Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[A-wal]

Listen very closely.

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

This proves that each frame of reference has its own unique set of measurements, it has to for the speed of light to be the same in all of them.

When an observer accelerates from one frame of reference to another they're altering their measurements to agree with the new frame of reference.

This altering of measurements is what causes an accelerated observer's watch to be behind an inertial observer's watch.

This is the only way it can work because otherwise it wouldn't be possible for the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames and we know that it is.

To try claiming that time dilation and length contraction don't occur is to ignore the proven fact that light has a constant velocity relative to all inertial observers and a claim that just ignore proven facts simply doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

An ant that's walking across the pyramid will will notice (with sensitive enough equipment) that the pyramid is ever so slightly time dilated and length contracted. If id didn't then light couldn't pass the pyramid at the same speed as the ant because the ant is in motion relative to the pyramid.

[xyz]

Listen very closely.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

 

This proves that each frame of reference has its own unique set of measurements, it has to for the speed of light to be the same in all of them.

 

When an observer accelerates from one frame of reference to another they're altering their measurements to agree with the new frame of reference.

 

This altering of measurements is what causes an accelerated observer's watch to be behind an inertial observer's watch.

 

This is the only way it can work because otherwise it wouldn't be possible for the speed of light to be the same in all inertial frames and we know that it is.

 

To try claiming that time dilation and length contraction don't occur is to ignore the proven fact that light has a constant velocity relative to all inertial observers and a claim that just ignore proven facts simply doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

An ant that's walking across the pyramid will will notice (with sensitive enough equipment) that the pyramid is ever so slightly time dilated and length contracted. If id didn't then light couldn't pass the pyramid at the same speed as the ant because the ant is in motion relative to the pyramid.

I am listening but you still are not grasping the actual question, 

 

 

Let us remove the pyramid and change it back into a triangle with 3 cc-ordinate points of a,b and c. 

 

Let us synchronise all the clocks to 12am and let a rocket fly from A to B at the speed of c. 

 

 

c observes that the clock on a and the clock on b both measure 12.08 when the rocket arrives. 

 

 

Do you see now?

[A-wal]

c observes that the clock on a and the clock on b both measure 12.08 when the rocket arrives. 

NO IT DOESN'T!!! Because...

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

 

This proves that each frame of reference has its own unique set of measurements, it has to for the speed of light to be the same in all of them.

 

When an observer accelerates from one frame of reference to another they're altering their measurements to agree with the new frame of reference.

No you're not listening and you're the one who's not grasping this. SO annoying!

To try claiming that time dilation and length contraction don't occur is to ignore the proven fact that light has a constant velocity relative to all inertial observers and a claim that just ignore proven facts simply doesn't deserve to be taken seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[xyz]

NO IT DOESN'T!!! Because...

No you're not listening and you're the one who's not grasping this. SO annoying!

Hmm, what I am discussing uses the proven fact that the speed of light is finite and a constant speed in any reference frame., it is clearly you not understanding. 

 

 

The light takes 8 minutes to travel from A to C. 

 

The light takes 8 minutes to travel from B to C.

 

C observes the light takes 8 mins to travel from A to B or from B to A

 

 

C observes A and B simultaneously because the speed of light is constant.  C also observes that the L_x between A and B does not contract when object D travels from A to B.  The ''time'' dilation of object D is relative to the displacement of AD gravitation function and not relative to the surrounding space whole, 

Edited July 13, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Hmm, what I am discussing uses the proven fact that the speed of light is finite and a constant speed in any reference frame., it is clearly you not understanding. 

Yea okay. LOL You are NOT using a constant speed of light. You're using a variable speed of light and you can't even understand why.

 

The light takes 8 minutes to travel from A to C. 

 

The light takes 8 minutes to travel from B to C.

 

C observes the light takes 8 mins to travel from A to B or from B to A

Yes but that's all from a single frame of reference. It takes less time than that from the accelerator's perspective. If it didn't then the speed of light couldn't be constant. It would have to vary in each inertial frame and we know it doesn't.

 

C observes A and B simultaneously because the speed of light is constant.  C also observes that the L_x between A and B does not contract when object D travels from A to B.

Right, but that's the exact same frame of reference.

