READERS:
In another [thread=51810]thread[/thread] after lengthy discussion about Special Relativity's claim of spatial length contraction, Pete has posted a thread which (making certain assumptions) purportedly proves the issue of length contraction.
This thread is an effort to enlighten readers to certain facts (not assumptions) and how they mandate that such spatial contraction and assumptions are therefore invalid concepts.
First one does not need to even concern himself with the postulates of relativity. You need only to accept (not assume) the fact that at least a clock with velocity which has accelerated while under the enfluence of F = ma, will have a slower clock tick rate (time dilation) than a clock which remains inertial.
I specify the above conditions since reciprocity has never been demonstrated and a clock has never been shown emperically to tick slow due to relative velocity alone but only due to actual accelerated velocity. It is mentioned here in that in absence of some future supporting emperical finding there should be no consideration given the issue of reciprocity advocated by SRT.
Now take a long piece of paper and draw a 1m long horizontal line. Mark the scale of this line as 3E<sup>8</sup>/1. That is each cm is 1 light second. In a rest frame that makes this line 100 light seconds long.
Now envision an observer at the right end of the line and a moving observer going from left to right along the line at 0.866c. If we now mark the crafts location along and above this line each second of the trip you will have 115 one second time marks with a minor 0.473 second remainer to the rest observer. Each time mark is 0.866 light seconds long.
We know that it has been emperically demonstrated that a clock with this motion will tick at 1/2 the rate of the rest clock. That is you should make a mark below the 1m line for each two marks made according to the rest clock marks.
Therefore based on the rest observers view of velocity the moving clock will only accumulate 57 seconds during the trip and have a 0.7367 remainder to the rest observer.
Based on the rest observer velocity, rest line length and rest clock tick rate the moving clock will (can) only accumulate 57 seconds IF the 1m long line remains in 1/1 correspondance between frames.
That is its length CAN NOT have changed otherwise the moving clock could not accumulate the 57 ticks if you acknowledge the fact of time dilation on moving clocks.
Therefore it is clear that spatial length contraction did not and cannot occur but what does occur is that velocity becomes frame dependant, not length.
Given at rest: d = 1m, v = 0.866 cm/sec, t = d / v = 100cm / 0.866cm/sec = 115.473 seconds trip time.
Given in moving frame: d = 1m, t = 57.7367 seconds, v = d / t = 100 cm / 57.7367 seconds = 1.732 cm/s = 1.732c!.
Let me suggest you forget arguements about invariance of 'c'. Forget arguements about MM. Stick with the facts and then see if they do not mandate that we reconsider our prior interpretations of such matters.
I think they must. The failure in SRT is the equating of t and t' time intervals when one is known to be different than the other. SRT changes measurement standards between frames but then treats them as equal in the formula d = vt.
In another [thread=51810]thread[/thread] after lengthy discussion about Special Relativity's claim of spatial length contraction, Pete has posted a thread which (making certain assumptions) purportedly proves the issue of length contraction.
This thread is an effort to enlighten readers to certain facts (not assumptions) and how they mandate that such spatial contraction and assumptions are therefore invalid concepts.
First one does not need to even concern himself with the postulates of relativity. You need only to accept (not assume) the fact that at least a clock with velocity which has accelerated while under the enfluence of F = ma, will have a slower clock tick rate (time dilation) than a clock which remains inertial.
I specify the above conditions since reciprocity has never been demonstrated and a clock has never been shown emperically to tick slow due to relative velocity alone but only due to actual accelerated velocity. It is mentioned here in that in absence of some future supporting emperical finding there should be no consideration given the issue of reciprocity advocated by SRT.
Now take a long piece of paper and draw a 1m long horizontal line. Mark the scale of this line as 3E<sup>8</sup>/1. That is each cm is 1 light second. In a rest frame that makes this line 100 light seconds long.
Now envision an observer at the right end of the line and a moving observer going from left to right along the line at 0.866c. If we now mark the crafts location along and above this line each second of the trip you will have 115 one second time marks with a minor 0.473 second remainer to the rest observer. Each time mark is 0.866 light seconds long.
We know that it has been emperically demonstrated that a clock with this motion will tick at 1/2 the rate of the rest clock. That is you should make a mark below the 1m line for each two marks made according to the rest clock marks.
Therefore based on the rest observers view of velocity the moving clock will only accumulate 57 seconds during the trip and have a 0.7367 remainder to the rest observer.
Based on the rest observer velocity, rest line length and rest clock tick rate the moving clock will (can) only accumulate 57 seconds IF the 1m long line remains in 1/1 correspondance between frames.
That is its length CAN NOT have changed otherwise the moving clock could not accumulate the 57 ticks if you acknowledge the fact of time dilation on moving clocks.
Therefore it is clear that spatial length contraction did not and cannot occur but what does occur is that velocity becomes frame dependant, not length.
Given at rest: d = 1m, v = 0.866 cm/sec, t = d / v = 100cm / 0.866cm/sec = 115.473 seconds trip time.
Given in moving frame: d = 1m, t = 57.7367 seconds, v = d / t = 100 cm / 57.7367 seconds = 1.732 cm/s = 1.732c!.
Let me suggest you forget arguements about invariance of 'c'. Forget arguements about MM. Stick with the facts and then see if they do not mandate that we reconsider our prior interpretations of such matters.
I think they must. The failure in SRT is the equating of t and t' time intervals when one is known to be different than the other. SRT changes measurement standards between frames but then treats them as equal in the formula d = vt.
Last edited:
