Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Is the frame dragging part of the Special Relativity?

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 13th August 2020, 10:22 AM #121 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat I understand the diagram. I don't understand you. I cannot correct that. Either you can make yourself comprehensible, or you cannot. Your quote: Quote: And I have no idea what you're trying to convey by the distinction between "deceleration to" and "acceleration from". There is no real distinction between deceleration and acceleration. And since your P point is in the middle of continuous acceleration, it involves both acceleration to and acceleration from that point. The textbook: Quote: The event C1 is the sudden change of direction of acceleration by 180ı (thrust reversing). O0 is subsequently slowed down until P and then sped up towards O, until C2. At this point, a new thrust reversing occurs, so that O0 is slowed down until it reaches B. There is the acceleration from A to C1 and deceleration from C1 to P. The traveling twin/triplet accelerates from stay home twin/triplet frame and then he decelerates to stay home twin/triplet frame at P. The traveling twin/triplet world line tangents are the same in direction and magnitude at A and P.
 13th August 2020, 10:30 AM #122 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat ... The front of the train doesn't have to trace out the same worldline as the back of the train. It doesn't have to have the same proper time. And proper time isn't coordinate time. Is this a new theory? The front clock has to have the same proper time ticks as the back clock. If they do not they are not in the same inertial frame. The worldlines have to be parallel. If they are not they are not in the same inertial frame.
 13th August 2020, 10:38 AM #123 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat I didn't say space-time coordinates. I said spatial coordinates. In other words, in that frame, those two events happen at the same place. Not the same time. We are talking about events in the space-time diagram hence I make the point of bi-located in the space-time. So we agree here. Quote: The front of the train doesn't stay at A. Not even if it crashes. Are you talking about a scenario where the train crashes? Is that what you're trying to get at? What happens to the back of the train if the front of the train stops? Because it you are, well, there's no paradox there, but there is something quite interesting which we could talk about. If not, then I have no idea what you're going on about. I am not talking about any crash. The event A is just that. Coordinates and no change to these coordinates. Otherwise it is not event A anymore.
 13th August 2020, 10:40 AM #124 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,023 Originally Posted by SDG There is the acceleration from A to C1 and deceleration from C1 to P. Acceleration and deceleration aren't fundamentally any different, that's my point. Yes, there is a distinction, but it's a reference frame dependent one. Deceleration in one frame will be acceleration in another. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 13th August 2020, 10:43 AM #125 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,023 Originally Posted by SDG Is this a new theory? The front clock has to have the same proper time ticks as the back clock. Only if they stay in the same inertial reference frame. Quote: If they do not they are not in the same inertial frame. The worldlines have to be parallel. If they are not they are not in the same inertial frame. The world lines are parallel if they're both stationary in that inertial frame. If the train accelerates, though, they don't have to remain parallel. They don't actually have to experience the same acceleration. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 13th August 2020, 10:48 AM #126 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Only if they stay in the same inertial reference frame. The world lines are parallel if they're both stationary in that inertial frame. If the train accelerates, though, they don't have to remain parallel. They don't actually have to experience the same acceleration. This thread is moving fast and it has parallel sub-discussions. There is no acceleration in this one, just the events A, B, C. Edit: I simplified the diagram. Last edited by SDG; 13th August 2020 at 10:53 AM.
 13th August 2020, 10:58 AM #127 Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,291 Please note that the train is 645,300 miles long. Assuming it's a passenger train, that means it has about 40 million coaches, weighing 2.5 billion tons in Earth standard gravity and seating 3.36 billion people. It takes the conductor 532 years to punch all the tickets for one trip. At lunch time, the line for the cafe car is 318,000 miles long* (queued up through about half of the 40 million cars) and the average wait time for a coffee and sandwich is 3,200 years. This railroad has much bigger problems to worry about than whether some guy's watch is three seconds off from somebody else's. *All figures assume social distancing measures are not in effect. __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 13th August 2020, 10:58 AM #128 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Acceleration and deceleration aren't fundamentally any different, that's my point. Yes, there is a distinction, but it's a reference frame dependent one. Deceleration in one frame will be acceleration in another. Right, and my point is to call it proper way based on the original stay home frame. Therefore the traveler is in the same frame as the stay home twin/triplet at the event P. Do we have agreement about the event P?
