Nathan123
- 30
- 0
Thanks for your help. But we will have to close this. Some of the points being made are currently beyond what I have learned about SR, and some of the points I am making are not comming across. So it makes no sense to take this further.PeterDonis said:You are failing to take heed of what I said before:
You should not be trying to explain how you see it. You should be discarding how you see it, and trying to learn how everyone else sees it, since your way of seeing it is wrong and ours is right.
No, it doesn't. Take this:
And substitute "length contraction" for "time dilation" and you will have four statements about length contraction that are just as valid as the four statements you make here about time dilation. They work the same.
Substitute "time dilated" for "length contracted" here and you will have a true statement about time dilation. They work the same.
Because only the ship is moving; you have specified, implicitly, that everything else is at rest relative to you. So, again, substitute "time dilated" for "length contracted", and you will have a true statement about time dilation: if the ship is the only thing moving, it is the only thing that gets time dilated, relative to you.
Why switch from ship to car here? If you are in the ship--that, above, you said was the only thing moving relative to you before--then you have switched yourself to the ship frame, in which, now, the ship is the only thing that is not moving. So of course everything else will get length contracted relative to you. But, again, substitute "time dilated" for "length contracted" here and you will have a true statement about time dilation: everything else will get time dilated relative to you. The two work the same.
You are confusing yourself here because you are thinking of "distance" as a single object, and asking yourself whether that object is "length contracted" or not. That's not the right way to look at it. The "distance between the ship and earth" depends on which event you pick as the "starting point" for the ship, and which frame you use. In other words, the "distance" in different frames is a distance between different pairs of events.
In terms of my post #37, in the Earth frame, the distance between the ship and Earth (when the ship starts) is the distance between events A and E. But in the ship frame, the distance between the ship and Earth (when the Earth starts, since in this frame the Earth is what moves) is the distance between events A and C. So there is no one "object" that corresponds to "the distance between the ship and Earth". That ordinary language term refers to different objects--different curves in spacetime--in different frames. This is a key reason why trying to reason about all this in ordinary language is not a good idea.
Your language is very muddled here, and you are confusing yourself with this muddled language. Read my paragraph just above for a better way to look at it.
I have no idea what you mean by this. None of your 1., 2., 3., 4. mention time dilation at all. You are confusing yourself with muddled language.
Your analysis is so confused at this point that I can't figure out how you are drawing this conclusion. But however you are doing it, it's wrong.
One parting point to think about. If i see something moving, I will see it contracted. I do not need a second frame of reference for this phenomena. This is not analogous to time dilation where I need to include a second frame of reference. This is the basis for the difference I was trying to offer. I may be wrong about what I said, but I am not sure.
Last edited: