Thread: How a still man experiences a moving man in lights direction

To make it even simpler I simplify again:

1. We have a still man, a moving man & light passing in his direction.

2. The moving man moves next to a meterstick.

3. The meterstick length per time is independent of the length contraction of the moving man.

4. While the moving man move v*t, light moves c*t + v*t along the meterstick seen by the moving man, for lightspeed to be constant (which it is)

5. Conclusion: The moving man has less time then the still man in the proportion ct : ct + vt .


This is not the case in Albert Einsteins special relativity. Discuss the above, I want a thorough explanation of this case.
I believe the triangle that Einstein A. used to prove that time was dilated and length contracted was infact length contracted. Thereby his proof is flawed.

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

So a still man sees a moving man in lights direction.

5. Given 3 & 4 he measures that the relation between the still mans time and the moving mans time is cc - v)

No. You also have to take length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity into account.

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

So a still man sees a moving man in lights direction.

5. Given 3 & 4 he measures that the relation between the still mans time and the moving mans time is c : (c - v)

No. You also have to take length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity into account.

There, I corrected the stupid smilies away from my post and your quote.

How can it be wrong?

PS. added length contraction text.

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

So a still man sees a moving man in lights direction.

5. Given 3 & 4 he measures that the relation between the still mans time and the moving mans time is c : (c - v)

No. You also have to take length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity into account.

There, I corrected the stupid smilies away from my post and your quote.

How can it be wrong?

PS. added length contraction text.

Well for one, it ignores the possibility that the light could be moving in the opposite direction than the man is, which by your reasoning would make the time ratio c : (c+v), which is completely different from what you got the first time. Since the time dilation factor must be the same regardless of which way the light is traveling, your method is flawed.

Secondly, length contraction is relevant. How can either man measure the speed of light with respect to himself without noting how long it takes light to travel a given distance? so each man carries a meter stick with synchronized clocks at each end. He notes what the first clock reads when the light hits it, and then what the second clock reads when the light hits it, takes the difference and divides it into 1 meter to get his answer.

Since the "moving" man's meter stick is contracted according to the "still" man, the light will take less time to traverse the length of the stick by his clock than it would if it hadn't been contracted.

Also, according to the "still" man, the clocks at the ends of the "moving" man's meter stick are not synchronized, and do not read the same time.

Thus he notes that the light hits one end of the "moving" man's stick when the clock at that end reads a given value, and hits the other end when its clock reads another value. He also knows that the "moving" man does not see his meter stick as shortened and determines that the clock at the end of his stick are synchronized. Form this hie can determine how much time the light took to travel from one end of the stick to the other according to the "moving" man, and compare that to how much time it took for the light to go from one end to the other according to him.

Doing this gives a time dilation factor of

Originally Posted by Janus

Doing this gives a time dilation factor of

When we apply the given, which certainly is verified, but we verify again.

We verify by my terms:

A. The moving mans passing lights speed compared to:
The moving mans passing lights speed measured by the still man,
has the relation c : (c - v)

B. The moving man has a width L. The time it takes for light to pass the moving man measured by him is allways L/c is constant. This time multiplied by c is the length which he allways will experience same. The still man measures that the passing time is L/c and that c*(passing time) = L however.

The relation between the moving mans passing lights speed and the moving mans measured passing lights speed measured by the still man is c : (c-v)

Summation:

The moving mans length and passing time compared to:
The moving mans length and passing time measured by the still man,
has the relation c : (c - v)

The additional effects are optical.

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

Originally Posted by Janus

Doing this gives a time dilation factor of

When we apply the given, which certainly is verified, but we verify again.

We verify by my terms:

A. The moving mans passing lights speed compared to:
The moving mans passing lights speed measured by the still man,
has the relation c : (c - v)

B. The moving man has a width L. The time it takes for light to pass the moving man measured by him is allways L/c is constant. This time multiplied by c is the length which he allways will experience same. The still man measures that the passing time is L/c and that c*(passing time) = L however.