 

The ''time'' dilation of object D is relative to the displacement of AD gravitation function and not relative to the surrounding space whole, 

Meaningless drivel to attempt to disguise the fact that you don't have the first clue how this really works!

[xyz]

Yea okay. LOL You are NOT using a constant speed of light. You're using a variable speed of light and you can't even understand why.

 

Yes but that's all from a single frame of reference. It takes less time than that from the accelerator's perspective. If it didn't then the speed of light couldn't be constant. It would have to vary in each inertial frame and we know it doesn't.

 

Right, but that's the exact same frame of reference.

 

Meaningless drivel to attempt to disguise the fact that you don't have the first clue how this really works!

Quite clearly you keep attempting in some way to assume I do not understand present thinking and then reflect this back towards me which will not help us advance this discussion, I presume you know present information and there is no cause for you to think that I do not know present thinking or is there concern to think that I do not understand Einstein . 

 

Meaningless drivel is quite clearly your replies and your lack of understanding, there is no mention of a variable speed of light from me, if you are in some way thinking a variable speed then that is of your own thinking and of ambiguity to how you have interpreted my post. 

 

 

You clearly are not understanding that the rest length constant of space between A and B is no way altered by the passage of the spaceship through this spacial length, also in this space the light has to travel the same distance from all point to point sources at the same speed in the exact same amount of time. 

 

 

The objective look of this scenario is that space and time do not dilate or contract, the light passing through this space only contracts when it encounters a medium. .

[A-wal]

Quite clearly you keep attempting in some way to assume I do not understand present thinking and then reflect this back towards me which will not help us advance this discussion, I presume you know present information and there is no cause for you to think that I do not know present thinking or is there concern to think that I do not understand Einstein .

Your attempted arguments show very clearly that you don't understand.

 

You clearly are not understanding that the rest length constant of space between A and B is no way altered by the passage of the spaceship through this spacial length, also in this space the light has to travel the same distance from all point to point sources at the same speed in the exact same amount of time.

You're making a real fool of yourself. If light takes the same amount of time to cover the distance between two points from the perspective of two different frames of reference as you're claiming then light would HAVE TO have a variable speed. We know that light doesn't have a variable speed so we know that the measurements of length differ between the two frames. This difference is referred to as length contraction and time dilation and is a direct consequence of a constant speed of light. You keep claiming that you're using a constant speed for light and then claiming that it has to be variable by saying there's no time dilation and length contraction.

 

The objective look of this scenario is that space and time do not dilate or contract, the light passing through this space only contracts when it encounters a medium. .

Utter rubbish! That fact that the speed of light is constant in every inertial frame of reference proves that time dilation and length contraction HAVE TO occur. Your understanding is so poor you don't even realise that you're directly contradicting yourself.

Edited July 13, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Your attempted arguments show very clearly that you don't understand.

 

You're making a real fool of yourself. If light takes the same amount of time to cover the distance between two points from the perspective of two different frames of reference as you're claiming then light would HAVE TO have a variable speed. We know that light doesn't have a variable speed so we know that the measurements of length differ between the two frames. This difference is referred to as length contraction and time dilation and is a direct consequence of a constant speed of light. You keep claiming that you're using a constant speed for light and then claiming that it has to be variable by saying there's no time dilation and length contraction.

 

Utter rubbish! That fact that the speed of light is constant in every inertial frame of reference proves that time dilation and length contraction HAVE TO occur. Your understanding is so poor you don't even realise that you're directly contradicting yourself.

Which part of distance is constant and the speed of light over that distance is constant and the time light takes to travel that distance is constant do you not understand?

Edited July 14, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

If the speed of light is constant in every inertial frame (which we know it is) then the time it takes to travel between the same two points has to vary.

Light takes 8 minutes to travel between the earth and sun, lets call the stations A and B again. It takes 8 minutes for light to travel between the two station while you're not moving relative to the stations. If you're traveling between the two stations at half the speed of light then for light to still take 8 minutes to travel between the two stations light would have to be moving at half the speed of light relative to you. That's variable speed of light because it moves at half the speed of light relative to you and twice that speed relative to the stations, that's not how it works because light has a constant speed. It moves past an observer at the station at the speed of light and also passes an observer moving away from the station at the full speed of light. The only way that can happen is if the distance in time and/or space varies between these two frames of reference, if the speed of light is constant then measurement values between observers moving at different speeds can't be constant.

For light to take 8 minutes to travel between the two stations from the frame of reference of an observer that's moving between the two stations at half the speed of light, light would have to move at half the speed of light relative to the traveling observer (half speed past traveling observer + traveling observer's velocity = full speed of light) but light moves past the traveling observer at the same speed that it moves past the stations. This means the traveling observer and the station observer are seeing the same light moving at different speeds, speed is distance in space over distance in time so they must be measuring different values for the distance of space or the distance of time or both.

We could resolve it by saying that it takes six minutes for the light to travel between the two stations from the traveler's perspective which would mean that from the traveler's perspective, for every six minutes that passes for the traveler eight minutes passes for the station observer (time dilation).

We could also resolve it by saying that the distance between the two stations is six light minutes from the traveler's perspective which would mean that from the traveler's perspective, for every six light minutes that the traveler measures between the two stations the station observer measures eight light minutes (length contraction).

The reality is that it's split evenly between the two. A combination of time dilation and length contraction causes the speed of light to remain constant from both frames of of reference. If we look at it from the station observer's perspective it exactly mirrors the travelers frame. From this frame of reference it's the traveling observer that's length contracted and time dilated but when they meet back up it only one of their watches can be behind the other. The accelerator is the one that's changing from one frame of reference to another and back again so it's the accelerator's altered measurements for time dilation and length contraction that apply when they're back in the same frame so it's the accelerator's watch that's behind the station observer's watch. Think of it as the passengers on the plane that alter their watches to match that time zone rather than everyone in that time zone altering their watches to match the plane's watches.

If the measurements for distance in time and space didn't vary for observers that are in motion relative to each other then the speed of light couldn't be constant, it would have to vary between frames and it doesn't, so the measurements of time and space have to vary instead.

[A-wal]

Once the traveler gets to the station they can work out that the distance was length contracted in this frame because the time on their watch is behind the other observer's watch so if they made the trip in 4.8 minutes and they say the distance was 4.8 light minutes when it was length contracted then that's using the station's frame of reference to take length contraction into account but not time dilation. Their watch being behind the station observer's watch is a result of traveling through length contracted space in a time dilated duration of time, so 4.8 light minutes is using the time measurement of the station's frame and the distance measurement of the traveler's frame while they were making the journey.

 

If length contraction made the distance 4.8 light minutes then at .8 c they should have completed the journey in 2.88 minutes on their own watch because in the station's frame they were traveling slower through time by the same amount as the distance was shortened in space so covering more space and doing it in less time. To make the the journey 8 light minute journey in 4.7 minutes at .8c the time dilation and length contraction factor should be just under under 0.775.

What I mean by this is simply that the amount of time the accelerator's watch is behind the station observer's after the journey's complete is a result of the accelerator moving through length contacted space while time dilated, so wouldn't this...

So the distance they calculate by multiplying their speed times the duration of the trip is [math]0.8 \, c \cdot 6 \,\mbox{minutes} = 4.8[/math] light-minutes, which is the same distance they would measure if they used a huge ruler (or a lot of small rulers put end-to-end along the track very quickly), which agrees with the length-contracted distance given by the transformation.

...mean they made the trip in 2.88 minutes on their own watch so their watch would end up 5.12 minutes behind the station observer's watch?

 

8 x (0.8^2) = 5.12

[xyz]

If the speed of light is constant in every inertial frame (which we know it is) then the time it takes to travel between the same two points has to vary.

 

 

The speed of light does vary, the constant speed is only in a vacuum, you are not accounting for the very fact of the Earth medium/atmosphere, when light enters the medium it slows down, so if you imagine from the sun to the earth , the light is only constant until it reaches the earths atmosphere, 

 

If you are at ground state you would measure what would seem to be a ''time/length contraction'' of light, the contraction happening all in the final part of the journey in the earths atmosphere, 

 

 

To put it in simple format , imagine a ''rod'' , the ''rod'' is constant in length and c always takes the same time to travel the length of the ''rod'' while in a vacuum. If we placed the ''rod'' submerged in water, the light takes longer to travel the length of the ''rod''. 

 

The stationary reference frame I am using is space itself, light and all things move through the stationary background that is a true and only constant. 

Edited July 14, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

The speed of light does vary, the constant speed is only in a vacuum, you are not accounting for the very fact of the Earth medium/atmosphere, when light enters the medium it slows down, so if you imagine from the sun to the earth , the light is only constant until it reaches the earths atmosphere,

Utterly irrelevant. The consistency of the speed of light through a vacuum is all that matters when comparing inertial frames of reference. Technically it does move at the same velocity through any medium, it's just that it bounces around more in a denser medium so it's moving the same speed over a longer path.

 

If you are at ground state you would measure what would seem to be a ''time/length contraction'' of light, the contraction happening all in the final part of the journey in the earths atmosphere,

Time dilation and length contraction isn't caused by light moving through an atmosphere. lol

 

To put it in simple format , imagine a ''rod'' , the ''rod'' is constant in length and c always takes the same time to travel the length of the ''rod'' while in a vacuum. If we placed the ''rod'' submerged in water, the light takes longer to travel the length of the ''rod''.

Again, utterly irrelevant when comparing inertial frames of reference.

 

The stationary reference frame I am using is space itself, light and all things move through the stationary background that is a true and only constant. 

To define a reference frame you need to specify an object, you can't just use space, that has no point of reference without an object. The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame so each frame has to measure time dilation and length contraction in every other inertial frame.

 

The fact that light moves past two objects at the same velocity from their perspectives despite the fact that those objects are in motion relative to at each other means that the objects have to disagree on their measurements of time and/or space. That's the most basic and obvious logic you can get. If the speed of light is constant then measurements of length can't be. You can't possibly have it both ways. If you can't even understand that then you stand absolutely no chance of understanding the rest of it. It's hilarious that you think you know better when you can't even grasp the basics.

[xyz]

Utterly irrelevant. The consistency of the speed of light through a vacuum is all that matters when comparing inertial frames of reference. Technically it does move at the same velocity through any medium, it's just that it bounces around more in a denser medium so it's moving the same speed over a longer path.

 

Time dilation and length contraction isn't caused by light moving through an atmosphere. lol

 

Again, utterly irrelevant when comparing inertial frames of reference.

 

To define a reference frame you need to specify an object, you can't just use space, that has no point of reference without an object. The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame so each frame has to measure time dilation and length contraction in every other inertial frame.

 

The fact that light moves past two objects at the same velocity from their perspectives despite the fact that those objects are in motion relative to at each other means that the objects have to disagree on their measurements of time and/or space. That's the most basic and obvious logic you can get. If the speed of light is constant then measurements of length can't be. You can't possibly have it both ways. If you can't even understand that then you stand absolutely no chance of understanding the rest of it. It's hilarious that you think you know better when you can't even grasp the basics.

Quite clearly you have read my post wrongly again and quite clearly you do not understand that light slows down when passing through a medium and is compressed to it's wavelength.  ''Blue'' light is slower than ''Red'' light and white light is faster than ''red'' light, clearly you do not understand how light works. 

 

I know time  dilation is not caused by light passing through a medium, I was just trying to explain to you and give another example of another sort of contraction of a constant but just disregard that if it is confusing for you to understand. 

 

We do not need to specify a particular object to define a reference frame, we specify  a particular object to define geometrical positioning relative to the Earth , these geometrical positions are observed within a volume of space , the volume of space is the stationary reference frame, if it were not stationary, then motion would just be a blur. 

 

P.s Stationary though being relative to that ''gin-clear'' thing. 

 

 

Added - The density and permitivity of a medium denoting the speed and wave compression of light, 

Edited July 14, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I understand that the speed of light through a medium has absolutely no relevance to the question of time dilation and length contraction. I understand that you thought it did because your grasp of this subject is so poor. I understand that blue shifted and red shifted light don't move at different speeds. I understand that it's impossible to define a reference frame without an object because it requires measuring defining distances which is impossible with using objects as reference points. I understand that those distances alter according to the frame of reference of the observer because the consistency of the speed of light proves that time dilation and length contraction do occur, without them the speed of light would have to be variable and we know it isn't. I understand that your understanding is so limited you can't even see why you're so blatantly wrong. What do you understand? Feck all!

