatever reference frame I wish to measure, and determine 'what is really happening there', to obtain my sense of 'reality'

    To obtain my sense of reality for what a year is, I must measure from my 'rest frame', how long it takes for earth to go around the sun...in other words, we are always using the 'other frame' for our sense of what is real.

    When Einstein did his 'thought experiments', by defining photons as 'having no rest frame', and using SCI-FI spaceships traveling at near "c", and all the way to "c", he started using the 0 velocity 'rest frame' to determine reality. And THEN the 'time dilation', Lorentz contraction, etc, just compensates to make 'that reality' mathematically consistent.
    Last edited by RussT; 2007-Aug-26 at 12:40 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Episode 44: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2008-Jul-16, 10:46 PM
  2. Podcast: Einstein's Theory of General Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-10, 06:31 PM
  3. Episode 9: Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity
    By bsobotik in forum Astronomy Cast
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-May-20, 09:44 PM
  4. Podcast: Einstein's Theory of Relativity
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2006-Nov-13, 07:48 PM
  5. Special Relativity: From Einstein to Strings
    By Normandy6644 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Mar-01, 10:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •