Speed of Light and Energy...?

[Nautilidae]

ok, let's replace the caesium clocks with hourglasses. run the experiment, then freeze the hourglasses and put them side by side. you can see that one measured a different amount of time than the other.

let's do the same with a train, take two identical train cars, have one travel near or at the speed of light and the other sit on earth. freeze the lengths of both trains, and place them side by side. are they still identical...?

The train moving near the speed of light will be shorter.

[dj357]

ok, let's replace the caesium clocks with hourglasses. run the experiment, then freeze the hourglasses and put them side by side. you can see that one measured a different amount of time than the other.

let's do the same with a train, take two identical train cars, have one travel near or at the speed of light and the other sit on earth. freeze the lengths of both trains, and place them side by side. are they still identical...?

The train moving near the speed of light will be shorter.

how the fuck is that possible...?

[Nautilidae]

ok, let's replace the caesium clocks with hourglasses. run the experiment, then freeze the hourglasses and put them side by side. you can see that one measured a different amount of time than the other.

let's do the same with a train, take two identical train cars, have one travel near or at the speed of light and the other sit on earth. freeze the lengths of both trains, and place them side by side. are they still identical...?

The train moving near the speed of light will be shorter.

how the fuck is that possible...?

Setting the speed of light to be constant has that effect. That is why time dilation occurs. In special relativity, non-intertial frames of reference have interesting properties when compared to inertial frames of reference.

[dj357]

ok, let's replace the caesium clocks with hourglasses. run the experiment, then freeze the hourglasses and put them side by side. you can see that one measured a different amount of time than the other.

let's do the same with a train, take two identical train cars, have one travel near or at the speed of light and the other sit on earth. freeze the lengths of both trains, and place them side by side. are they still identical...?

The train moving near the speed of light will be shorter.

how the fuck is that possible...?

Setting the speed of light to be constant has that effect. That is why time dilation occurs. In special relativity, non-intertial frames of reference have interesting properties when compared to inertial frames of reference.

so where does time as a dimension become necessary in any of this...? and I would dispute the fact that the speed of light being a constant has an effect on time dilation based on relative position in a gravity well...

[Nautilidae]

so where does time as a dimension become necessary in any of this...? and I would dispute the fact that the speed of light being a constant has an effect on time dilation based on relative position in a gravity well...

What your describing is general relativity, not special relativity. The entire reason for the strange effects of special relativity is the fact that the speed of light is constant. Sure, time dilation occurs due to gravity as well, but if both objects are in a gravity well and one is moving, one still experiences MORE time dilation than the other.

By describing time as a dimension, one can view special relativity in terms of a coordinate system. In a system where time is a dimension, time dilation and length contraction are accounted for, and one can more easily visualize these phenomena graphically. Thus, time is considered a dimension.

[hackenslash]

Let me see if I can't work out the kinks here:

Firstly, as has been elucidated already, time dilation is experimentally confirmed. This is due to relativistic effects warping the fabric of spacetime when in motion. In the caesium clocks experiment, it isn't that the clock ticks slower, although that's how it would appear from an external frame. It's actually that it experiences less time. From the frame of the clock in motion, the passage of time is exactly the same. The same is true of length contraction. It's actually a necessary corollary of the same effect. In the inertial frame of the train, the length would be measured exactly the same but, due to the warping of spacetime, it would measure as shorter from the inertial frame of a static observer. The reason that this has not been experimentally confirmed is simply that it would have to be measured from a static frame with the train moving at a significant fraction of light speed.

What all of this means is that time and space are related. If time isn't a dimension, then neither is space, and the word dimension is useless. This is clearly nonsense, because dimension is the definition of what spatial directions are, so time has to be a dimension. This is inescapable.

It doesn't matter that you don't like, it's a simple matter of fact. In the years after the publication of relativity, a book was published called '100 Authors Against Einstein' (somewhat redolent of the fatuous 'scientific dissent from Darwinism, which included such people as the janitor at the Discovery Institute). In the immortal words of Einstein himself 'Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.'

