Can't Tell If you are shrinking?

[TheScienceOrca]

They say there is no measurement if traveling in a ship at the speed of light you can do to tell whether you are traveling at the speed of light, because as everything shortens even your ruler shortens.

Well what if I threw a ruler in the direction opposite of the ships travel and with precise tools measured the increase in size compared to a ruler going to the speed of light in the ship.

Then you would be able to tell if you are moving anyway where in the universe even by yourself.

Sorry about all the theory of relativity questions, it has just really got my mind going.

 

[ghwellsjr]

They say there is no measurement if traveling in a ship at the speed of light you can do to tell whether you are traveling at the speed of light, because as everything shortens even your ruler shortens.

Well what if I threw a ruler in the direction opposite of the ships travel and with precise tools measured the increase in size compared to a ruler going to the speed of light in the ship.

Then you would be able to tell if you are moving anyway where in the universe even by yourself.

Sorry about all the theory of relativity questions, it has just really got my mind going.

It's not clear exactly what you would do after throwing a ruler but if you could measure its length, it would be shorter, not longer.

But let's take it one step further: If two identical observers in two identical ships pass each other at some high speed which they can measure using the precepts of Special Relativity, they can each determine the length of the other ship by timing how long it takes for the other ship to pass and doing a simple calculation. They will both determine that the other ship is shorter than their own and by the same amount.

If you understand that, then you could do a similar thing with a ruler that someone threw towards you inside your ship. You could measure its speed and then see how long it took to pass you and calculate its length. It would be shorter.

 

[Orodruin]

You are massive and cannot travel at the speed of light. You could travel close to the speed of light relative to another object. However, you will never see any length contraction effect on objects that are traveling along with you.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

If I threw the ruler in the opposite direction of travel then the ruler would have slower relative motion and thus be longer correct?

I was thinking of a machine inside the rocket ship traveling at the speed of light.

In this machine on one wall is a measuring tape that would be traveling at the speed of light.

A blast of air or some force would shoot the ruler through the chamber where high speed cameras would measure the change in size of the ruler.

Whether it be longer or shorter (longer if in opposite direction of travel I believe).

Anyway this would allow you to tell if you are traveling even with NO other rockets around you.

Looking back at it to counter my statement, the change in size would still happen at zero velocity. So the ruler must be thrown towards the front of the ship and if it doesn't shrink then you can only tell if you are traveling at the speed of light.

This same concept would still apply at the speed of light though.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

You are massive and cannot travel at the speed of light. You could travel close to the speed of light relative to another object. However, you will never see any length contraction effect on objects that are traveling along with you.

There also isn't only 2 masses in the universe.

It's called theoretical physics for a reason.

 

[ghwellsjr]

If I threw the ruler in the opposite direction of travel then the ruler would have slower relative motion and thus be longer correct?

I was thinking of a machine inside the rocket ship traveling at the speed of light.

In this machine on one wall is a measuring tape that would be traveling at the speed of light.

A blast of air or some force would shoot the ruler through the chamber where high speed cameras would measure the change in size of the ruler.

Whether it be longer or shorter (longer if in opposite direction of travel I believe).

Anyway this would allow you to tell if you are traveling even with NO other rockets around you.

Looking back at it to counter my statement, the change in size would still happen at zero velocity. So the ruler must be thrown towards the front of the ship and if it doesn't shrink then you can only tell if you are traveling at the speed of light.

This same concept would still apply at the speed of light though.

Just like speed is defined according to a frame of reference, so is length. If an object is traveling according to a frame of reference, it will be shorter along its direction of motion. If you transform to another frame of reference moving with respect to the original one, then different objects can have different speeds and therefore different length contraction. It doesn't matter if the object is moving along one direction or in the opposite direction.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

Just like speed is defined according to a frame of reference, so is length. If an object is traveling according to a frame of reference, it will be shorter along its direction of motion. If you transform to another frame of reference moving with respect to the original one, then different objects can have different speeds and therefore different length contraction. It doesn't matter if the object is moving along one direction or in the opposite direction.

Lets say I am bob I am standing in the ship going in some direction at the speed of light.

From my perspective I could be standing still, here is how I can tell I am moving at the speed of light.

If I throw a ruler towards the direction of travel no object can go faster then the speed of light so the ruler would not shrink in size, from bobs perspective.

Although if the ship is was not moving and I threw the ruler under precise measurement I could see the decrease in size of the ruler under VERY precise measurement.

 

[ghwellsjr]

Lets say I am bob I am standing in the ship going in some direction at the speed of light.

From my perspective I could be standing still, here is how I can tell I am moving at the speed of light.

If I throw a ruler towards the direction of travel no object can go faster then the speed of light so the ruler would not shrink in size, from bobs perspective.

Although if the ship is was not moving and I threw the ruler under precise measurement I could see the decrease in size of the ruler under VERY precise measurement.

You've already been admonished by Orodruin that no massive object can travel at the speed of light so you can't claim that you are doing theoretical physics and continue to draw conclusions about what happens when a massive object is traveling at the speed of light.

If you change slightly to just under the speed of light then you will always have room for any object to be thrown at any speed less than that of light and calculate the new speed and from that the Length Contraction. I have already explained how this could be done. Please don't dismiss the answers you have already been given.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

You've already been admonished by Orodruin that no massive object can travel at the speed of light so you can't claim that you are doing theoretical physics and continue to draw conclusions about what happens when a massive object is traveling at the speed of light.

If you change slightly to just under the speed of light then you will always have room for any object to be thrown at any speed less than that of light and calculate the new speed and from that the Length Contraction. I have already explained how this could be done. Please don't dismiss the answers you have already been given.

I understand what you are saying, Oroduin stated that when masses are traveling with you, in my scenario the ruler was not traveling with the rocket as it was being shot in the opposite direction at high rate of speed.

This length contraction you are explaining is what my question is about sorry if I am not communicating well.

If we were traveling at the speed of light in this rocket and I threw a ruler in the same direction of travel what would happen?

Perhaps I don't understand that, and that is what caused my mistake. I thought that the ruler would not change in size as it couldn't go over the speed of light.

 

[zbe]

Lets say I am bob I am standing in the ship going in some direction at the speed of light.

You can't travel at the speed of light. You can get arbitrary close to it though.

From my perspective I could be standing still, here is how I can tell I am moving at the speed of light.

If I throw a ruler towards the direction of travel no object can go faster then the speed of light so the ruler would not shrink in size, from bobs perspective.

You are missing the point that speed is relative. With respect to Bob, the ruler will travel with whatever speed he throws it. It doesn't matter if Bob is in a train, in a hotel or in a spaceship - as far as he is concerned he and ruler are stationary wrt to each other (until he throws it).

 

[Flatland]

I understand what you are saying, Oroduin stated that when masses are traveling with you, in my scenario the ruler was not traveling with the rocket as it was being shot in the opposite direction at high rate of speed.

This length contraction you are explaining is what my question is about sorry if I am not communicating well.

If we were traveling at the speed of light in this rocket and I threw a ruler in the same direction of travel what would happen?

Perhaps I don't understand that, and that is what caused my mistake. I thought that the ruler would not change in size as it couldn't go over the speed of light.

But your ruler is stationary from your perspective so you will observe the ruler to shrink no matter which direction you throw it.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

But your ruler is stationary from your perspective so you will observe the ruler to shrink no matter which direction you throw it.

Well the ruler would shrink if thrown even at stationary because the ruler isn't stationary when thrown

 

[TheScienceOrca]

You can't travel at the speed of light. You can get arbitrary close to it though.



