|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: The answers in both cases are the same. Your wife will answer that the trip took four years and covered 2 light years (11,739,186,144,000 miles). Hubby on the space cycle will answer that the trip took 3.4641 years (1265.2 days) and covered 1.73205 light years. I asked:
quote: Your answer was both are the same. But: My wife will see my journey as taking 1460.97 days to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles. You say I will see my journey as taking 1265.2 days to travel 1.73205 light years which equals 10,166,135,040,000 miles. I did not ask how many days it would take me to travel 10,166,135,040,000 miles at 93,000 mps. I asked how many days it would take me to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles at 93,000 mps. Can you explain why according to your numbers there is a 1,573,051,104,000 miles difference in the miles traveled? So how can you say:
NoNukes writes: Both will agree that hubby completed the entire journey. I am traveling at 93,000 mps which takes 1460.97 days with each made up of 24 hours with each made up of 60 minutes with each made up of 60 seconds to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles. Something is wrong with your formula. According to your numbers I never get back home. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
My wife will see my journey as taking 1460.97 days to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles. You say I will see my journey as taking 1265.2 days to travel 1.73205 light years which equals 10,166,135,040,000 miles. I did not ask how many days it would take me to travel 10,166,135,040,000 miles at 93,000 mps. I asked how many days it would take me to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles at 93,000 mps. I answered your question. My answer regarding the wife's reference frame includes the answer to the question you asked. It takes four years or 1461 days to cover a distance of two light years at 0.5c. But hubby does not agree that the trip covered two light years or that four years were required to complete the trip. I'm not going to change that answer just because you repeat your question. I provided additional information because I don't want my answer to be misleading. According to SR, ICANT will measure a different length for the round trip journey than does his wife, and will experience a different duration for the trip. Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tags Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Hi ICANT
Can you explain why according to your numbers there is a 1,573,051,104,000 miles difference in the miles traveled? Yes I can. Perhaps this explanation will also help you to understand what an inertial frame is. The reason for the apparent distance is because objects in relative motion in an inertial reference frame are length contracted in the direction of motion as determined by an observer who is stationary in that reference frame. In the illustration below, scene A presents the situation as viewed and measured in the wife's frame of reference while scene B shows the situations in the ship's frame of reference.
In the wife's inertial frame (as shown in scene A), the ship moves to the right at 0.5c. The ship is length contracted in the direction of motion. The two planets are at rest in the wife's inertial frame, and the wife measures a distance between the two planets of 1 light year. The ship can complete the 2 light year round trip in 4 years at 0.5 c. On the other hand, in hubby's inertial frame (as shown in scene B), the ship is stationary and is not length contracted in the direction of motion. The two planets are moving to the left at 0.5c in this inertial frame and are observed to be length contracted along their direction of motion causing them to appear non spherical. The husband measures a distance between the two planets of 0.866 light years as this distance is also length contracted in the husband's frame of reference. The round trip of 1.732 light years will be completed in 3.46 years at 0.5c.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6
|
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: The round trip of 1.732 light years will be completed in 3.46 years at 0.5c. So when I end my journey will the earth and planet be 0.866 of a light year on center apart? Or Will they be 1 light year on center apart? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes: So when I end my journey will the earth and planet be 0.866 of a light year on center apart? Or Will they be 1 light year on center apart?
Assuming that you decelerate from 0.5c and join your wife, you'll once again be in your wife's inertial frame. You'll observe and measure the same lengths and durations that she does after you stop.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
Nonukes writes: Assuming that you decelerate from 0.5c and join your wife, you'll once again be in your wife's inertial frame. You'll observe and measure the same lengths and durations that she does after you stop. My thought journey was designed to began with me leaving my wife at .5 c and at no point during my trip did that change until my return. The entire trip from start to finish was at v= .5 c. Thus there was no acceleration or deceleration. I know that is impossible but it is only a thought experiment. Just like no one has ever done a physical experiment at 93,000 mps must less at 186,000 mps. So all your pronouncments about what I would see or measure is an assumption based on assumptions. How can I be in my wife's inertial frame? If I am standing face to face with my wife with our noses 1" apart and a fly pass between us I would see the fly moving from my left to my right while my wife saw the fly moving from her right to her left. The opposite could be true as it is determined by which way the fly is flying. We occupy different inertial frames. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined:
|
Just like no one has ever done a physical experiment at 93,000 mps must less at 186,000 mps. Well, your wrong once again, the relativistic effects are seen all the time at particle accelerators around the world, there have been mention of these experiments in this thread, I guess you didn't read it, or are choosing to ignore it. How are these experiments not physical?
here is a little on it quote: quote:From Britannica quote: Britannica Table of contents for relativity . Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Hi ICANT,
If your thought experiment does not correspond to reality in some significant way, then we must accept that our answers might not be meaningful. You should also accept that we might on occasion simply miss your intended meaning. While I didn't realize you didn't plan to stop your trip, I did announce my assumed condition in my answer. If you don't actually stop at journey's end then you'll continue see things exactly as you did prior to reaching earth. But you will of course have to continue past earth and not join your wife. Of course that answer would have been completely obvious even to undiscovered tribesman in the heart of the Peruvian jungle, who had missed most of this discussion. I'm wondering if your last question had any point at all.
