I fully agree with everything you just said, like I said I am in no way confused about GR time dilation.
I never said that GR time dilation was symmetrical.
I said it is not relevant, not what I am addressing in the thought experiment.
I still think it can create a paradoxical situations if the speed of light is measured with a GR time dilation created by acceleration/deceleration sourced G-force since that effects the object measuring velocity only and not the space in general for all objects as a gravity field does.
But that is not a paradox with time, but with the speed of light which is fully paradoxical and unresolvable and not even attempted to be explained in all situations anyway.
I have no problem with GR time dilation at all, to be clear here are the parts of Relativity I have trouble with:
The consistency of the speed of light relative to all observers however they are moving, experiencing different absolute time rates or are length contracted.
SR’s paradoxical time dilation for 2 objects inhabiting different inertial frames.
And SR’s contraction of length being mutual and symmetrical between 2 different inertial frames which is by definition paradoxical also.
I have no problem with a contraction of length or perhaps even all physical dimensions in a sufficient gravity field or acceleration as that is not symmetrical.
I am unsure if GR claims this, but I would expect it to be found true.
I also have no problems with length contraction and time dilation from an object moving through aether that is entrained by a more massive object with a relative state of motion. This might imply (but not demand) that an object that is unable to drag aether with it might undergo constant inertial like drag. I have heard that particle accelerators show precisely this effect despite particles moving through a vacuum.
Previously you appeared to indicate that if 2 parties approach each other, both will see the others clock run faster than theirs with a constant closing velocity. (and not just an illusory effect of closing distances)
Maybe I miss-read what you typed, maybe you misspoke.
Either way if you aren’t saying that now, then that was a pointless diversion that we can close the book on.
And please stop bringing GR into this, see the confusion it causes?
Also if you rely on GR for the ‘real’ time dilation effect if you hold that SR’s effect is partly illusory or always symmetrical, then the classic twin paradox with a much younger twin returning only works if she underwent lengthy and significant G-forces that would have killed her, but if she accelerates very quickly (and even more lethally) she would return having experienced almost the same amount of time as her earth bound twin since the duration of the GR effect period by all accounts was too brief to change much.
Honestly, this is the last post I will respond to that goes on about GR’s time dilation caused by acceleration or gravity.
It isn’t the subject under discussion, because it is logically consistent and paradox free, and asymmetrical (between observers), all the things good time dilation must be
No they don’t, there is a GR based time dilation from the G-forces, the G-force is almost constantly present and this slows time.
No, because I do not think that it makes sense even with regard to what SR predicts, and because I am disinterested in studying it.
But think what you want, but let’s stick to thought experiments and logic.
Which we are not discussing, I thought you were taking SR at the time.
As I said, let’s stop the GR nonsense, it only serves one purpose and that is to confuse things.
So provided that isn’t your goal I trust you will stop bringing it up.
Yes, acceleration/deceleration is a change in velocity. And what we term it depends on our point of view. Acceleration and deceleration are different perspectives of the same thing.
Agreed, counter-intuitive and generally accelerating toward while moving away would be termed deceleration from your perspective unless you are envisioning something I can’t fathom.
If you don’t want to talk about GR then you need to avoid thought experiments involving acceleration or gravity. Everything MUST be moving in a straight line at constant velocity. No exceptions.
mythoughts, I’m speaking (well, typing :p) as someone who also has ADHD (officially diagnosed at age 28). I want to just point out an excellent example of how your writing can be very difficult to understand (bolding mine):
You say two exactly opposite statements, only separated by a single sentence! One of the coping strategies for ADHD that can really help is to write out your post, go and do something else (which we know can be for all of a minute or so ;)), then re-read your post before you submit it. Read it over to see if it’s making sense, if you contradict yourself, if you end up rambling, and so on.
Very sorry, I find that proof reading in the compose view very awkward due the the smaller box size, quote tags and squiggly red lines under words that my browser may not realize are valid.
So I try to proof read after posting, but there is a 5 minute time window for editing and I don’t always make it, that time I didn’t get it through in time.
I have for the past several posts intended to click preview post, but muscle memory and force of habit gets the blame because I still click submit reply button instead.
I meant to say:
BUT it DOES matter if it makes sense or not!
And I was not suggesting that making sense (or not) made matter.
As for the first line where I said the opposite (which is your real issue), I was repeating a line that the other poster said that I wanted to emphasize for it’s obvious wrongness. I was in (or at least feigning) a state of disbelief through repetition of an absurd statement so the poster hears back what they just said and is forced to recognize what nonsense just came out of their mouth.
I should have put “quotes around it”.
Sorry, hey I have ADD, no H. You lucky bastard being all (hyper)active
SR still applies, but the observers are no longer inertial, so we cannot treat them as being inertial. Of course when the curved path is close to a straight line such that we can approximate it well as a straight line (in particular the sum of the absolute values of any rotations must be small) then the deviation from an inertial observer will be slight. However you have been specifically talking about circular paths and it is fairly obvious that a circular path cannot be approximated as a straight line (it can be approximated as a sequence of straight lines, but that is not the same).
The transverse Doppler effect apply when the light received is seen to be at 90 degrees relative to the direction of motion of the source when it was emitted. In the circle example, an observer at the centre of the circle always sees the light emitted by the observers travelling around the circle to be at 90 degrees relative to their motion so he would conclude the slowing of the clocks of those observers is purely due to time dilation rather than any effect due to delay in the signal. For observers travelling 180 degrees out of phase around the circle will never receive light that was emitted at 90 degrees relative to the motion of the source.
Okay I will bite:
They will see the rate of the dropped clock to oscillate between being slower than their clock and the same rate as their clock. [to avoid confusion when I use the word ‘see’ I mean what they directly observe. I can’t see the point of this though, it just seems like another detail for you to struggle with.
I don’t know what to say other than it is what SR predicts. If you understand the situation in terms of two different timelike curves between two events in Minkowski space, it becomes much more intuitive.
I recommended earlier that you get a book. I recommend “A First Course in General Relativity” by Schutz which covers special relativity quite nicely.
I have some objections I will make but moreover I do not see why this matters.
You see I am giving you a thought experiment with the following elements:
At minimum 2 cabins 180 degrees apart moving around a common center.
Objects that follow a linear path both occasionally (objects dropped to floor someone walking oddly) or constantly at the same velocity such as a passing vehicle or something coming lose and flying off into space.
And in the event you disagree that the 2 cabins aren’t in different frames, then a set of counter rotating cabins on a common or parallel axis that repeatedly pass by could be considered.
You just need to tell me what should be seen, it does not matter if I can come up with the right answers, I am asking you to, if you can.
I could be as thick as a post and twice as dense and it wouldn’t matter because I am not providing the answer, just the question.
And no one has objected that the question is unreasonable, no one would argue that things can’t rotate or orbit, no one would argue that things can’t resume a straight line motion in an instant.
The thought experiment is valid as a question, if you can’t or won’t provide an answer that even you are happy with then I take it you are stumped.
Even if this does not mean you accept I have defeated SR, you would have to accept I have asked a question too challenging for you to answer, and seemingly for anyone to answer in it’s entirety.
Arguments: That don’t even matter as dropped objects suddenly enter massive and seemingly symmetrical time dilation if you argue that rotation is not providing inertial frames in a suitable manner for time dilation, the only other possibility would be no time dilation between different inertial frames at all!
Firstly you say that if the arc is close to a straight line, then the difference does not matter, well I do not think the argument becomes invalid or untenable if the experiment is the size of the Milky way galaxy. Yes the communication delay would be very obvious but it would still be constant. Oh and no longer possible to perform in reality without Star Trek Level technology and booooringly slow without subspace communication.
But this is a thought experiment, it doesn’t change any of the facts, it just makes it all more cumbersome.
Additionally as I have mentioned many times, if all you need to do to change the rate of time from the inertial frame you are in to that of some other frame, all you need to do is sway a bit to assume a portion of an orbit at near light speed around an arbitrary center position in a very different inertial reference frame.
This does not require especially great motion, or if any significantly curved path detaches you from the inertial frames’s time rate you are in then just spin, even slowly as long as there is a high degree of arc to your movement.
Note: Ignoring any effects from the other Relativity.