You are missing the point that speed is relative. With respect to Bob, the ruler will travel with whatever speed he throws it. It doesn't matter if Bob is in a train, in a hotel or in a spaceship - as far as he is concerned he and ruler are stationary wrt to each other (until he throws it).

Ok let's keep in mind this is just theoretical, if we are close to speed of light, nothing can go faster than speed of light, so imagine a ruler bolted onto the floor of the spaceship if you throw the rule and it doesn't shrink relative to the ruler that is going close to c then you must be traveling within the speed of light - the speed of the ruler thrown.

If my logic make sense

 

[ghwellsjr]

Ok let's keep in mind this is just theoretical, if we are close to speed of light, nothing can go faster than speed of light, so imagine a ruler bolted onto the floor of the spaceship if you throw the rule and it doesn't shrink relative to the ruler that is going close to c then you must be traveling within the speed of light - the speed of the ruler thrown.

If my logic make sense

I explained this in post #4.

You have to define the speed of each object according to an Inertial Reference Frame (IRF). Stationary objects are not Length Contracted. Moving objects are along the direction of motion. The faster they move, the more the Length Contraction. You can then transform to another IRF moving with respect to the first one. This can change the speed of each object and therefore its Length Contraction. If you transform from a frame in which one object was moving and had Length Contraction to a frame in which it is stationary, it will no longer have Length Contraction but some other object may.

So if you have a spaceship traveling at close to c, then a ruler bolted to the floor will be Length Contracted to a great extent. Then if you had another ruler thrown at an even higher rate of speed, it will be Length Contracted to a greater extent. But if you transform to the rest frame of the space ship, the ruler bolted to the floor will no longer be Length Contracted and the thrown ruler will be Length Contracted to a lesser extent than before. Then you can transform to the rest frame of the thrown ruler and it will not be Length Contracted but the ruler bolted to the floor will be.

Just remember, no matter how fast the spaceship is traveling, when you transform to its rest frame, a ruler can be thrown at any speed short of c.

 

[zbe]

if we are close to speed of light

Relative to what?

so imagine a ruler bolted onto the floor of the spaceship if you throw the rule and it doesn't shrink relative to the ruler that is going close to c

Close to c relative to what? You specified it is bolted to the floor. So it is stationary wrt to the 2nd ruler (before 2nd ruler is thrown).
Also "shrink" isn't really appropriate word IMHO. Its length contracts in the direction of motion.

If my logic make sense

It doesn't because you are still missing the point of relative velocity.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

Relative to what?



Close to c relative to what? You specified it is bolted to the floor. So it is stationary wrt to the 2nd ruler (before 2nd ruler is thrown).
Also "shrink" isn't really appropriate word IMHO. Its length contracts in the direction of motion.





It doesn't because you are still missing the point of relative velocity.

Ok Bob is flying in an airship which has a long chamber in the back for experiments.

This airship is flying close to c through space.



A measuring tape is displayed across the floor of the chamber. If a ruler is shot at a very high speed (theoretical) let's say we shot the ruler at .5c the shrinkage in length in the direction of motion would be measurable.

So if we knew how much the "shrinkage" was at rest, we would be able to find out if we were above .5c as the shrinkage would then be different then expected.

We are able to do these measurements as the measuring tape and ruler are different masses.

I have used measuring tape for the chamber which shrinks with the spaceship and ruler for the object being shot to avoid confusion.

You could even imagine a 1cm block being shot and it shrinks to let's say .5cm for example at .5c


So if you were going .6c and it only shrinked to let's say .6cm you would know that it is off by 1cm which means the velocity the ship is going must be .6c

As the block can't go faster than the speed of light.

