I need time dilation help please?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AlbertXY
Your problem is because you insist that the observers have different rates of time, if t1 is different to the rate of t2 then the result of speed is different.
That post explicitly demonstrated how you can have the same speed of light with . The problem you are having is that you are insisting that , which is also experimentally false.
Original post by AlbertXY
Your problem is because you insist that the observers have different rates of time, if t1 is different to the rate of t2 then the result of speed is different.
Michelson-morley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Original post by AlbertXY
Nope . if you are travelling at 1 mph towards a light source, the light is reaching you faster than if you stood still.
NO! It will reach you at the same speed. Michelson-morley!!!
Original post by AlbertXY
Nope . if you are travelling at 1 mph towards a light source, the light is reaching you faster than if you stood still.
That is false, as demonstrated by millions of experiments. As demonstrated the very bloody experiment you are being told about. Go read a book.
Do you actually give a **** about the truth?
Original post by Implication
That post explicitly demonstrated how you can have the same speed of light with . The problem you are having is that you are insisting that , which is also experimentally false.
OK let us talk about distance not to be mistaken for a length.
Are you saying you are disagreeing that a 30cm ruler is not 30cm?
Original post by AlbertXY
OK let us talk about distance not to be mistaken for a length.
Are you saying you are disagreeing that a 30cm ruler is not 30cm?
Are you saying you are disagreeing that a 30cm ruler is not 30cm?
A ruler measured to be 30cm in a reference frame that is stationary with respect to that ruler would not be measured as 30cm in a reference frame that is moving with respect to the ruler.
Original post by Implication
That is false, as demonstrated by millions of experiments. As demonstrated the very bloody experiment you are being told about. Go read a book.
Do you actually give a **** about the truth?
Do you actually give a **** about the truth?
The teacher is losing their composure.
Do you care about the truth?
If you start a journey that is 100 mile to reach your friend at point B, and you travel at 100 mph how long does it take you to get there?
Play along and I will show you
Original post by Implication
A ruler measured to be 30cm in a reference frame that is stationary with respect to that ruler would not be measured as 30cm in a reference frame that is moving with respect to the ruler.
Great, I have lead you to the Lorentz contractions, I can prove that the ruler does not contract and it is only a visual perception.
Original post by AlbertXY
The teacher is losing their composure.
Do you care about the truth?
Do you care about the truth?
There is no teacher, and yes I do care about the truth.
If you start a journey that is 100 mile to reach your friend at point B, and you travel at 100 mph how long does it take you to get there?
Play along and I will show you
Play along and I will show you
Is it 100 miles in the reference frame stationary with respect to point B or 100 miles in the reference frame travelling at 100mph with respect to point B? If you just insist that they're the same now, you will be question-begging. If it turns out that you are correct and both are the same, you should be quite free to specify a frame.
Original post by AlbertXY
Great, I have lead you to the Lorentz contractions, I can prove that the ruler does not contract and it is only a visual perception.
Unfortunately I very much doubt you can, since experiment confirms that the ruler does contract. If you model proves that the ruler does not contract, your model is therefore false.
How are you defining the distinction between the 'visual perception' of a contracted ruler and the contracted ruler?
Original post by Implication
There is no teacher, and yes I do care about the truth.
Is it 100 miles in the reference frame stationary with respect to point B
Is it 100 miles in the reference frame stationary with respect to point B
A motorway will do.
Original post by Implication
Unfortunately I very much doubt you can, since experiment confirms that the ruler does contract. If you model proves that the ruler does not contract, your model is therefore false.
How are you defining the distinction between the 'visual perception' of a contracted ruler and the contracted ruler?
How are you defining the distinction between the 'visual perception' of a contracted ruler and the contracted ruler?
light length between eye and object is visual contraction,
And my model and physical real life experiment shows there is no physical length contraction.
Original post by AlbertXY
Great, I have lead you to the Lorentz contractions, I can prove that the ruler does not contract and it is only a visual perception.
It is not an illusion!!! It actually contracts!!!
Original post by Kyx
It is not an illusion!!! It actually contracts!!!
No it does not, Einstein had to exaggerate the Lorentz visual transformation to justify his parlour tricks turning them into a physical contraction when this does not happen and is easy to prove it does not . by a simple experiment involving train carriages
Original post by AlbertXY
No it does not, Einstein had to exaggerate the Lorentz visual transformation to justify his parlour tricks turning them into a physical contraction when this does not happen and is easy to prove it does not . by a simple experiment involving train carriages
Actually, that very experiment proves that the contraction is real!!!
Original post by Kyx
Actually, that very experiment proves that the contraction is real!!!
Only if you don't look at it closely, I have read his papers of relativity and SR, that is why I know he was wrong and was able to work out where he was wrong using a train analogy and creating a physical test that shows it does not happen.
Original post by AlbertXY
Only if you don't look at it closely, I have read his papers of relativity and SR, that is why I know he was wrong and was able to work out where he was wrong using a train analogy and creating a physical test that shows it does not happen.
does happen
Original post by AlbertXY
A motorway will do.
That doesn't specify which reference frame.
Original post by AlbertXY
light length between eye and object is visual contraction,
I don't think there is a sensible distinction to be drawn. If you are simply referring to the length as measured by somebody moving to be a 'visually contracted' length, then you are just agreeing with SR but giving things a different name.
In relativity there is a concept of 'proper length', which is defined to be the length of an object in its own reference frame. This does not contract by definition (since it specifies a reference frame), so if that's what you mean by 'physical length' then okay, but it's not exactly revelatory!
And my model and physical real life experiment shows there is no physical length contraction.
How so?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by AlbertXY
Only if you don't look at it closely, I have read his papers of relativity and SR, that is why I know he was wrong and was able to work out where he was wrong using a train analogy and creating a physical test that shows it does not happen.
With your level of mathematical knowledge there is an approximately zero chance you understood what was said. The language of physics is mathematics.
Original post by Implication
How so?
How so?
You will find relative to an inertia reference frame a proper length is referred to as it's rest length also used in relativity.
In imagination, imagine standing on a central platform between two trains, one train on the left and one train on your right. We measure both trains to be an equal rest length of lets say 50 meters. Now if the trains travel at the same speed away from you and parallel to each other, the observer on the platform witnesses a length contraction of both trains, people on the trains still measure the trains to be at rest length relative to each other. The train the people and their ruler have contracted , so they still measure 50 meters.
Ok so far?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- epq physics question
- Personal statements and extracurriculars
- Boyfriend Can't Finger Me, Hurts like Hell! (virgin)
- My boyfriend’s penis won’t fit in my vagina.. is this normal?
- Access course or alevel
- Further maths help
- Dryness and no sex drive from pill
- English Language Paper 1, Q5
- Any tips for wearing glasses?
- Traumatised! Saw a cat get killed this morning!
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities!
- Punjabi GCSE (AQA) - Need urgent Help
- Unit 19: Study Skills Portfolio Building
- Dropping out
- iDEA Award Silver Entrepreneur Resolution.
- International students - here's how to apply through Clearing
- Silver Idea Award/ Maker Resolution
- Is it possible to go from a grade 4 to a 7 or higher in GCSE Maths?
- Information Related to CAS
- Student nurse 2300 nmc placement hours