Now I have been tempted but avoided making the argument that instead of the cabins being in smooth rotation/orbit around a center point, that they follow a linear path with regular and swift course corrections since this should solve the issue (tracing out something between a hexagon and a perfect circle, however I didn’t want to be accused of trying to square the circle too
But now you have brought it up…
And finally the argument I know you are going to hate…
If they are orbiting a black hole or another source of sufficiently intense gravity, then they are fulfilling the requirement of being in an inertial frame since even though they are going is a circle, it is space that is bent and they are really going in a straight line (not accelerating).
But this does get confusing because if space is bent then who is to say that is relative motion anymore? It is one thing having to turn through 180 degrees with acceleration/deceleration to get where the other cabin is and move how they move, that is relative motion, but if you get there by going straight because space is bent, that doesn’t seem like occupying a different inertial frame but another location in the same inertial frame. Hence no SR time dilation.
HOWEVER!
We could set the cabins so they orbit in opposite directions!
They would repeatedly pass by each other.
Clearly they are now in different inertial frames and can keep progress of each other’s passage in time, every time they pass.
I have a hard time appreciating transverse Doppler, it does not fill my understanding of the Doppler effect which is that of the of distances between 2 objects continually increasing or decreasing, and with it communication delay changes.
But I hope it doesn’t matter, either way it shouldn’t stop you from explaining the results of my thought experiment even if it effects my ability to comprehend why you give the answer.
And it is not a real effect of time anyway, so I really do not think it matters.
Thank you for answering this.
I have no idea why you would say it should oscillate though, nothing in this thought experiment is oscillating. Surely whatever difference in time rate (excluding GR) between a linear velocity and perfectly smooth rotation would not oscillate?
Are you sure you have not confused it with the GR time dilation light speed paradox I posted? That does involve clocks and vibration and changing times rates, but not trains or dropping.
Please to be clear answer what all the observers see.
What the observers in opposite cabins see of each other’s time what they see of the time of dropped objects that assume linear velocity (and or linear passing vehicles) and what the linear observer will see of the almost moving the same occupants in the orbiting cabins.
I think we can take it as a given that if the cabins stop orbiting that their symmetrical experiences would require that they the same age now if they were to begin with.
No offence, but it doesn’t seem to have helped you answer these questions.
But please prove me wrong, you have clearly tried to give an answer above though I am uncertain would it could apply to.
The only way oscillation should come into it is if reality is breaking down and oscillating between 2 different expectations.
Actually, ADD is not an actual diagnosis anymore. In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association changed it, so ADD is actually under the ADHD diagnosis. It actually was a very good change and makes sense. Instead of ADD and ADHD, there are specific ADHD types:
primarily hyperactive (what used to be just ADHD)
primarily inattentive (what used to be just ADD)
combined (mix of both)
You can think of it as PH is your body being hyperactive and PI is your mind being hyperactive (to oversimplify a bit).
My ADHD is very strongly inattentive, which is why I understand having your thoughts fly faster than you can physically process and express them. It’s important to learn how to find coping mechanisms that help.
Consider, Alice and Bob are moving at a constant speed with respect to each other. In Alice’s frame of reference, she is stationary, and Bob is moving. His speed is higher than hers. In Bob’s frame of reference, he is stationary, and Alice is moving. Her speed is higher than his.
That seems contradictory. Their speeds can’t both be higher than the other’s, right?
But it’s not actually contradictory. Speed varies from reference frame to reference frame.
It’s not so different for time dilation. In Alice’s frame of reference, Bob’s clock is ticking slower than Alice’s. In Bob’s frame of reference, Alice’s clock is ticking slower than Bob’s. It seems contradictory, but it’s not. Time separation of events varies from reference frame to reference frame.
That’s not what relativity of simultaneity is. Relativity of simultaneity means that two events that occur in different locations may be simultaneous in one reference frame, but not simultaneous in another reference frame.
In fact, it’s possible for two events to occur in one order in one reference frame, but in the opposite order in another reference frame.
Relativity of simultaneity is very closely linked to time dilation and length contraction. Really, all three of those are just different manifestations of translating from one reference frame to another.
I have another question for you, unrelated to the above.
