Specific Relativity/Light-Speed Question

[EWright]

Either 1 and 3 are true, and 2 and 4 are false. Or 2 and 4 are true, and 1 and 3 are false.

-Will

 

And thus the exact relatinoship between the true and false statements is what exactly?

[Erasmus00]

And thus the exact relatinoship between the true and false statements is what exactly?

 

If 1 is true, so is 3, but 2 and 4 can never be. If 2 is true, then so is 4, but 1 and 3 can never be true. Exactly as I said before.

 

The important thing is to realize that you can't have two observers one moving, one still, see the same object as being the same distance away. If the still observer measures the distance at D then the moving one sees it at D*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

-Will

[EWright]

So when the observer measure's the photon ten days after it left the light source, what will the traveler read his own position as being?

[EWright]

do the light wave everybody :hihi:

[GAHD]

Yeah, I disagree with the theory too, just doesn't work to my brain. I've heard someone say it was because the wavelength changes as you accelerate but it just doesn't mash to me. I can understand color shifts, I can even see how time can appear to dialate. But length contraction just seems flawed to me. We'll only know when we can put someone into that frame.

[Erasmus00]

Yeah, I disagree with the theory too, just doesn't work to my brain. I've heard someone say it was because the wavelength changes as you accelerate but it just doesn't mash to me. I can understand color shifts, I can even see how time can appear to dialate. But length contraction just seems flawed to me. We'll only know when we can put someone into that frame.

 

Yea, but the thing is, SR is so well verified length contraction pretty much has to be true. Starting from his postulates, (all motion is relative, light travels at c) Einstein managed to work through all the consequences to arrive at E=mc^2. If there is no length contraction or time dilation, there is no E=mc^2 which was verified with an atomic bomb.

 

And Quantum electrodynamics partially rests on SR, and it has made the most accurate tested predictions in the history of science.

-Will

[EWright]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAHD

Yeah, I disagree with the theory too, just doesn't work to my brain. I've heard someone say it was because the wavelength changes as you accelerate but it just doesn't mash to me. I can understand color shifts, I can even see how time can appear to dialate. But length contraction just seems flawed to me. We'll only know when we can put someone into that frame.

 

 

Yea, but the thing is, SR is so well verified length contraction pretty much has to be true. Starting from his postulates, (all motion is relative, light travels at c) Einstein managed to work through all the consequences to arrive at E=mc^2. If there is no length contraction or time dilation, there is no E=mc^2 which was verified with an atomic bomb.

 

And Quantum electrodynamics partially rests on SR, and it has made the most accurate tested predictions in the history of science.

-Will[/Quote]

 

:D So let go of the postulates. Trust your instincts, Luke. There is another..... :D

[Erasmus00]

:D So let go of the postulates. Trust your instincts, Luke. There is another..... :D

 

My instincts seem to indicate the truth of the relativity postulates. Experiment agrees, so I see no problems.

-Will

[EWright]

My instincts seem to indicate the truth of the relativity postulates. Experiment agrees, so I see no problems.

-Will

 

Then the Emperor has already won. :D

[Erasmus00]

Then the Emperor has already won. :D

 

You can be infuriating at times. If you want to rewrite modern physics, you'll need to discuss your alternative. Otherwise you're simply tilting at windmills.

-Will

[Qfwfq]

But length contraction just seems flawed to me. We'll only know when we can put someone into that frame.

:D

You are travelling at high speed all the time. It's only a matter of which reference.

 

Consider any particle in the solar wind. It's travelling away from the Sun at nearly c. Therefore, in its coordinates, Sun, Earth and we are all travelling at the same speed the opposite way.

[Southtown]

So if you were in the frame of light, then no matter would exist? Ahh, exquisite.

[Erasmus00]

So if you were in the frame of light, then no matter would exist? Ahh, exquisite.

 

I have no idea where you got that idea, and it certainly isn't true.

-Will

[EWright]

:)

You are travelling at high speed all the time. It's only a matter of which reference.

 

Consider any particle in the solar wind. It's travelling away from the Sun at nearly c. Therefore, in its coordinates, Sun, Earth and we are all travelling at the same speed the opposite way.

 

This is the problem with SR. The Sun, Earth, etc. are NOT traveling away from it at the same speed in the opposite direction. This can be described as a PERCEPTION but it is not FACTUALLY what is happening and the particle has can make no such claim short of ignorance that it is the case.

[Erasmus00]

This is the problem with SR. The Sun, Earth, etc. are NOT traveling away from it at the same speed in the opposite direction. This can be described as a PERCEPTION but it is not FACTUALLY what is happening and the particle has can make no such claim short of ignorance that it is the case.

 

How could you show that the particle is moving, and not the Earth and Sun? Consider what would happen if your solar system moves through another. Each solar system would be convinced the other is moving through it, how could you prove which reference frame is correct?

-Will

[EWright]

How could you show that the particle is moving, and not the Earth and Sun? Consider what would happen if your solar system moves through another. Each solar system would be convinced the other is moving through it, how could you prove which reference frame is correct?

-Will

 

Ugh! In order for the Sun and Earth to be moving away from a stationary particle, it would have to have some repulsive force to drive them away from it and it doesn't. THAT is the fact of the matter. From a visual, hence light based, PERSPECTIVE the particle can ignorantly claim that it is stationary and the other space bodies are moving via it's jedi powers.

 

Also consider that two particles are emitted from the sun at the same time in opposite directions. There is no way that both particles can make that claim and have it be true. Thus, again, it is PERSPECTIVE based and not actuallity.

[Erasmus00]

Ugh! In order for the Sun and Earth to be moving away from a stationary particle, it would have to have some repulsive force to drive them away from it and it doesn't. THAT is the fact of the matter. From a visual, hence light based, PERSPECTIVE the particle can ignorantly claim that it is stationary and the other space bodies are moving via it's jedi powers.

 

That isn't true. There is no force required to move at a constant velocity. It would require no repulsive force at all. That is Newtonian physics.

 

Also consider that two particles are emitted from the sun at the same time in opposite directions. There is no way that both particles can make that claim and have it be true. Thus, again, it is PERSPECTIVE based and not actuallity.

 

That also is not true. Conservation of momentum holds in ANY inertial frame, not only in the sun's rest frame, as you claim.

-Will