This should be a more clear explanation

 

[TheScienceOrca]

In regards to your post ghwells my IRF and only frame of reference for the above post is BOB

 

[Orodruin]

The ruler will never shrink when observed within a frame in which it is at rest. It never has a universal length that will be independent of the frame it is observed in. Even if you are moving at 0.999999999999c relative to me along with the ruler, the ruler will be at rest in your frame and therefore you will measure its length to be the rest length. As an observer in a frame which is moving at a velocity 0.999999999999c relative to you, I *will* however measure the length to be shorter than the rest length.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

The ruler will never shrink when observed within a frame in which it is at rest. It never has a universal length that will be independent of the frame it is observed in. Even if you are moving at 0.999999999999c relative to me along with the ruler, the ruler will be at rest in your frame and therefore you will measure its length to be the rest length. As an observer in a frame which is moving at a velocity 0.999999999999c relative to you, I *will* however measure the length to be shorter than the rest length.

That is if the ruler is moving with the ship, in my scenario it is not. It is projected in the motion of direction. Since the projectile can not exceed c we will be able to measure the change in length relative to the expected change in length that bob has measured at rest.

This will allow bob to know if he is traveling at the speed of light, and which direction he is traveling in.

Bob may have to shoot the projectile perpendicular to each other to know which way bob is travelling.

 

[zbe]

This airship is flying close to c through space.

"Through space" is invalid definition. You are always measuring velocity with respect to some other object. So how could you possibly know that you are moving if the spaceship was the only thing in space? You couldn't and that's the whole point.

The rest of the post is irrelevant - you can do your experiment wherever you want and you will always get the same result - the ruler with contract by factor gamma, which in your case of 0.5c is ~1.15.

 

[Orodruin]

If you are Bob, you are at rest in an inertial frame. Regardless of which direction you throw the rod, it will shrink as measured in your inertial frame. For Alice who is the observer you were moving at 0.9999999999c relative to, whether or not it shrinks or expand will depend on the direction you throw it in - but you simply cannot make a distinction.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

If you are Bob, you are at rest in an inertial frame. Regardless of which direction you throw the rod, it will shrink as measured in your inertial frame. For Alice who is the observer you were moving at 0.9999999999c relative to, whether or not it shrinks or expand will depend on the direction you throw it in - but you simply cannot make a distinction.

How can I not let's say bob flies his ship to alices planet.

While on Alices planet in his large experiment room he performs a series of the following test:

He shoots a 1CM cube in 4 directions at a very fast speed .999999c

Using bobs advanced technology he can measure the change in size of the cube exactly.

Lets saying his cube shrinks to .1cm when fired normally at rest on alices planet.

There is measuring tape on the floor attached to the ship which gives the measurements so that scale of measurement changes when the ship approaches the speed of light.

Bob can also measure the speed of objects relative to him exactly, with his extremely advanced vision goggles.

Bob then tracks this data of the "shrinkage".

If flying from bobs perspective he can from now on prove that he is moving by doing the following test.

Fire the cube in 4 directions.

If the cube shrinks to .1cm and is measured at a speed less than when fired bob now knows he is traveling faster than he was on alices planet, even if they were moving on alices planet. If the cube doesn't shrink to .1cm then bob knows that the fired cube is in the opposite direction of travel.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

"Through space" is invalid definition. You are always measuring velocity with respect to some other object. So how could you possibly know that you are moving if the spaceship was the only thing in space? You couldn't and that's the whole point.

The rest of the post is irrelevant - you can do your experiment wherever you want and you will always get the same result - the ruler with contract by factor gamma, which in your case of 0.5c is ~1.15.

I clearly state relative to c.

 

[zbe]

I clearly state relative to c.

What?

---

You still can't grasp that velocity is a relative quantity. Do you understand that you are traveling at this very moment at 0.9c relative to some star in our universe? And you are also traveling at 0.5c wrt to some other star. And you are also traveling at 0.8c wrt to some galaxy. Etc, etc. So what? This doesn't affect your experiments.

 

[Orodruin]

Ok, so let us imagine the following:

• Alice and Bob have a relative velocity of 0.99c toward each other.
• They both shoot out boxes of a given size toward each other as well as away from each other.

The prediction of special relativity will be the following for Alice:

• Alice will observe that both of the boxes she fired become shorter.
• Alice will observe that the box Bob fired toward her has a higher velocity than Bob and thus is going to be more contracted than it was before Bob fired it.
• Alice will observe that the box Bob fired away from her has a lower velocity than Bob and thus is going to be less contracted than it was before Bob fired it.

For Bob, the situation would be

• Bob will observe that both of the boxes he fired become shorter.
• Bob will observe that the box Alice fired toward her has a higher velocity than Alice and thus is going to be more contracted than it was before Alice fired it.
• Bob will observe that the box Alice fired away from her has a lower velocity than Alice and thus is going to be less contracted than it was before Alice fired it.

As you can see, the situation is completely symmetric. There is therefore no way to claim that either Alice or Bob is at some sort of absolute rest. This is not even particular to special relativity, already in classical mechanics velocities are all defined relative to something and there is no notion of absolute rest.

 

[TheScienceOrca]

What?

---

You still can't grasp that velocity is a relative quantity. Do you understand that you are traveling at this very moment at 0.9c relative to some star in our universe? And you are also traveling at 0.5c wrt to some other star. And you are also traveling at 0.8c wrt to some galaxy. Etc, etc. So what? This doesn't affect your experiments.

Isn't velocity relative as it is a vector, but speed is simply scalar. Speed of light is always c, it isn't relative to anything as it is simply a scalar value.

Relative motion means nothing as shown in this thread many times, two objects can have relative motion over c but neither are going c.

 

[Nugatory]

Isn't velocity relative as it is a vector, but speed is simply scalar. Speed of light is always c, it isn't relative to anything as it is simply a scalar value.

Relative motion means nothing as shown in this thread many times, two objects can have relative motion over c but neither are going c.

Velocity is relative, and as speed is the scalar magnitude of the velocity vector, it is also relative. When we see that the speed of light is always c, we mean "as measured in any inertial frame", and the speed is always relative to an observer who is at rest in that frame.

 

[phinds]

So if we knew how much the "shrinkage" was at rest, we would be able to find out if we were above .5c as the shrinkage would then be different then expected.

We are able to do these measurements as the measuring tape and ruler are different masses.

OOPS : I posted this without realizing that there had been an entire page of responses already (however, now that I have read that 2nd page of response, I see that my comments seem to still be valid. You are not accepting that all motion is relative).

You CONTINUE to not pay attention to the answers you have been give and you CONTINUE to display a total lack of understanding of the concept that motion is relative. You say above "shrinkage at rest". There IS no such thing. Objects at rest are not length contracted.

The only sensical way to look at the speed of a thrown ruler is relative to the frame of reference in which it has not yet been thrown, and IT DOESN'T MATTER what the motion of that frame of reference is relative to something else.

SO ... if I throw a ruler while I am standing on the ground on Earth, I could, with precise enough tools, determine the amount by which I consider it to be length contracted (the ruler never considers itself to be length contracted).

If I throw the same ruler (with the same force) while I'm standing on the deck of a spaceship that it traveling at .9c relative to Earth, I would determine that it has exactly the same length contraction relative to me as it did when I threw it on Earth.

 

[Chronos]

Keep in mind that velocities are not additive under special relativity. If Bob's rocket is traveling at .9c and Alice's rocket is approaching Bob's rocket at .9c from the opposite direction, Not Bob, Alice, nor even an independent 'stationary' observer along the line of sight between them will conclude the two rockets are approaching each other at 1.8c.

 

[phinds]

Keep in mind that velocities are not additive under special relativity. If Bob's rocket is traveling at .9c and Alice's rocket is approaching Bob's rocket at .9c from the opposite direction, Not Bob, Alice, nor even an independent 'stationary' observer along the line of sight between them will conclude the two rockets are approaching each other at 1.8c.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The reduction in distance between the two rockets is happening as though one of them is traveling at 1.8c relative to the other, yes? Why would an external observer not conclude that?

 

[Ich]

Ok, virtually everyone here explained to you that, by the principle of relativity, its is a priori, without wasting a thought on it, absolutely impossible that the outcome of your experiment could depend on your velocity, if relativity is valid. But I think there is a reason why you don't grasp that, and it has to do with the way relativity is usually taught.

Your reasoning: As seen from some "stationary" observer, the meter stick is longer when thrown backwards than when thrown forward. True.
But: You also think that the mentioned "length" of said meter stick is a property of that meter stick alone. It either has this length or that, but not different lengths depending on who is measuring it. Which directly imlpies that the observer in the spaceship would also see that length and therefore could tell the difference.
A reasonable assumption. But for historical reasons, "length" in relativity has a totally different meaning, at least for moving objects. It means "using this and that measurement protocol, obeying such an such definitions, every observer assigns a value called "length" to the meter stick that depends a) on its actual (i.e. proper) length and b) on the observers relative velocity to the meter stick.
And with this definition - unsurprisingly, given the principle of relativity - it turns out that the spaceship will assign the exact same "length" to the stick, no matter in which direction it is thrown. Doesn't matter that the "stationary" observer assigned different lengths, that is only the stationary observer's problem and doesn't affect in the least what the spacefarer is measuring.

 

[pervect]

Ok Bob is flying in an airship which has a long chamber in the back for experiments.

This airship is flying close to c through space.



A measuring tape is displayed across the floor of the chamber. If a ruler is shot at a very high speed (theoretical) let's say we shot the ruler at .5c the shrinkage in length in the direction of motion would be measurable.

So if we knew how much the "shrinkage" was at rest, we would be able to find out if we were above .5c as the shrinkage would then be different then expected.

We are able to do these measurements as the measuring tape and ruler are different masses.

I have used measuring tape for the chamber which shrinks with the spaceship and ruler for the object being shot to avoid confusion.

You could even imagine a 1cm block being shot and it shrinks to let's say .5cm for example at .5c


So if you were going .6c and it only shrinked to let's say .6cm you would know that it is off by 1cm which means the velocity the ship is going must be .6c

As the block can't go faster than the speed of light.

This should be a more clear explanation

Saying that "the ruler shrinks" is an incomplete non-mathematical shorthand for what we really mean. What we really mean is that the both ends of the ruler (and all points in between, for that matter) transform between "frames" via the Lorentz Transform (also known as a Lorentz boost). See for instance the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

For clarity, I'll quote the specific section of this long article that describes the Lorentz transform.

===Boost in the ''x''-direction===

These are the simplest forms. The Lorentz transformation for frames in standard configuration can be shown to be (see for example.

$$\begin{align} t' &= \gamma \left( t - \frac{vx}{c^2} \right) \\ x' &= \gamma \left( x - v t \right)\\ y' &= y \\ z' &= z \end{align}$$

where:

* ''v'' is the relative velocity between frames in the ''x''-direction,
* ''c'' is the [[speed of light]],
* $\gamma = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - { \beta^2}}}$ is the Lorentz factor
* $\beta = \frac{v}{c}$ is the velocity coefficient, again for the ''x''-direction.

The use of ''β'' and ''γ'' is standard throughout the literature. For the remainder of the article – they will be also used throughout unless otherwise stated. Since the above is a linear system of equations (more technically a linear transformation), they can be written in matrix form:

$$\begin{bmatrix} c t' \\ x' \\ y' \\ z' \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} \gamma&-\beta \gamma&0&0\\ -\beta \gamma&\gamma&0&0\\ 0&0&1&0\\ 0&0&0&1\\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c\,t \\ x \\ y \\ z \end{bmatrix} ,$$

According to the principle of relativity, there is no privileged frame of reference, so the inverse transformations frame ''F''′ to frame ''F'' must be given by simply negating ''v'':

Your arguments, while logically correct, use as a starting premise that transforming between frames is done by the familiar Galilean transform (from Newtonian physics). This transform is so familiar you may be using it without even thinking about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

$t' = t$
$x' = x - vt$
$y' = y$
$z' = z$

While your arguments are logically correct given your premises, they aren't relevant to relativity because relativity uses different premises than the ones you are using.

In particular, the Newtonian transform assumes t' = t, which implies that is that time is absolute and the same for everyone. Relativity uses a different formula (I won't repeat it here, just look and compare), the use of this different formula to transform between frames implies a different concept of time.

I'm using Wiki because it's convenient, it would not be a bad idea for you to hunt down a relativity text in your library or on intralibrary loan or buy one or download one and read it.

I'm particularly fond of Bondi's book and approach, "Relativity and Common sense". Mermin has a more modern treatment, I gather, but I haven't read it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0881334200/?tag=pfamazon01-20 There are some online resources, but it's hard to tell which ones to trust. E.F. Taylor has some downloads of the first edition of "Spacetime Physics" on his website, http://www.eftaylor.com/special.html. Ben Crowell, a frequent contributor to PF, has some online textbooks as well. http://www.lightandmatter.com/

 

[TheScienceOrca]

OOPS : I posted this without realizing that there had been an entire page of responses already (however, now that I have read that 2nd page of response, I see that my comments seem to still be valid. You are not accepting that all motion is relative).

You CONTINUE to not pay attention to the answers you have been give and you CONTINUE to display a total lack of understanding of the concept that motion is relative. You say above "shrinkage at rest". There IS no such thing. Objects at rest are not length contracted.

The only sensical way to look at the speed of a thrown ruler is relative to the frame of reference in which it has not yet been thrown, and IT DOESN'T MATTER what the motion of that frame of reference is relative to something else.

SO ... if I throw a ruler while I am standing on the ground on Earth, I could, with precise enough tools, determine the amount by which I consider it to be length contracted (the ruler never considers itself to be length contracted).

If I throw the same ruler (with the same force) while I'm standing on the deck of a spaceship that it traveling at .9c relative to Earth, I would determine that it has exactly the same length contraction relative to me as it did when I threw it on Earth.

I understand completely what you are saying that motion is relative, you didn't read the part that the cube is shot from within the ship...Ok let's say the IFR is bob on earth. Bob shoots a 1cm cube in all directions at .999c

He measures the time it takes for the cube to shrink to its shortest (when it approaches c).

He can do this because the cube is NOT moving with the ship. If he redid this experiment traveling faster and the block wasn't shot .999c originally, but a lower number, then yes it would be impossible to tell the contraction as all your measurements are as well.

BUT we know all objects can't go over the speed of light, so if bob is now moving after this point he is equipped with the ability to detect movement.

If he were to shoot the cube while not at rest, he could know that he isn't at rest by doing the following; Shooting the cube again and since it will reach .999c faster (the limit) since he is already moving let's say .8c the time it takes for the ruler to shrink and the amount it shrinks will change from the measurements he took on earth, thus allowing him to know he is moving.

This is why it DOES matter, under any under conditions I would completely understand your explanation, but since no object can go faster than the speed of light we can use that to decide whether or not we are already moving. I am not trying avoid your learning, I keep posting this because I just never got this aspect answered. Perhaps I am naive, but I just don't see how this experiment couldn't decide if he's moving.

At rest let's say the data was 50% shrinkage and 1 second to shrink

Yes I am just using the word shrink to save time, I know it doesn't really "shrink".

If he was moving the cube would get to his max speed earlier and the measuring tape would also be more "shrunk" then on the ground. But this is where his data from earlier helps.

If shot, he would now notice less ratio of shrinkage and a shorter shrink time, as the speed of light is reached faster.

This keeps relative motion in mind 100%, please help thanks!