If relativity is so obviously flawed, then why was it ever accepted in the first place? It wasn’t accepted dogma back then, and Einstein wasn’t a famous scientist yet, so people wouldn’t have been eager to agree with him.
If relativity falls apart at the slightest examination, how did scientists ever become convinced of it?
Are you sure of that? I thought that could only happen if FTL travel or communication were involved. I’ve never seen an example of that in ordinary Lorentz math. I’m not saying you’re wrong…but could you give a really simple example of it?
Sure. Note that for this to happen, the two events have to have a space-like separation (that is, d^2 - t^2 > 0). For two events with a time-like separation, you’d need a superluminal reference frame to change the order.
Consider Einstein’s train thought experiment. Alice is standing at the center of a train car, moving at a constant speed past Bob. At the precise moment that Alice passes Bob, two lighting bolts strike the front and back of the train (in Bob’s frame of reference). Because of relativity of simultaneity, in Alice’s frame of reference, the lightning bolt at the front of the car occurred before the lightning strike at the back of the car.
Now, just add Carl, riding in a second train moving in the opposite direction. In Carol’s frame of reference, the lightning bolt at the front of the Alice’s car occurred after the lightning bolt at the back of Alice’s car, the opposite order of Alice’s frame of reference.
To see how this relates to time dilation, imagine Alice and Bob are carrying clocks, that flash once every second. Both clocks flash at the moment that Alice and Bob pass each other. Whose clock will flash soonest? In Alice’s frame of reference, her clock will flash first, because Bob’s is slowed due to time dilation. In Bob’s frame of reference, his clock will flash first, because Alice’s is slowed due to time dilation. An apparent contradiction, resolved by relativity of simultaneity.
Strinka: I’m definitely doing something wrong, because I’ve never been able to get that to work. I can cause an event to be simultaneous in one frame and non-simultaneous in another (I love the flying telephone pole and the two barn doors experiment) but I’ve never been able to get events to reverse their order.
Back to the old textbooks! (This is why I kept 'em!)
When I was young, a kid who I guess was younger asked me why when we move in a car, the people moving with us don’t get blurred too.
But I don’t think he got it.
But if you can understand that simple concept, and if you have ever been moving in a vehicle other than a motor bike or similar, and have a working mind then it should be easy to understand the concept that when moving in a straight line at a constant velocity and the air is contained with you, it is now very much as is you are stationary and the world is moving.
Actually we have never experienced linear constant motion and likely never will as we are spun around the Earth, orbit around the Sun and the sun orbits the Milky Way, but enough to get the concept of something that in a sense is never achievable (even though the latter 2 points could be considered a straight line through bent space(time), the earths spin isn’t until enough to counterbalance gravity).
Anyway motion being relative is easy to grasp.
Agreed. obviously
Do you find anyone other than a pretty young dumb kid that doesn’t understand relative motion?
No.
In fact it is only an artefact of language that it even looks like it is contradictory, it is a semantic issue. (ha ha, I am opposing Einstein’s theory for anti-semantic reasons
But time moving slower for clock A than clock B while time is also slower for clock B than clock A is a Paradox.
And a paradox points to a flaw, such as if an immovable object encounters an irresistible force.
If the Paradox is combined with rules like ‘no communication with a constant delay’, no instantanious communication, and there is no such thing as simultaneity between distant locations.
It is still impossible, but damn hard to really observe this paradox.
Hence it is easy to argue that somehow this is all possible because of all the difficulties is seeing what is really going on.
But when the paradox is laid bare, in the same room, or across a room. With the ability to communicate real time.
Then the illusion fades away, or silly objections must begin.
Or possibly the statement that paradoxes are ok comes up.
But paradoxes aren’t ok.
The classic twin paradox isn’t a paradox because she comes back younger than the earth twin due to asymetries.
Just imagine the twin paradox altered with instantaneous (or arbitrarily brief) acceleration and a 2 way audio video instantaneous communication system.
The only thing you can argue is that instantaneous communication between the twins is impossible, but just IMAGINE how that would go.
Seriously, how could their communication go?
You can’t imagine it, I can’t imagine it, because it is impossible, not to instantaneously communicate, but impossible for a paradox to occur.