 13th August 2020, 11:38 AM #129 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,023 Originally Posted by SDG This thread is moving fast and it has parallel sub-discussions. There is no acceleration in this one, just the events A, B, C. OK, so what's your problem here? __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 13th August 2020, 11:49 AM #130 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat OK, so what's your problem here? The SR is reciprocal and therefore the observers do not agree on the other's proper time. The conclusion is derived based on who is looking. Translating the problem to triplets and two observers do not agree on the proper time of the third one but the world line can have only one proper time.
 13th August 2020, 11:55 AM #131 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,023 Originally Posted by SDG The SR is reciprocal and therefore the observers do not agree on the other's proper time. Show your work. Quote: Translating the problem to triplets and two observers do not agree on the proper time of the third one but the world line can have only one proper time. That is false. We've been over this already. You did the problem wrong. You mixed and matched different reference frames without accounting for the changes. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 13th August 2020, 12:17 PM #132 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Show your work. This is from my post #9: "Any light round trip will appear slower (time dilated) compared to any other moving frame?" It was a rhetorical question, it is easy to prove. Quote: That is false. We've been over this already. You did the problem wrong. You mixed and matched different reference frames without accounting for the changes. I did not mixed reference frames. It goes back to the acceleration sub-discussion and the event P, the post #112. When we settle that you'll see the answer. Last edited by SDG; 13th August 2020 at 12:18 PM.
 13th August 2020, 12:24 PM #133 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,023 Originally Posted by SDG This is from my post #9: "Any light round trip will appear slower (time dilated) compared to any other moving frame?" It was a rhetorical question, it is easy to prove. I did not mixed reference frames. It goes back to the acceleration sub-discussion and the event P, the post #112. When we settle that you'll see the answer. We aren't going to settle it because your questions are never comprehensible. Pick one problem. Do the calculations for that problem, showing your work. Demonstrate what you think the error is. Then I can show you how to do the problem correctly. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 13th August 2020, 12:48 PM #134 theprestige Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,640 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Show your work. That is false. We've been over this already. You did the problem wrong. You mixed and matched different reference frames without accounting for the changes. I'm not expert, but it seems like every misunderstanding of SR sooner or later turns out to be improper transitions between frames.
 13th August 2020, 12:56 PM #135 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Ziggurat We aren't going to settle it because your questions are never comprehensible. Pick one problem. Do the calculations for that problem, showing your work. Demonstrate what you think the error is. Then I can show you how to do the problem correctly. Which one would you like to do first. The roundtrip or the acceleration/the event P?
 13th August 2020, 02:58 PM #136 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Decided to remove this until SDG has chosen a problem and defined it. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 13th August 2020 at 03:46 PM.
 13th August 2020, 03:01 PM #137 theprestige Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 48,640 Originally Posted by SDG Which one would you like to do first. The roundtrip or the acceleration/the event P? LOL. "Pick one problem." "Which one?" SDG is giving us a masterclass in how to avoid substantive discussion.
 13th August 2020, 03:24 PM #138 cjameshuff Critical Thinker     Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 340 Originally Posted by theprestige I'm not expert, but it seems like every misunderstanding of SR sooner or later turns out to be improper transitions between frames. SDG isn't the first anti-relativist I've seen who will simply refuse to understand this detail. Typically they ignore the acceleration in the standard twin's paradox in the name of "simplifying" the problem (thus simplifying the solution out of existence), or complain about how it's accounted for. If you point out that you can remove the acceleration by adding another "inbound" party that communicates with the "outbound" party as they pass each other, and the results are the same, they ignore this and/or start thrashing around aimlessly in an attempt to confuse things...just like SDG is doing now.
 13th August 2020, 03:47 PM #139 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,023 Originally Posted by SDG Which one would you like to do first. The roundtrip or the acceleration/the event P? That's up to you. You've got the burden of proof here, so pick whichever one you want. But do the math. Show your numbers. And be clear, much more clear than you have been, about exactly what you're referring to. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 13th August 2020, 04:15 PM #140 Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,291 In the previous thread, SDG's main argument boiled down to claiming a "contradiction" caused by measurements made in one reference frame failing to agree with what the observer could calculate (via the Lorentz transformation) would be measured by another observer in a different frame. I think that's what the train example in this thread comes down to too, but it's too muddled to tell. In this thread, SDG also seems to be suggesting that "entering the inertial reference frame" of some other observer (that is, matching velocities with that observer, however momentarily) means that clocks moving with you must suddenly disregard their previous elapsed times and spontaneously synch up (not just in pace but in measured proper time) with all other stationary clocks in that frame. Or something like that. As if different inertial frames were like the "alternate timelines" that characters in the Marvel Universe travel between. Describing two events or observers as being "in the same frame" when one actually means they have the same velocity, while it might seem like everyone understands that the latter is what is meant, is probably contributing to the misdirection. __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 13th August 2020, 04:26 PM #141 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Just a note, on seeing some of the earlier scenarios, if the scenario does not involve acceleration then all world lines must be single straight lines. Any curves, bends or links in world lines implies acceleration. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 04:33 PM #142 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Also note that when a textbook divides a journey into straight line segments with instantaneous change in velocity between each segment, they are not implying that such a thing can happen in real.life, merely developing the argument to construct the integral which can provide the actual calculation. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 04:51 PM #143 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Originally Posted by Myriad Describing two events or observers as being "in the same frame" when one actually means they have the same velocity, while it might seem like everyone understands that the latter is what is meant, is probably contributing to the misdirection. In particular the claim, that when a comoving frame instantaneously has the same simultaneity line as some inertial frame then it's clocks must be in sync with that frame, is just plain wrong. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 05:40 PM #144 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Also, in the scenario definition, each event must refer to a single spacetime location in each frame. So you can't have an event refer to something observed at the front and also.at the back of a train, these have to be separate events. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 06:22 PM #145 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Originally Posted by SDG This is from my post #9: "Any light round trip will appear slower (time dilated) compared to any other moving frame?" It was a rhetorical question, it is easy to prove. And let's get this out of the way. A light round trip won't be a round trip in any other frame. And it won't appear slower, it will appear to have the same speed, (distance travelled divided by time elapsed) It will take longer or shorter in another frame, depending on the path. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 13th August 2020 at 06:26 PM.
 13th August 2020, 06:46 PM #146 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Originally Posted by SDG This thread is moving fast and it has parallel sub-discussions. There is no acceleration in this one, just the events A, B, C. https://i.imgur.com/y6QxAd6.png Edit: I simplified the diagram. Note that the object here is comoving with the t' axis but parallel to the x axis. Shouldn't it be parallel to the x' axis? __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 13th August 2020 at 06:52 PM.
 13th August 2020, 06:50 PM #147 JeanTate Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 4,001 Originally Posted by Ziggurat Nope. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit is indeed observably affected by general relativity, but this is mostly not frame dragging. The frame dragging component is 0.002 arcseconds per century, whereas the non-rotating GR contribution (the component which would exist if the sun didn't rotate at all) is about 43 arcseconds per century (source). The overall GR contribution was observable back in 1859, but the frame dragging component was not. Even today the error margin on Mercury's perihelion precession is much larger (0.65 arcsec/century) than the frame dragging contribution. Frame dragging is very difficult to observe, and wasn't experimentally confirmed until Gravity Probe B. Late, and rather OT: for the Sun and Mercury, yes. For ~solar-mass two neutron stars in close co-orbits, very noticeable. And carefully measured in the Double Pulsar, and maybe more now. Fits GR perfectly, provides great insights into NS masses, moments of inertia, and much more ...
 13th August 2020, 07:31 PM #148 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 The round trip of the light. This is the best to ideal clock for a world line that we can have. I hope everybody understands this. This is a round trip on the train frame. Agreed?
 13th August 2020, 07:35 PM #149 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Now we are going to do a round trip of the light on the platform. The 4s on the platform takes 8s' on the train. Any questions?