[Nautilidae]

Let me see if I can't work out the kinks here:

Firstly, as has been elucidated already, time dilation is experimentally confirmed. This is due to relativistic effects warping the fabric of spacetime when in motion. In the caesium clocks experiment, it isn't that the clock ticks slower, although that's how it would appear from an external frame. It's actually that it experiences less time. From the frame of the clock in motion, the passage of time is exactly the same. The same is true of length contraction. It's actually a necessary corollary of the same effect. In the inertial frame of the train, the length would be measured exactly the same but, due to the warping of spacetime, it would measure as shorter from the inertial frame of a static observer. The reason that this has not been experimentally confirmed is simply that it would have to be measured from a static frame with the train moving at a significant fraction of light speed.

What all of this means is that time and space are related. If time isn't a dimension, then neither is space, and the word dimension is useless. This is clearly nonsense, because dimension is the definition of what spatial directions are, so time has to be a dimension. This is inescapable.

It doesn't matter that you don't like, it's a simple matter of fact. In the years after the publication of relativity, a book was published called '100 Authors Against Einstein' (somewhat redolent of the fatuous 'scientific dissent from Darwinism, which included such people as the janitor at the Discovery Institute). In the immortal words of Einstein himself 'Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.'

At last! Some aid!

[dj357]

I honestly and truly give up.

[Tigger]

I honestly and truly give up.

Try the books mentioned, esp Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe.

[colubridae]

Wikipedia: It is an upper bound on the speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel, as surpassing it "would lead to the destruction of the essential relation between cause and effect."

Clearly this is utter fucking nonsense.
The universe is not a sentient creature that decided for its own sake it had better limit light speed and everything else.




Don't get me wrong wiki can be very useful.
I have the greatest respect for it.
But trying to do this level of physics from wiki articles is just going to fuck your head up...
I promise you can go back to length contraction when we are done




Once again why does light only travel at c no matter what frame you are looking at it from?

you're gonna have to help me out here, I'm not sure what you're trying to lead me to.

This last answer is nearly there you nearly have it… One more go, kind of extrapolate on it… You already have the answer. It is simple.

Colubridae, please do not continue with this. You are entering troll territory.

Not in the slightest

Wikipedia: It is an upper bound on the speed at which energy, matter, and information can travel, as surpassing it "would lead to the destruction of the essential relation between cause and effect."

Clearly this is utter fucking nonsense.
The universe is not a sentient creature that decided for its own sake it had better limit light speed and everything else.

If you think that correcting wikipedia is trolling then you are mistaken.
If you think it is report me.




The answer is fundamental. and it must be firmly understood not just nodded at.
It needs a lot of prep.

Until he grasps it for himself, he will be simply scratching the surface, making up endless ludicrous thought experiments.

If you think I am trolling then report me....

[AshtonBlack]

The Fabric of the Cosmos is a great layman's book! (by BG as well), I think someone mentioned it.

[dj357]

I take umbridge at that "ludicrous" snipe, since they seem perfectly reasonable when you don't understand relativity properly.

[hackenslash]

I take umbridge at that "ludicrous" snipe, since they seem perfectly reasonable when you don't understand relativity properly.

I have to agree with colubridae here. Lack of understanding is not a good defence in this case, because it has been pointed out to you several times that all your examples and thought experiments are rooted in middle-world thinking. This isn't a criticism of you, it is a simple observation. It doesn't seem to you that they are rooted in middle-world thinking, because you are still, as I said, in the box. Once you begin to grasp relativity, you will have climbed out of the box, and you will inderstand why ludicrous is a perfectly applicable word in this instance. All your examples are common-sense examples, and trying to apply common sense to this is futile.

[colubridae]

Fuck it I'm out

actually anyone who 'understands' SR knows the answer already.

[dj357]

I take umbridge at that "ludicrous" snipe, since they seem perfectly reasonable when you don't understand relativity properly.

I have to agree with colubridae here. Lack of understanding is not a good defence in this case, because it has been pointed out to you several times that all your examples and thought experiments are rooted in middle-world thinking. This isn't a criticism of you, it is a simple observation. It doesn't seem to you that they are rooted in middle-world thinking, because you are still, as I said, in the box. Once you begin to grasp relativity, you will have climbed out of the box, and you will inderstand why ludicrous is a perfectly applicable word in this instance. All your examples are common-sense examples, and trying to apply common sense to this is futile.

to be fair i think my example with the flashlight and you travelling towards me faster than the speed of light is hardly middle world common sense.