Just like the immovable object and the irresistible object, until you test them directly against each other the paradox seems ok, but once the 2 incompatible realities meet, we must realize we made a mistake somewhere.
Don’t get me wrong, the human mind has an infinite ability for self deception, and intelligent people are better at thinking of creative ways to deceive themselves.
So I am not saying that paradoxes, or incompatible beliefs can’t be held by the human mind.
I am saying it can’t happen in reality.
Ok, there is one way, if the universe branches into 2 where in one universe the immovable object wins, and in the other universe the irresistible force wins.
However this is no longer a paradox since both paradoxical things stopped being true in a single universe. It is the case of one reference frame winning (having faster time) over the other in our universe, and the reverse in the split universe.
What ever contortions of logic are used to avoid this fact, it is possible to have 2 observers in 2 different inertial frames with huge velocity differences to have near instantaneous communication.
There are MANY ways to achieve this, and not all need curved motion.
It is easy to have a situation where Alice sees Bobs ticking slower and Bob see’s Alice’s ticking slower.
That is not contradictory, that is not a paradox because we are not saying that it IS happening.
Just that is seems to be, this would be easy to setup with video cameras between rooms and computers that add a delay, seeing it is no issue.
However it can’t be that both statements are actually true in the exact same sense.
I could see your hair and think it is more ginger coloured than mine, and you could see mine and thing mine is the most ginger.
But only one of us could actually have the gingerest hair.
And with put to a fair test where we can each so both in the same light, then we will be able to agree, unless it is a close call.
note: No, my hair is not really red/ginger. Phew
-waiting for a ginger to say that only gingers can make ginger jokes-
I am aware, so?
Also I do not believe that is real because I do believe in FTL travel and communication.
I still understand the concept reasonably.
You mean 2 events at a distance.
It is linked with making it harder to observe different time rates in the classic twin paradox (TP), except in the examples I give where the 2 observers in different inertial frames are close (generally), and as such it has no place.
Also if combined with increased/decreases in message delivery and throw in length contraction, it ends up being sooo hard to try and disprove the classic TP without comparing observations of observers over the whole path keeping tabs on things and comparing notes with each other to figure out how time must be occurring in the space ship that occupies a different frame.
It could be proven to be impossible that way (or involve the discovery of a preferred frame, but it is very very very complex trying to pin everything down, remove the hand waving and distortions.
But these difficulties do not need to exist as I have shown, and this exposes it for what it is.
And I will consider that proven until someone can explain what all the observers see (in a general sense) in a complete thought experiment, not just a fraction of it.
You know, stupid things do happen.
But my longer answer is two fold.
Firstly aesthetics.
SR is a very attractive theory, utterly impossible mind bending nonsense that leaves otherwise rational people as irrational as a believer in "insert favourite religion to deride here: Scientology_ on crack, but attractive.
Firstly it makes believers feel good about themselves because they can wrap (warp) their heads around an idea that other folk can’t, it’s very heady.
More attractive it is mathematical and pretty clean.
Those interested in physics want to master how the universe works, and while it is just counter-intuitive enough to be fun, it is also good at painting a very simple (if distorted) picture of the universe.
This is attractive to the physicist who want to understand everything, and if you want to understand everything you would rather reduce things down as much as possible. Electric and magnetic fields becomes electromagnetism, space and time becomes space-time. Physicists always seeks that which will unify things and leave the universe simpler to model.
But given that the only alternative is to accept a dragged aether, yes the only other possibility is to fill space with a substance you can’t see, touch or feel (actually as I explained, I can feel it) that is moving who knows how, dancing chaotically.
A vacuum was simply more attractive that an unseen medium dragged in ways that would be very hard to solve.
Basically complex fluid dynamics of a fluid you can’t readily observe! (or have trouble proving)
I can tell you I thought the idea of an aether was nasty, I was seriously reluctant to accept it when I saw enough correlative evidence that I became utterly convinced.
I am sure it has invited similar disdain which is why a non-entrained aether was disproven by the M-M experiment, a dragged aether didn’t even get considered.
How many times have you heard that the Michelson Morley experiment disproved an aether?
Despite the fact that the more logical (but less attractive) model for an aether was unaffected!
