# Explaining time dilation from length contraction easier

 P: 183 For the explanation of the Lorentz derivation in Wiki with the known triangle, 2 rest frames are considered in 1 view, so that's not forbidden. So I do too. To explain time dilation is easier to understand if you see it by length contraction. That could be explained somehow in the future, because length is real to understand ... If you P move with speed V in rest frame A, somebody in rest frame A takes your time t between a start and endpoint (distance X m). P takes his rolling ruler with him and a clock (in rest frame B), and stops the clock after distance X (for him). His clock (smaller) had stopped after 1/γ . X m. So there is nothing special about time because his clock stopped after 1/γ . t, it's just the difference in equal moments, that must be corrected in calculations. Maybe I say it too simple as I did many times before ...
 P: 183 Suddenly I begin it to understand Relativity, it goes about Simultaneity. So one considers the moments t in frame A en 1/γ . t simultaneously because of the length contraction from our unit meter in frame A. So in the old meter the car is on t in frame A and with the new smaller unit meter (1/γ) the car is in frame A on 1/γ . t (but also in frame B where the car is standing still). So duration is everywhere the same, there is nothing strange about time in the SR, I have not read GR so maybe there is something different in duration ? Right ? It's just the length contraction ! If this is true I can't understand why I have not understand this in books all that time ... on my own website I can sure explain this more simple than, if this is right ?
 PF Gold P: 4,786 The length contraction occurs only along the direction of motion and yet there is time dilation for a light clock where the light bounces back and forth at right angles to the direction of motion. When you rotate the light clock so that the light bounces back and forth along the direction of motion, the mirrors have to come closer together in order to tick at the same rate. So it cannot just be the length contraction, can it? This topic recently came up in another thread called Conflicting clocks. Why don't you take a look at that thread and see if it makes sense to you?
P: 183
Explaining time dilation from length contraction easier

 Quote by ghwellsjr The length contraction occurs only along the direction of motion and yet there is time dilation for a light clock where the light bounces back and forth at right angles to the direction of motion. When you rotate the light clock so that the light bounces back and forth along the direction of motion, the mirrors have to come closer together in order to tick at the same rate. So it cannot just be the length contraction, can it? This topic recently came up in another thread called Conflicting clocks. Why don't you take a look at that thread and see if it makes sense to you?
Hi Ghwellsjr,

Yes you mean the known triangle for the short Lorentz derivation.

But I have problems with this situation, of course it can be true and than I should understand, but that's the point. I would like to believe in time dilation and should be really interesting for me, but I am not that far ...

I mentioned this in my first blog last alinea's, maybe you would have a good answer it helps me .. it is after the second last "====================" ..
 PF Gold P: 4,786 Why should I pursue this any farther on your blog when you reject what I'm offering here? I get the impression you didn't even read my post. You didn't respond to anything I said. I didn't say anything about Lorentz derivation. You always want to reject the simple explanations and come up with your own. Please answer my question in the previous post: how can you explain time dilation as being nothing more than length contraction when length contraction only applies along the direction of motion whereas time dilation applies without regard to the direction of motion?
P: 183
 Quote by ghwellsjr Why should I pursue this any farther on your blog when you reject what I'm offering here? I get the impression you didn't even read my post. You didn't respond to anything I said. I didn't say anything about Lorentz derivation. You always want to reject the simple explanations and come up with your own. Please answer my question in the previous post: how can you explain time dilation as being nothing more than length contraction when length contraction only applies along the direction of motion whereas time dilation applies without regard to the direction of motion?
Hi Ghwellsjr,

Sorry for that, but it was a quick answer for me, I had to go sleeping.

Now again, so I wanted always answer later.

But I can already give a quick answer (I come back later on it in the weekend).

Your situation is mine with the car but with light in an angel right on the car's top. If I don't believe in time dilation there is nothing special for me in your example. In both cases the clock has the same rate but specifies a different time because its light path is shorter.

But you can also ask, why can I explain in the moving direction with length contraction and so a shorter meter (1/γ) the same time 1/γ.t with and without time dilation (Lorentz) ? Just as you always say "you need a clock to measure time", so I say "you need a ruler to measure a distance" ...

I go also to look to your other example later ..
PF Gold
P: 4,786
 Quote by digi99 ... If I don't believe in time dilation...
If you don't believe in time dilation, then why are you trying to explain it with just length contraction?
 Quote by digi99 In both cases the clock has the same rate but specifies a different time because its light path is shorter.
How can a clock have the same rate yet specify a different time? Don't you understand that an observer traveling with the clock will use the flashes of light bouncing off a mirror as a basis for time? If he has two clocks at right angles to each other and the light bounces at a different rate for one of them than for the other one, then he's going to have a device that will detect absolute motion. Is that what you are promoting? And it doesn't matter if it is a light clock--any clock will behave the same way.
 Quote by digi99 But you can also ask, why can I explain in the moving direction with length contraction and so a shorter meter (1/γ) the same time 1/γ.t with and without time dilation (Lorentz) ?
If light only has to travel a shorter distance, wouldn't that mean the clock was ticking more rapidly?
 Quote by digi99 Just as you always say "you need a clock to measure time", so I say "you need a ruler to measure a distance" ...
I didn't say either one of those things--Einstein did. And you should read what he wrote and try to understand it and believe it instead of trying to work these things out on your own.

Why don't you start with his 1905 paper introducing Special Relativity? In section 1, you will see where he talked about defining distance with a rigid ruler:
 If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates.
Following that, he goes on to talk about the definition of time, both local and remote.

I really don't want to discuss your personal ideas about these things but I would be happy to help you understand what Einstein said about them. Do you want to give up on trying to explain these things better than Einstein did and learn what he had to say?