Recent content by calebhoilday

turns out the assumption was bad. But now at least I am informed

what i meant is that your answer is congruent as you didn't dilate time. This was bad math on my part. i'll be getting rid of the time dilation from the formula soon and then we will be on the same page. The parameters I used are big and my assumption that as you slow the velocity in...

i dilated time in a place i shouldn't have and the result is congruent. Least I get it now.

JesseM has the understanding down of the situation "So, 0.57735*(1 - 0.5) = 0.288675, which is indeed what I got for (trailing-leading)" JesseM If 0.288675 seconds passed in the observer frame then half as much passed in the vessel then you need to adjust that based on the relativity of...

In this hypothetical, an experiment is going to be conducted concerning the repositioning of clocks. two clocks are placed at the leading end of a vessel, that is 1 light second long, to an observer at rest relative to it. This vessel is shot into space from an observation station at...

it kinda makes sense at first glance, ill have to run through the math. You have to remember that if the cannon on the right was fired before, that the velocity of the projectile from the left is 0 and will have to consider the firing of both cannons as simultaneous. As the cannon on the right...

Im aware that high school depictions can be mislead. I really just think that this whole thing is more or less a matter of opinion. To say a division problem, has to result in a single value, is more or less a rule someone has said. Show me the mathematical proof for this and ill back down...

what i was trying to say with the switch paradox, was that if you switched clocks at a slow enough rate and you found that the clock discrepancy was entirely position based, then you could safely assume that you had a velocity of 0.5C compared to some kind of absolute velocity. The argument...

how about any value rather than all values?

Sorry for the delay on writing an explanation, here is the reason. (((1-VS)/(S-V))*(((1-((S-V)/(1-VS))^2)^0.5)-1))-(((1-V^2)/(V-S))*(((1-S^2)^0.5)-((1-V^2)^0.5))=V To explain what this is step by step, is a very involved process and will take time (to do it well). Number crunching worked...

im not sure that I am getting you, but you say that 0/0 if it were some value would have to be a specific value. If (y-1)(y-2)=x then if X=0 and Y= 1 and 2, so to my understanding a particular domain can have multiple results. If you consider all those little tricks that can be played with...

To my understanding the mathematical consensus is that any value divided by zero, is undefined. when I look at 0/0 compared to 1/0 i tend to find that they are different. Are they still both undefined, even if they are different? Consider X*0=1 There is no value as to which X could be that...

If you consider clock X to be the leading and clock Y to be trailing with clock X being the one that is ahead one second. When considering the room frame, if the clocks are switched, at the same velocity, then if special relativity (or my understanding of it) will infer that clock X is always...

In in my calculations my length is 0.866 light seconds not 3.464 light seconds. Could you please explain jesseM. sorry I am having difficulty following your formatting.

Here are the true results without relativity of simultaneity factored in. Clock A (1) D =Length in observers frame*(length of projectile with velocity/ length of projectile when stationary) = 0.5(0.75)^0.5 light-seconds (2) U = (S-V)/(1-(SV/C^2) = (0.75)^0.5 (3) T=D/U =...