The aether is so messy and mystical sounding…
The second answer: Manipulation.
If you engineer the aether, a whole host of terribly advanced technologies become available, Knowledge of the aether has been known in prehistory and has been passed down I believe, it is possible that some influential sources manipulated the scientific process to stop progress in that direction, or keep it to themselves.
It is being manipulated today by drug and GM research companies, cell phone companies and more, it was manipulated decades ago by cigarette companies.
So it is not out of the question, there are influential secret societies that have handed down secret knowledge spanning back to when Egypt had it’s hey day with pyramid building, The masons being one obvious example.
I know how that sounds…
But the number of US presidents that have been Masons proves the influential aspect, and they and other groups are replete with ancient symbols (and scientific knowledge) which are actually not symbols but technology in disguise.
Oh, and once it got started there is no problem.
In many ways the more illogical an idea the harder it is to dissuade someone , they had to already overcome their doubt to believe it, it is like they already learnt how to fight for the idea to accept it.
And the Milgram experiment nicely shows the power of authority and a nice white lab coat.
Killing someone based on an appeals -from- authority is harder than to get someone to accept a well presented but impossible idea.
Amazingly evidence for the aether was found by later scientists who were not as uptight, suddenly the empty vacuum was full of messy particles pupping into and out of existence, the Higgs boson, lots of things that seem to give both a substance and (entrainable) preferred reference frame to space, indeed then you have frame dragging and lots of other stuff that was too late to support the concept of an (entrained) aether that had been long thrown out due to a single and utterly inapplicable experiment.
It’s not a paradox. That’s what I was trying to get at with the simplistic speed comparison. It’s seems like a contradiction, but it isn’t.
Instantaneous communication does pose an issue for relativity. Not only because any kind of FTL implies time travel, but also because relativity of simultaneity means that what is instantaneous in one frame of reference is not necessarily instantaneous in another.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean relativity is false. It means either relativity is false, or instantaneous communication is impossible. Until you can actually show me an ansible, I’m not going to worry about it.
Yes, they can be, in exactly the same way that both “Alice is moving faster than Bob”, and “Bob is moving faster than Alice” can both be true. In different frames of reference, things are different. They can’t be directly compared, without first converting one frame of reference to the other. This includes things like speed, location, and yes, rate of time.
And what I tried to convey is that two observers agree of their relative velocities, they see the same picture relative motion wise.
If in deep space with no reference frames other than another ship, would Alice give her speed any differently to Bob? no, she would say her velocity is x meters a second relative to Bob.
If you remove time dilation and length contraction impossibilities they would also agree of what relative velocity each had to a 3rd reference frame (say a planet).
There is no paradox, there is no conflict.
Only in you decide that stillness has an actual absolute meaning but fail to agree on what frame that is would there be any conflict.
Sure if you want to be deliberately stupid about things you could make one, and if you want to be just as stupid you could say that Bob and Alice could never meet if when they approach if you constantly divide the remaining distance more finely as per zenno’s non-paradox.
You have to be an idiot, or want to be fooled very very badly to see either of these as actual paradoxes, or paradox like.
A fly is closer to being a jumbo jet than these are to a paradox.
No, really it doesn’t.
I know that is a common idea, but it isn’t so much that time should go backwards but that everything falls apart in Relativity, for one the rest of the universe would length contract until it resembles a hula hoop around your ship, only thinner.
And from the universes POV would would length contract till you were flat, or more correctly disappear all together.
Actually those statements are incorrect, because that would be the conclusion of reaching light speed, rather exceeding light speed would involve what inversion?
So yeah, if the space ship/universe inverts so might time.
Now given all that why does light/photons become unaffected by any of these effects, and still have a (wave) length?
So now movement at C suddenly causes no effect at all, provided that we are talking about light.
Oh, or neutrinos.
And these things are an affected, what does this tell us?
That space and time do not distort with motion it’s self, it depends of what you are made of!?!?!
Remember that light isn’t a magical entity that only moves at the velocity we call light speed, if can move slower in an atmosphere, and can be made to move crazy sloooow in the lab and even stop for a moment.
And when the speed of light is reduced from the speed of neutrinos (joke) then relative motion can obviously make 2 observers measure it to be at different relative velocities, especially when it can be slowed down to the point that you can walk faster!
Oh, but wait light does get effected by gravity too (though it seemed impervious to distortions of space in the above examples), it slows down to be measured as C in a GR time dilated area, finally from an outside perspective it is no longer at C clearly, but how come it effected by this but not length contracted.
More interesting, if the time dilation is from GR, but not from a gravity field (in other words acceleration), then light would not be effected because an object accelerating is not considered to change space around it, only change the passage of time for it, otherwise non accelerating objects around it would be effected too.
But if time dilation doesn’t effect space here, then it doesn’t slow light, but it does slow the measurement of time.
Great, so one form of Time dilation in GR only slows clocks, the the other very similar but different kind (gravitational) slows the clock and the light.
Ok, now I will admit this last argument requires vibration or oscillation rather than gaining large velocities.
Actually maybe in a funny way that one can be sort of explained because if the observer is vibrating the observer sees light as the one zigzaging, maybe? no wait, the observer has a slow clock (which makes light seem faster) and zigzags make the lights path longer which makes light seem to be moving faster than ligh erm neutrinos, and it was already seen no be moving too fast. It just got worse.
note: I have avoided saying speed of light be saying speed of neutrinos simple because I am talking about that is exceeding or below light speed.
I was rushed for time in that last email and gave it less of a proof read than normal. on rereading now there are a few such as: And from the universes POV would would length contract till you were flat, or more correctly disappear all together.
should read: “POV you would” But unless you are trying to misunderstand me, the gist of what I was saying should still be clear.
And the last line is talking about light going slower or faster than the speed of light.
So… if math can describe reality, and Special Relativity gives mathematical predictions to physical phenomena, which when measured in the real world, conform precisely to the equations and predictions as outlined in Special Relativity. Hundreds of millions, billions of devices are built and used every day which utilize the phenomena predicted by SR.
So the math in SR is consistent with real world experiments which is consistent technological applications which are based on the math. So why the confusion as to whether or not it works, or makes sense, or is “right”? For what it does, it’s right enough, just as Newton was right enough to get the astronauts to the moon.
I feel like kicking my Tom-Tom, yelling “I refute it thus!”… but that would be expensive.
Yes! Exactly! That’s what I’m saying. The fact that Alice is moving faster than Bob, and Bob is moving faster than Alice is not a paradox, because those are both true in different reference frames. If you want to compare their velocities, you have to make sure you’re comparing them in the same reference frame
Notice what Alice is doing here. She’s converting her velocity into Bob’s frame of reference. Without converting frames of reference, they would disagree. Alice would see herself standing still, and Bob moving. Bob would see himself standing still and Alice moving. They can only agree if they first convert to the same reference frame.
Time dilation and length contraction don’t change that at all. All it does is make the conversion from one frame of reference to another a little more complicated. They would still agree on their velocities relative to a third reference frame, they just need to convert their observations to that reference frame.
As I said before, that’s not really any different for time dilation. Alice sees Bob moving faster than see is. Bob sees Alice moving faster than he is. That’s not a paradox, because they are in different frames of reference. If they convert their observations to the same frame of reference, they’ll get the same result.
Alice sees Bob’s clock ticking more slowly than hers. Bob sees Alice’s clock ticking more slowly than his. That’s not a paradox, because they are in different frames of reference. If they convert their observations to the same frame of reference, they’ll get the same result.
The only real difference between the two is that the conversion in the second case is a little more complicated.
It does, according to relativity, which is what we’re talking about here.
When you plug FTL velocities into relativistic equations, you generally get imaginary numbers out. I have no idea what that would mean physically. The most common interpretation is that FTL velocities are impossible, according to relativity.
If you have a working FTL drive, either you’ll find out what it means for something to have an imaginary length, or you’ll have disproven relativity. Until you can show me an FTL drive, I’m not going to worry about it.
Who says light is unaffected by relativistic effects? Its speed doesn’t change from frame to frame, but its frequency and wavelength do.
True, but relativity isn’t so much about the speed of light as c, which is physical constant that happens to be the speed light travels in a vacuum. c is the same for all observers, so light travels the same speed in a vacuum for all observers.