 

[TheScienceOrca]

Saying that "the ruler shrinks" is an incomplete non-mathematical shorthand for what we really mean. What we really mean is that the both ends of the ruler (and all points in between, for that matter) transform between "frames" via the Lorentz Transform (also known as a Lorentz boost). See for instance the wiki article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

For clarity, I'll quote the specific section of this long article that describes the Lorentz transform.



Your arguments, while logically correct, use as a starting premise that transforming between frames is done by the familiar Galilean transform (from Newtonian physics). This transform is so familiar you may be using it without even thinking about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation



While your arguments are logically correct given your premises, they aren't relevant to relativity because relativity uses different premises than the ones you are using.

In particular, the Newtonian transform assumes t' = t, which implies that is that time is absolute and the same for everyone. Relativity uses a different formula (I won't repeat it here, just look and compare), the use of this different formula to transform between frames implies a different concept of time.

I'm using Wiki because it's convenient, it would not be a bad idea for you to hunt down a relativity text in your library or on intralibrary loan or buy one or download one and read it.

I'm particularly fond of Bondi's book and approach, "Relativity and Common sense". Mermin has a more modern treatment, I gather, but I haven't read it. https://www.amazon.com/dp/0881334200/?tag=pfamazon01-20 There are some online resources, but it's hard to tell which ones to trust. E.F. Taylor has some downloads of the first edition of "Spacetime Physics" on his website, http://www.eftaylor.com/special.html. Ben Crowell, a frequent contributor to PF, has some online textbooks as well. http://www.lightandmatter.com/

Just read this after reading my last post.

Perhaps how the theory of relativity affects time is what breaks the experiment I just posted, as the experiment I just posted uses relative motion to prove motion.

But if the time was also warped as well I could see how the speed change would be affected, so that piece of data couldn't be used to determine if he was moving.

What about the shrinkage of the ruler/1cm block?


That should be observable no matter what? Please read my post above and thanks for the help and citations

 

[pervect]

Just read this after reading my last post.

Perhaps how the theory of relativity affects time is what breaks the experiment I just posted, as the experiment I just posted uses relative motion to prove motion.

But if the time was also warped as well I could see how the speed change would be affected, so that piece of data couldn't be used to determine if he was moving.

What about the shrinkage of the ruler/1cm block?


That should be observable no matter what? Please read my post above and thanks for the help and citations

Instead I'll give you a short derivation of "length contraction" from the Lorentz transform. You won't come to the same conclusions because you are not basing your arguments on the Lorentz transform. Which makes your arguments inapplicable to relativity :(.

Suppose we have a lab observer, with coordinates (t,x), and a spaceship observer, with coordinates (t', x'). The spaceship is stationary in the primed coordinates, so in these primed coordinates, x' = constant and t' varies for any point on the spaceship. We want to focus now on the front and rear of the spaceship.

We can arbitrarily assume the rear of the spaceship is at x'=0. This implies that the front of the spaceship is at x'=L.

Now we can convert to lab coordinates by the Lorentz transform

The equation we'll need is:
$x' = \gamma(x - v\,t)$)
(see one of the previous references)

For the rear of the spaceship:

x' = $\gamma(x - v\,t) = 0$
which implies that the worldline of the rear of the spaceship in lab coordinates (t,x) is given by the linear equation

$x = v\,t$


For the front of the spaceship

x' = $\gamma(x - v\,t) = L$
this implies that the worldline in lab coordinates is:

$x = v\,t + \frac{L}{\gamma}$

By subtracting the difference of the front of the spaceship from the rear of the spaceship at the same time t, we find that its length in the lab fame is $L / \gamma$.

Recap:
In spaceship coordiates (t' x') the worldline of the rear of the spaceship is x'=0, the worldline of the front of the spaceship is x'=L

In lab coordinates (t,x), the worldline of the rear of the spaceship is x=v t, the worldline of the front of the spaceship is $x = v\,t + L / \gamma$