The relation between the moving mans passing lights speed and the moving mans measured passing lights speed measured by the still man is c : (c-v)

Summation:

The moving mans length and passing time compared to:
The moving mans length and passing time measured by the still man,
has the relation c : (c - v)

Only one thing to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRYmudWEUSo

Repeating the same erroneous argument does not make it correct, it just racks you up points on the crackpot index.

The additional effects are optical

Wrong yet again, they are very real. For instance, if the two men compare their meter sticks as they pass by each other side by side, they will note that they are different lengths. The front and back ends will not line up at the same time (according to the synchronized clocks at the ends, which bypasses any "optical" issues.)

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

Originally Posted by Janus

Doing this gives a time dilation factor of

When we apply the given, which certainly is verified, but we verify again.

We verify by my terms:

A. The moving mans passing lights speed compared to:
The moving mans passing lights speed measured by the still man,
has the relation c : (c - v)

B. The moving man has a width L. The time it takes for light to pass the moving man measured by him is allways L/c is constant. This time multiplied by c is the length which he allways will experience same. The still man measures that the passing time is L/c and that c*(passing time) = L however.

The relation between the moving mans passing lights speed and the moving mans measured passing lights speed measured by the still man is c : (c-v)

Summation:

The moving mans length and passing time compared to:
The moving mans length and passing time measured by the still man,
has the relation c : (c - v)

Only one thing to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRYmudWEUSo

Repeating the same erroneous argument does not make it correct, it just racks you up points on the crackpot index.

The additional effects are optical

Wrong yet again, they are very real. For instance, if the two men compare their meter sticks as they pass by each other side by side, they will note that they are different lengths. The front and back ends will not line up at the same time (according to the synchronized clocks at the ends, which bypasses any "optical" issues.)

Repeating the same error and claim of errors like you do is the only rack up of points on the crackpot index.

Since length contraction does only apply to the moving man and not the given length of the distance he moves, time in the moving mans system compared to time in the still mans system is still in the relations ( c - v ) : c

That the moving systems length is altered does not change the distance he has moved.

The laid out distance is x meter. It's constant independent of the moving mans length dilation.

Do I need to describe it anymore simple?

You're wrong to, certainly, here's actually a reason why you are wrong.
The triangle einstein used in his book special relativity excludes the lenthcontraction of the triangle.

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

The laid out distance is x meter.

By whose measure?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

The laid out distance is x meter.

By whose measure?

By allready given measures, length contraction does not contract the distance, only the moving man.

How to say it, the distance is constant, it is unaffected by the high speed.

we have a gauge, a benchmark, next to the distance that both measures from.

The man's metre stick appears to be shortened. It appears to be less than a metre long. This invalidates your conclusions.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The man's metre stick appears to be shortened. It appears to be less than a metre long. This invalidates your conclusions.

No, we measure on a benchmark that is next to the distance he moves, not through his contracted length and/or meterstick.

Do you demand me to simplify?

1. The moving man moves next to a meterstick.

2. The meterstick length per time is independent of the length contraction of the moving man.

3. While the moving man move v*t, light moves c*t + v*t along the meterstick seen by the moving man, for lightspeed to be constant (which it is)

4. Conclusion: The moving man has less time then the still man in the proportion ct : ct + vt .

If you want better proof then that you'd pay me, and it doesn't seem to happen.

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

You're wrong to, certainly, here's actually a reason why you are wrong.
The triangle einstein used in his book special relativity excludes the lenthcontraction of the triangle.

The "Triangle" in Einstein's explanation is formed by the light's path as seen by the stationary observer, thus is is not moving with respect to him.

Also, In the standard light clock scenario, the light's only motion with respect to the moving frame is perpendicular to the motion, according to either observer. Length contraction does not come into play because the light does not move along the length of the moving observer, unlike your example where it does.

Besides, real physical experiments have been done that measure the degree of time dilation, and the value comes out the be equal to the expression I gave earlier and not to yours.

That's 5 more crackpot points for proposing a thought experiment that gives different results than actual real experiment.

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

You're wrong to, certainly, here's actually a reason why you are wrong.
The triangle einstein used in his book special relativity excludes the lenthcontraction of the triangle.

The "Triangle" in Einstein's explanation is formed by the light's path as seen by the stationary observer, thus is is not moving with respect to him.

Which isn't actually true.

By allready given measures, length contraction does not contract the distance, only the moving man.

If the moving man accelerates relative to a measuring stick at rest he sees the stick grow in length relative to a measuring stick he carries with him and accelerates with him. He sees his own stick as shorter. It can be a severe mental problem.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

By allready given measures, length contraction does not contract the distance, only the moving man.

If the moving man accelerates relative to a measuring stick at rest he sees the stick grow in length relative to a measuring stick he carries with him and accelerates with him. He sees his own stick as shorter. It can be a severe mental problem.

And that is the optical trap I was talking about.

No length contraction is not opticalit,s real.
But the men accelerating can see a meassuring stick he holds lengthwise to the acceleration the one that sees him accelerate sees the contracted stick or rod lengthwise hance not it,s length.

Suppose the man accelerates in a spaceship with walls, floors and ceiling perpendicular to each other as with an elevator. He can mount sticks cut at same length to the walls and ceilings. if he sees a contraction of a stick it depends on how it is orientated to the acceleration (and/or gravity) Sticks to the floor and ceiling won,t contract. On the walls it depends. Perpendicular to the floor and ceiling it will contract but perpendicular to the acceleration it would not.

If he has the rods callibrated as one meter, he will see different lenths for a meter in one spaceship.

Now which stick would he have to use as a standard unity in that situation ? The sticks that are not contracted (with more or less still the same length compared with the stick of the other man at rest) are perpendicular to the distance he wants to meassure. That,s not the way to meassure a distance, he would have to rotate it lengthwise to the accelleration.

And then the stick contracts. Allthough both men are at one distance of each other (at least that seems obvious) there are two meassured distances depending of which meter is choosen as a reference. Not just for the man accelrating but for the other as well. But if both men use their "own meter" as standard/reference the man accelerating sees a given distance (that distance is real by and on itself), it is extracted, longer relative to his reference. So they will really meassure a different distance then even if for both men the distance is the same (as a given reality).

It,s not saying the distance is different but the measuring is as the measuring sticks are different when their situation and orientation is changed they change in a real fysical way, not optical or subjektive.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

No length contraction is not opticalit,s real.

I didn't say length contraction is optical, I said it's effects are.

Now. Lightspeed is constant in all systems independent of lengthcontraction, since A. Else it wouldn't have been constant.
B. Then special relativity is incorrect in that assumption upon which the whole theory is based.

There is time diletion too. Not just a meter (or any fysical objekt) held in the direction of acceleratrion gets shorter, a clock will run slower also. Hence the relationship (meters to seconds) would stay constant.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

There is time diletion too. Not just a meter (or any fysical objekt) held in the direction of acceleratrion gets shorter, a clock will run slower also. Hence the relationship (meters to seconds) would stay constant.

It's "time dilation". Besides, when I have a still meterstick it's universal length. The only thing we can blame the lights escaping velocity on is the time dilation.

It's "time dilation". Besides, when I have a still meterstick it's universal length.

I knew I had the spelling wrong but it,s about fysics here do who cares...I,m a foreigner.

It depends, when you,re in an accellerated situation like a spaceship you,re "meterstick" is as still as ever to you. Any meterstick or clock is still to you if you carry it whit you no matter the situation you,re in and it,s in. That,s subjektivity. Objektively the length of a meterstick depends of the situation it,s in (and you're in). So why would you,re meterstick be universal and mine not (assumed you,re accelerated and I,m not) ?

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

It's "time dilation". Besides, when I have a still meterstick it's universal length.

Objektively the length of a meterstick depends of the situation it,s in (and you're in). So why would you,re meterstick be universal and mine not (assumed you,re accelerated and I,m not) ?

Since it, the meterstick, is next to the ant that is moving and not moving itself. So we do not be affected by lengthcontraction under the experiment, the effect from moving towards light thereby is purely a function of time.

If lightspeeds constance is a function of lengthcontraction & timedilation and was constant, it would've been constant even without measuring both concept since they are proportional. Hence the lights speed of escape is the same as when measuring on the meterstick.

The moving ant will allways find that light escapes it in lightspeed. It will also find that it is traveling in speed v. It will still measure the lights escaping velocity of the still man to be v + c.

Since it, the meterstick, is next to the ant that is moving and not moving itself.

No if the ant is in a spaceship carrying a meterstick with him as he would need something to determine the dimensions in his frame of reference. He would be forced to regard his meterstick as the universal meter. He can,t use a meterstick that is not travelling with him because which meterstick in the universe would he have to pick ? On at the sun, the moon, earth ? Universally there is no preference and they all have different length for him and relative to each other. Like the melted clocks on Dali,s famous painting.

the elevator or spaceship with metersticks mounted on the walls, floor and ceiling, becomes the reference frame of the ant. Caught, even trapped, in his own referanceframe far from understanding relativity.

But ant,s aren,t that stupid they don,t carry metersticks and clocks, universal seconds and meters, around with them.

Every ant his own universal meter, sec that,s paradoxal to the idea of universality of unit,s. Unit,s are convention nothing universal and there,s no natural law telling nature to have consideration with that human convention. Not even a law of fysics that tells that it,s only convention.

Originally Posted by Ghrasp

Since it, the meterstick, is next to the ant that is moving and not moving itself.

No if the ant is in a spaceship carrying a meterstick with him as he would need something to determine the dimensions in his frame of reference.

No, he wouldn't because he has speed, and speed is length divided with time, which isn't contracted, nor timedilated.

That is why you need to stop posting flawed arguments. The speed he has is v, the speed of passing light is c, he measures lights escape velocity from the still system to be c + v EVEN THOUGH IT IS C.

A SIMPLE MIND HAS NO DIFFICULTY TO GET THAT IN THEIR HEAD

The speed he has is v, the speed of passing light is c, he measures lights escape velocity from the still system to be c + v EVEN THOUGH IT IS C.
A SIMPLE MIND HAS NO DIFFICULTY TO GET THAT IN THEIR HEAD

He doesn,t meassure that, he,s not there to be able to, he calculates it (but still...).

Suppose a fish in a bucket of water. Someone shines a light in the water. No matter what or from where the fish will meassure the same C locally; Cw. He could use an interferometer for that.

But if the lightsource is above the water C is not constant all through the trajektory, the fish can,t extend what he meassures locally for the whole trajektory. Different medium time-spacial relations also change (meters to seconds and even meters to meters and sec to seconds for different directions can(or could) make a difference (as the metersticks in the capsule) depending on accelleration and gravity.

That would make C not constant for all direktions but still for all observers constant in every direction. C^2 stays also constant then like a rectangle of 2*3 has the same surface, product of the sidelengths, as a rectangle of 1*6.

As long as C^2 stays constant there is not much of a problem with that. It,s even an elegant way to explain different C's for different media.

For water C in light direktion is decreased but perpendicular to it C is increased (compared with air) hence you see a stronger divergency of light in water.

M^2/S^2 beholds four dimensions. Each of that can change relative to all others while the total stays constant.

C is related not only to the medium, but also to the density of the same medium.

If a still man shouts standing on a railroad towards an open train driving from him you would come to the same problem. It solves because the wavelength is increased and the frecuency decreased. The produkt is more or less the same and only the produkt of C1*C2 (with C1 in direktion of trainspeed (relative to the medium) and C2 perpendicular to that. As the medium is the same for the still man and the train the C,s, C1 and C2 are also -mostly - the same for both but in these different directions related to the medium they are different.

tosolve it you need the medium. Or take a medium-vacuum idea as alternative in correspondance with the wave particle character. Einstein was not a total vacuum believer as often believed.

In the case of sound it also makes a huge difference if the train is open, meaning the observers inside the train have the same speed to the medium as the train or closed, meaning they are still to the medium in which they observe. Allthough the medium is air in both cases it,s completely different.

The relation between time and perpendicular movement in space along x coordinate can be solved with the equation:
ctbirds time coordinate + ivtbirds time coordinate = ctbirds x coordinate
This gives the result:
(ct)^2birds time coordinate- (vt)^2birds time coordinate = (ct)^2birds x coordinate
However the distance between perpendicular light in space to the movement in space
is:
ctbirds x coordinate+ ivtbirds x coordinate = ctbirds y coordinate
And as you can see, the result is not the same. Amen.

You seem to suffer from a rigid frame of reference in general.

The moving man has a frame of reference is that his own or is the still man giving him one? If it is his own he needs tools to determine the unities in different directions. A meterstick inside a cabin has a different length depending on how it is orientated.

The still man sees it and the moving man sees it. So which meterstick has preference ?

You let it out picking a meterstick free from lengthcontraction that means held in a specific orientation, perpendicular to the acceleration. That,s funny measuring a distance (or length) and keeping the meterstick perpendicular to what you want to meassure.

You would have to adapt the unities for both man with lorentzcontraction. It still won,t fit but it is closer then what you came up too as both effects compensat then.

But don,t be fooled. A meterstick that is contracted makes the distance longer in meters not shorter.

Also you don,t need the perpendicular light to the motion idea.

Imagine the moving man is in a glass capsule he is looking at a lightbeam pointed at him by the still man. What I,m aruing is that the distance (in their own meters) is not the same for both.

You believe that x and y coordinate has the same time dilation along them.

-That is just not the case.

Remember that.

I,m not believing that. With time dilation a second for one person is still the same as a second for another. a second is a second, part of a unification system as the meter is.

Because of that you have time-dillation; different amount of seconds for different observers leads to different duration.

If you shakehands to someone who goes on a travel you,re clock runs as ever but the one in the plane his clock runs different ; it,s frecqency is somehow influenced by the travel in a way we call fysics ;the study of such phenomen,s. A pendulum also changes it,s frecquency if you add some weigth, lengthen the rope etc.

But the unificationsystem holds a second as a constant under all circumstances.

It is perfectly possible to make think a second as relative and the time between two handshakes for a twin as such ; "the distance between two handshakes".

The same way here. The unification system is rigid as a meter is supposed to be a meter. But a meter is just what we name something. you can have a set of clocks under different circumstances all run with different frecquency related to each other.

For instance clock A has a rhytm twice as low as clock B. For B the frecquency of clock A is not 1 but 1/2 and for A clock B has frecquency 2/s.

The second, as a unity, itself becomes relative.

This way time dilation becomes more objektive (not less as you might suspect) because for both twins the relation between the rhytms of their clocks is the same.

Then you can do the same with Lorentzcontraction, allowing the meter to be "deformable".
As long as C^2 stays constant for all observers in all directions the relations for dimensions inside it can change. That allows some playingspace with the math. Just not take C=C for c^2 as for all directions. That,s "scquarethinking", rigid.
C*C' (C accent) instead of C^2 the scquare can deform but stay constant the same time.
So for the capsule travelling away from the lightsource due to that speed C perpendicular to the line of sight (and speed) can decrease and C in that line at the same time can increase. The produkt of C,s in these two main directions stays constant. As long as that is the case there is not much of a problem with a C that changes. For a specific trajektory and direction C in that direction even can stay constant for all observersjust fine. And in other directions (related to gravity, acceleration etc) for all observers different but also the same.

For instance if you shine a flashlight upward against gravity to a plane you could get a lightspot of say appr 1m^2. The same flashlight in opposite direction would be bigger or at least different surface area (I think bigger).

The divergion for both directions is different. Where the divergion is bigger C in the direction the lamp shines would be decreased relative to the direction perpendicular to it. The relation between C's for the two main directions makes the divergency.

So shining a light in water C directional is decreased by the medium and C perpendicular is increased. Hence the light is more spreading/more diverged.

In the case of the moving man and the still man C for the moving men when he accelrates does change as the acceleration works as sorta gravity (or countergravity ?) C will increase with him as his meter in that direction gets shorter the relation meters to seconds of the trajektory increases (with a shorter meter, more of his meters fit to the same trajektory).

I,m sure I make lot,s of mistakes and errors but I feel that somehow leaving or relativating the rigid unity system, leading to rigid referenceframes, should do the trick and at the same time keep the basic ideas of man like Einstein and Lorentz respected.







[/list]