Just like no one has ever done a physical experiment at 93,000 mps must less at 186,000 mps. You should know by now that you're completely wrong about the lack of experimental verification. The muon experiment we've mentioned numerous times involved particles moving at 0.994c. Experiments have also been done with particles moving at high speeds ( greater than .999 c) and emitting gamma rays (which of course travel at the speed of light. The results confirm special relativity and/or the underlying postulates. If your point is merely that we've sent you out in space cycle that can travel at 0.5c, I'll grant that. Yawn. Further, most of the contrary authorities you've cited (at least the ones who aren't flat out crackpots like Gaasenbeek and Spolter) acknowledge the effects of time dilation and length contraction.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
and are observed to be length contracted along their direction of motion causing them to appear non spherical. {cough}{cough} (not true - Penrose-Terrell Rotation) {cough}{cough}
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Hi ICANT,
I noticed something in your last message that I failed to address.
ICANT writes: How can I be in my wife's inertial frame? If I am standing face to face with my wife with our noses 1" apart and a fly pass between us I would see the fly moving from my left to my right while my wife saw the fly moving from her right to her left. The opposite could be true as it is determined by which way the fly is flying. Just when I think you are understanding the meaning of inertial frame, you post something fairly disappointing like this. Perhaps I contributed to the problem by using "left" and "right" in my description. Facing the opposite way as your wife or standing a few feet, miles, inches away from her doesn't put the two of you in different inertial frames. Assuming that your wife is an inertial frame, you are in the same frame as long as you are not moving relative to your wife. No matter which way the two of you are facing, you can agree that the fly is moving west at 10 m/sec west relative to your own position. Locations on Earth only approximately inertial frames. While standing on the earth, we rotate in a 24 hour cycle, and revolve around the sun on a yearly cycle. These motions do not occur along a straight line and thus locations on earth is not in an inertial frame. But they may approximate such a frame for the purposes of a given discussion. Please continue to rethink what an inertial frame is. I think you are making some progress, but you aren't quite there yet.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Thanks cavediver.
From the wikipedia article on the phenomenon
quote: Seems that Terrell might well have been talking about me. If I had known about this I could have saved a couple of image processing steps. Can I blame it on having taken too many engineering courses?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi fear,
fearandloathing writes: Well, your wrong once again, the relativistic effects are seen all the time at particle accelerators around the world, there have been mention of these experiments in this thread, I guess you didn't read it, or are choosing to ignore it. How are these experiments not physical? Those are physical experiments of a particle, running around in a circle. That is not my 100' space cycle sailing along at .5 c for close to 5,869,593,072,000 miles until I make my turn while I and my cycle are at rest in my frame. As I said there has not been a physical experiment where a rocket or my space cycle has been tested at .5 c or at .999 c where it is supposed to be flat from front to back. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: and are observed to be length contracted along their direction of motion causing them to appear non spherical.
{cough}{cough} (not true - Penrose-Terrell Rotation) {cough}{cough} Wouldn't the length contraction be observed to happen because of the time delay of the visual reaching the eye of the observer? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
Those are physical experiments of a particle, running around in a circle. That is not my 100' space cycle sailing along at .5 c for close to 5,869,593,072,000 miles until I make my turn while I and my cycle are at rest in my frame. Do you believe that relativity would apply to subatomic particles but not to macroscopic structures? Why? Why do you believe that the results observed in particle accelerators are irrelevant to a discussion about relativistic velocities in objects of a different scale? Is there an actual reason, or are you just dismissing it because it contradicts your current understanding?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Wouldn't the length contraction be observed to happen because of the time delay of the visual reaching the eye of the observer? No ICANT. We've discussed this before. Length contraction and time dilation effects have nothing to do with changes in observations due the time it takes for light from events and objects to reach our eyes. They are about how we measure things after taking signal propagation delays into account. For example, we may observe thunder to occur well after the lightning that caused it, but we know that those things actually close together in time. An observer closer to the lightning may hear thunder and lightning close together in time. The difference is not a relativistic effect.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024