Existence

Hi NoNukes, I asked:

quote:

---

How many days will it take me traveling at 93,000 mps to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles with no light beam approaching me?

​

How many days will it take me traveling at 93,000 mps to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles with a light beam approaching me during the final 365.2425 days of the journey?

---

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: 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."

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 tagsEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT 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.

Hi NoNukes, So when I end my journey will the earth and planet be 0.866 of a light year on center apart?OrWill 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."

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.

Hi NoNukes, 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."

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:

---

The measurable effects of relativity are based on gamma. Gamma depends only on the speed of a particle and is always larger than 1. By definition:
Equation relating speed of light, speed of object and constant, gamma c is the speed of light
v is the speed of the object in question

​

For example, when an electron has traveled ten feet along the accelerator it has a speed of 0.99c, and the value of gamma at that speed is 7.09. When the electron reaches the end of the linac, its speed is 0.99999999995c where gamma equals 100,000.

​

What do these gamma values tell us about the relativistic effects detected at SLAC? Notice that when the speed of the object is very much less than the speed of light (v << c), gamma is approximately equal to 1. This is a non-relativistic situation (Newtonian).

---

quote:

---

Relativistic particle physics.
The physics of subatomic particles depends on the principles of the special theory of relativity. These principles have their most direct application when particles are created, annihilated, or converted into different particles. In most particle transformations, large amounts of energy are involved; the total (rest) masses of the particles involved in the transformations will change, and this change will be related to the amounts of energy expended or gained by the rule that the change in mass ({delta} m{sub 0}) is balanced by a corresponding change in energy ({delta} E), divided by the square of the speed of light (c {sup 2}): {delta} m{sub 0} = -c{sup -2}{delta}E. This rule has been confirmed universally and, by now, is being taken for granted.

​

The units, or quanta, of electromagnetic energy, called photons, have long been regarded as a species of particle in which are combined the properties of zero rest mass with nonvanishing relativistic mass, because they travel at the speed of light. The relativistic mass equals its total energy E divided by c{sup 2} . The energy of a photon also is equal to the product of its frequency {nu}and Planck's constant h. The relativistic mass of a photon can be checked experimentally if the photon is absorbed or deflected in its interactions with particles, when the change in its linear momentum (product of velocity and relativistic mass) results in a recoil by the other particles. If a high-frequency photon, a gamma photon, collides with a free electron, the result is called the Compton effect, which involves both an observable recoil on the part of the electron and an altered frequency of the deflected photon. Again, relativity is confirmed by experiment.

---

From Britannica

quote:

---

Modern particle accelerators raise particles to speeds very near that of light. At these energies and speeds the differences in behaviour predicted by classical physics and by the special theory of relativity are huge; the machines must be designed in accordance with relativistic principles, or they will not operate.

​

Electron synchrotrons operate at energies of several thousand million electron volts, which means that the relativistic mass of an electron orbiting at maximum energy is roughly 10,000 times its rest mass. Accordingly, the magnetic field required to maintain the electrons in orbit is 10,000 times as powerful as it would have to be if nonrelativistic physics held, at the same speed. On the other hand, at that given energy the speed of the electrons is in fact very nearly equal to the speed of light, the difference amounting to no more than one part in 100,000,000 (10{sup 8} ). At the same energy, but by nonrelativistic mechanics, the speed of the electrons would be about 100 times the speed of light. This difference has a very practical consequence: in those particle accelerators designed for highly relativistic energies, the synchrotrons, particles are injected into a circular orbit already near the speed of light, and their velocities change only slightly as their energies are brought up to the highest design value. If the orbit diameter is kept nearly constant, particles at all energies will circulate at the same frequency, and only the magnetic field that keeps them in orbit needs to be increased to keep pace with the increasing mass. The accelerating voltage is applied at the constant frequency required so that the particles will always be accelerated forward.

---

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. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

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. 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.

{cough}{cough} (not true - Penrose-Terrell Rotation) {cough}{cough}

Hi ICANT,I noticed something in your last message that I failed to address. 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.

Thanks cavediver.From the wikipedia article on the phenomenon

quote:

---

Terrell's paper pointed out that some existing discussions of special relativity were flawed and "explained" effects that the theory did not actually predict - while his paper did not change the actual mathematical structure of special relativity in any way, it did correct a popular misconception regarding the theory's predictions

---

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?

Hi fear, 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."

Hi cavediver, 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."

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?

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.