You can't have a constant speed of light without time dilation and/or length contraction, it's that simple.

[xyz]

I understand that the speed of light through a medium has absolutely no relevance to the question of time dilation and length contraction. I understand that you thought it did because your grasp of this subject is so poor. I understand that blue shifted and red shifted light don't move at different speeds. I understand that it's impossible to define a reference frame without an object because it requires measuring defining distances which is impossible with using objects as reference points. I understand that those distances alter according to the frame of reference of the observer because the consistency of the speed of light proves that time dilation and length contraction do occur, without them the speed of light would have to be variable and we know it isn't. I understand that your understanding is so limited you can't even see why you're so blatantly wrong. What do you understand? Feck all!

 

You can't have a constant speed of light without time dilation and/or length contraction, it's that simple.

Clearly you cannot understand that I am using the speed of light constant between two imaginary points to show there is no time dilation or contraction!

 

 

 

Imagine a ''tube'' (this tube is a linearity of light between two points, but because the light is invisible between them points with no spectral content, we will use a ''tube'') ok?

 

 

Now a train travels up this tube to point B from point A, the clock ticks 'slower''

 

 

Now how does the clock ticking ''slower'' affect the tube?

[A-wal]

Clearly you cannot understand that I am using the speed of light constant between two imaginary points to show there is no time dilation or contraction!

You can't have a constant speed of light without time dilation and length contraction!!! Without a constant speed of light there'd be no need for time dilation and length contraction. It's a direct contradiction to say that the speed of light is constant and time dilation and length contraction don't occur, the constant speed of light is WHY time dilation and length contraction happen!

 

Imagine a ''tube'' (this tube is a linearity of light between two points, but because the light is invisible between them points with no spectral content, we will use a ''tube'') ok?

 

 

Now a train travels up this tube to point B from point A, the clock ticks 'slower''

 

 

Now how does the clock ticking ''slower'' affect the tube?

The clock ticking slower doesn't affect the tube. The train's velocity relative to the tube causes the tube's length to shorten and its clock to run slower from the trains frame of reference, just as the train's velocity relative to the tube cause the train's length to shorten and its clock to run slower from the tube's frame of reference.

 

 

You're about to feel very silly.

 

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

 

From the station's frame of reference light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion.

 

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

 

It obviously can't. It obviously takes less than eight minutes from the trains frame of reference because the train is moving at half the speed of light and light moves at the speed of light past the train.

 

So if the light takes eight minutes to move between the two stations from the perspective of somebody at the station and takes less than eight minutes to make the exact same journey from the perspective of the train then how can the train and the station possibly agree on both the distance between the stations and the rate that they measure time?

[xyz]

You can't have a constant speed of light without time dilation and length contraction!!! Without a constant speed of light there'd be no need for time dilation and length contraction. It's a direct contradiction to say that the speed of light is constant and time dilation and length contraction don't occur, the constant speed of light is WHY time dilation and length contraction happen!

 

The clock ticking slower doesn't affect the tube. The train's velocity relative to the tube causes the tube's length to shorten and its clock to run slower from the trains frame of reference, just as the train's velocity relative to the tube cause the train's length to shorten and its clock to run slower from the tube's frame of reference.

 

 

You're about to feel very silly.

 

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

 

From the station's frame of reference light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion.

 

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

 

It obviously can't. It obviously takes less than eight minutes from the trains frame of reference because the train is moving at half the speed of light and light moves at the speed of light past the train.

 

So if the light takes eight minutes to move between the two stations from the perspective of somebody at the station and takes less than eight minutes to make the exact same journey from the perspective of the train then how can the train and the station possibly agree on both the distance between the stations and the rate that they measure time?

Mate! you are clearly talking of imagination, the tube does not contract when a train travels through it, the tube is the constant of light between two point sources.  Time dilation of the Caesium is a direct result between the train and the Earth and has no relevance to the tube. 

The constant speed of light in a vacuum also has nothing to do with the Caesium atom, it is unrelated in every sense.  

Cycles per second is exactly that, ten cycles a second or 100 cycles a second is irrelevant to the duration of a second.

In short if I was to put a light second of length between you and an object, the light second remains a light second whether you move or not.

The constant of light shows there is no time dilation or contraction.