[User has been asked not to post misinformation like this in the future -- Mods]
Terrell-Penrose rotation will solve the issue you are fighting. It isn't really contracted, it is rotated with respect to time and the axis of travel. The contraction is just measuring how much of the spatial...
Ah. Fair. Let's suppose they are measuring acceleration compared to a set of distant objects which you begin at relative rest with. (There is a complication there, because your motion relative to them will change everything again. Can this be handwaved away?)
Edit:
Wait, nevermind, your...
In this case it means I think the object is really where you see it, and calculating out where it would be if not for simultaneity, and insisting it is "really" there, is misleading yourself, but am not 100% certain of this assertion. So my expectation is that the acceleration behaves as though...
Alright, let's switch to yet another question that is asking the same thing.
A very large mass is moving at relativistic speed, a significant distance away. I am observing from a point such that the closest point in it's motion is some distance away to my right.
I observe it slightly to the...
Then, setting aside motion as curvature, I'm back to the question of why gravity should be spherically symmetrical considered from the perspective of an observer in relative motion. Considering it as emanating from the source, the path it travels is longer in one direction than another...
Hrm. Hang on.
If there is a light on the back of a relativistic ship we are viewing from the side (er, so it passes next to us, rather than through us), Terrell-Penrose rotation implies that, although the light is older (for some parts of the trip) and therefore should be dimmer (longer light...
Also, simultaenity means the two clocks won't agree on when the object reaches that point, hence the initial specification of different coordinate observers. Which means when the object reaches 0,0,0 from A's perspective, it hasn't from B's.
So let's ignore the perspectives of both A and B...
It will hit one of the clocks, yes.
So, making up numbers, if we treat the point at which it is equidistant as 0, its velocity is 55,0,0 (let's say light seconds per minute), and the clocks are at .01,0,0 and 0,.01,0
The object is moving in a line, a line perpendicular to which forms a right triangle with the two clocks.
If we call the axis of motion X, when it is equidistant, one of the clocks can be directly along an orthogonal axis, say, Y.
Two clocks are synchronized with each other, some distance apart. A large moving object is moving towards one clock we'll call A at some velocity V, on a vector which intersects a point equidistant to both clocks.
When the object reaches the point of equidistance, B should be, if I have...
For a more straightforward way of asking this question, is gravity spherically symmetric from the perspective of a reference frame from which the source of gravity is moving?
My intuition says no, for a variety of reasons, including that the total distance involved is greater for points that...
Einstein himself wrote on the reasons he expected it to be absolute.
The short version is that, if it is not absolute, then a moving configuration should behave slightly differently than a stationary configuration - for instance, if I was looking at a mirror orthogonal to the direction of...
[Moderator's note: Thread spun off from previous discussion due to topic change.]
Does the observed quadrapole moment change over time when considering a relatively moving object, for certain choices of observer coordinates?
My suspicion is that it does (Terrell-Penrose rotation implies...
I don't. An expert correspondent made the assertion a while ago and I didn't find it surprising enough to check, so I just assumed they were correct.
In retrospect, thinking about it, I guess I should have found it surprising.
I withdraw the assertion; it isn't particularly noteworthy from my...
The important thing for the original poster to know is that clocks can go more quickly, as well as more slowly, depending on whether travel is toward or away from.
This particular argument is largely irrelevant to that point.