Dalespan:
You are correct but, in this case, we have two different kinds of angles between the space and time coordinates which, according to Nugatory, is just a problem of our capacity to, let's say, draw it better. If this is the case, then we all agree.
Divirtam-se (Have fun)
Thanks for your explanation.
However this does not answer my question: how can two equivalent frames of reference be represented by systems of axis with different angles? The mathematics are obvious but do not correspond to the Principle of Relativity from which all the theory began.
I think...
How can this be compatible with Lorentz deduction of LT; Einstein deduction of LT; the Principle of Relativity and all the logical frame of deduction of SR?
I'm back after some months off.
I think this can only be discussed after defining some of the terms. There have been lots of light speed measurements; however we can only surely measure the two-way speed of light. To be able to measure the one-way speed of light, we should be able to place...
Unfortunately at the present moment of my work I don't have time to come here except on Sundays. This pace, when everybody writes daily, turns my participation impossible. I'll come some other time.
Meanwhile ...
Divirtam-se (have fun)!
What are we talking about? Time dilatation as an effect of speed, is it not?
What we are talking about is how 2 inertial frames, with a certain relative movement, see each other's time. Then we can add all other effects we want.
Imagine 2 travellers parting from Earth in opposite directions at...
"There is no absolute movement but we can meaningfully define moving at any speed up to the speed of light."
How can you do that unless you refer your movement to a reference frame arbitraryly chosen to be at rest? Let's call A the "moving" frame and B the frame at rest. Can't we switch the...
Dr. Greg
Lots of effects are taken to correct GPS systems everyday: one of them is SR relative movement; another, GR distance to the centre of mass or the weaker gravitational field if you want.
I think it was quite clear that I was referring to those two effects ignoring all others. If I was...
If there is no absolute movement, moving at close to light speed has no meaning. If you are moving at the speed of light relatively to a reference frame, than anything moving with that frame is moving at the speed of light relatively to your frame. So, measured on the Earth frame you're not...
If speed only makes sense relatively than you can not say "nearing the speed of light" unless you pick up an absolute reference. In common language we refer speeds to Earth as an absolute frame: that's why we may say "he is speeding at 40 Km/h". If we would be precise we should say "he is...
I think you made a mistake because of the ambiguous words of English. Time dilatation means that time flows slower, has a lesser value. So, mathematically it is the same as space contraction and t=t'/y, if y means a contraction factor. But I think you have realized it by yourself.
I don't think your diagram is correct because you are assuming that two events at distance have the same time coordinate in the frame at rest, which is not correct.
SR definition of simultaneity of events at distance on a rest frame clearly states that the time coordinate at B must be equal to...
I don't think you are right on these two observations.
It is not generally accepted that jump into the future. If you want to make such a statement you should explain yourself better. This way it looks like sciencefiction.
"We are nearing the speed of light" makes no sense in relativity...
Is it a policy of this forum to ban all these ignorant, unwilling to learn, "trolls, fools, kooks, and/or uninformed loudmouths"? Or insult is considered enough punishment?
I think you should apologize for having lost your temper!