 13th August 2020, 08:22 PM #150 Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,291 Originally Posted by SDG The 4s on the platform takes 8s' on the train. Any questions? 1. The observer on the platform measures the light traveling 4cs in 4s. (That's the blue arrows in the first of your two new diagrams.) The observer on the train measures the light traveling 2cs in 2s. (That's the red arrows in that same diagram.) What observer in what reference frame measures the light making the round trip in 8 seconds? Not any observer on the platform. Not any observer on the train. So, who? 2. How loud does the whistle need to be, for a train that's over 372,500 miles wide? __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 13th August 2020, 08:25 PM #151 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Originally Posted by SDG Now we are going to do a round trip of the light on the platform. https://i.imgur.com/Vx4RDcN.png https://i.imgur.com/BprkBKz.png The 4s on the platform takes 8s' on the train. Any questions? It would help if you could be more explicit about what is happening here. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 08:29 PM #152 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Also, you have two spatial dimensions on the original diagram so you would need two spatial dimensions on the spacetime diagram, or else you can't describe what is happening. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 08:33 PM #153 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 And the train frame spacetime diagram has the platform moving to the right which does not match the original diagram. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 13th August 2020, 09:08 PM #154 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 Originally Posted by Robin It would help if you could be more explicit about what is happening here. The platform observer sends the light in the direction as in the first example. The light beam returns back to the platform observer. 2cs out + 2cs back = 4cs .... 4s The return trip of the platform light beam takes 7s' for the train frame. Just check the invariance of the space-time interval. It checks out.
 13th August 2020, 11:08 PM #155 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Originally Posted by SDG The platform observer sends the light in the direction as in the first example. The light beam returns back to the platform observer. 2cs out + 2cs back = 4cs .... 4s The return trip of the platform light beam takes 7s' for the train frame. Just check the invariance of the space-time interval. It checks out. Maybe you could start again and state the entire scenario explicitly. And state what the events A, B and C are. Also, your spacetime diagrams are wrong, they imply that the train is travelling at 0.866c relative to the platform and the platform is travelling at 0.866c relative to the train. The t' and x' axes in the train spacetime diagram should form an obtuse angle. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax" Last edited by Robin; 14th August 2020 at 12:19 AM.
 14th August 2020, 12:03 AM #156 HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 17,727 Originally Posted by Myriad In this thread, SDG also seems to be suggesting that "entering the inertial reference frame" of some other observer (that is, matching velocities with that observer, however momentarily) means that clocks moving with you must suddenly disregard their previous elapsed times and spontaneously synch up (not just in pace but in measured proper time) with all other stationary clocks in that frame. Or something like that. As if different inertial frames were like the "alternate timelines" that characters in the Marvel Universe travel between. Which really boils down to confusing the measured interval with the coordinate. I.e., the same confusion as if I were to confuse my position, as shown by the GPS on my phone, with the distance travelled, as shown by my car's mileage counter. The distance calculated by the two of them will be very different for the same trip from Berlin to Paris, if I went in a straight line or if I went through Rome first. __________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
 14th August 2020, 02:57 AM #157 Robin Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 12,881 Originally Posted by HansMustermann Which really boils down to confusing the measured interval with the coordinate. I.e., the same confusion as if I were to confuse my position, as shown by the GPS on my phone, with the distance travelled, as shown by my car's mileage counter. The distance calculated by the two of them will be very different for the same trip from Berlin to Paris, if I went in a straight line or if I went through Rome first. If it is the same as the last thread, then SDG will take two events in the same spatial location and show that the duration between them dilates into another frame according to the Lorentz factor alone. Then he takes two events in the second frame with the same time difference between them but different locations and says that this time difference ought to dilate to the first frame in the same way. When it doesn't he says this is a contradiction in SR. __________________ The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
 14th August 2020, 03:13 AM #158 HansMustermann Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 17,727 Yeah, I was getting the distinct impression that his train example just points at not understanding that t' = γ(t - vx/c2), as opposed to just γt, but honestly, it's so poorly explained that it's hard to be sure. __________________ Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
 14th August 2020, 05:41 AM #159 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 The event coordinates are in (x, y, t) and (x',y',t') formats. A: (0, 0, 0) ------- (0', 0', 0') D: (1.732, 1, 2) -- (0', 1', 1') E: (0, 0, 4) ------- (-6.9282', 0', 8') I hope this helps.
 14th August 2020, 06:00 AM #160 SDG Muse   Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 959 An interesting point. The velocity vy is c/7 for the train observer on the second leg. The light is crossing the y+ direction at c and the y- direction at c/7. Please, have a look at vy in my first post diagram. Last edited by SDG; 14th August 2020 at 06:03 AM.

International Skeptics Forum