My reason for even bringing up a seemingly fictional state of travel (ie, travel without the effects of inertia) is because of studies into the possibility that inertia-less acceleration could one day be created. If there were a form of propulsion whereby all molecules in and on the vehicle...
To rule it out as a cause, of course. Or to determine that it is the cause. Why test the speed of light in a vacuum? Because you don't want air interfering with the experiment. Same thing.
I'm giving the guy credit. How could he have possibly considered all the factors when he himself may...
in·er·tia
n.
Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
It seems to me that just about everyone here is saying the same thing. "It just is" doesn't cut it for me. I'm a "show me why and how" type of guy. I accept things as they are so long as they fit into the box of logic and reason. This is why I'm naturally drawn to science and shy away from...
All the scenarios I've read about simultaneity, length contraction, time dilation, and twin paradox rely upon acceleration and deceleration, and they don't bother to point out that no experiment has been done yet outside the influence of magnetic and gravitic fields.
My argument remains that...
Not quite following your word-logic.
I can see how, using your drawing, two observers in separate frames can view each other differently. But a mile is a mile, and it will always take a certain amount of time to travel that mile based on a fixed speed. Regardless of what each observer's...
If the exact same level of dilation and contraction is occurring from both perspectives, they HAVE to cancel each other out for all practical purposes! Neither would arrive one second younger than the other. It would all be attributable to skewed perspectives during motion which corrected itself...
No harm, no foul. Hard to display proper emotions through text. Didn't mean to come off as upset...I'm not. Just trying to get to the bottom of this quandry.
Peace.
I have. I've read just about all of the ones available in layman form. And none of the explanations in them or in this thread have yet explained the difference which separates the moving object from the stationary observer. I understand everything which has been illustrated so far, and have read...
Exactly my point. Both perspectives cancel each other out.
But according to the traveling muon, it is the Earth's atmosphere and surface which are traveling rather than it. It doesn't make sense that any special calculation need be made from either perspective that cannot be canceled out by...
If that's true, there is no physical effect at all. It's all a matter of skewed perspective. They would only APPEAR to change in length. So what about time dilation? The same thing is true there as well, is it not?
This is what I meant: objects in an unchanging state of relative motion.
And as for photon's points of view, let's forget photons. Say an observer on a ship traveling 99% light speed relative to a planet. Why would the traveler experience time dilation and length shortening while the planet...
With regard to all the Points, these were quoted from the theories/laws. They mean whatever the author meant.
In point 1, it seems quite clear that ANYTHING in motion can equally call its observer the one who is in motion. If this is true, we are all traveling light speed right now, relative...
Point 1. All speed is relative to an observer and is never absolute (because there is no absolute frame of reference from which one can observe and measure).
Point 2. The laws of physics hold true for all frames of reference (i.e., an inch is an inch no matter how fast you are traveling)...