Quote:
Originally Posted by RussT
That is exactly what I am saying...it doesn't make a bit of sense, 0 sense, nada, zilch, none what-so-ever!
And yet, for over 100 years now, it has gone completely unnoticed, that the distance from observer A to observer B, 'has been contracted to 0', by assuming that if the light beam sinks their clocks to 0, that because both clocks say 0, that their "Nows" are together/simultaneous, even though they are completely motionless/stationary!!!That is it in a nutshell.
So Instead of this...
“Assumes” a full Lorentz Transform of A and B’s “Nows”
I probably should have said...
Illegitimately 'contracts the distance to 0' OR Illegitimately uses a Lorentz transform to contract the distance to 0!!!
|
This is incorrect. If you have the setup you described above with a light source the clocks will never read the same to either observer.
Say the separation is 1 light second between the light and the clocks, and 2 ls between the two clocks. A flash is released at t=0. For the observer at B the flash will pass at t=1. At that instant he looks at clock A. It reads t=-1. At t=3, B sees the flash hit clock A, and clock A reads t=1.
If you reverse things, A will see the flash at his location at t=1 and see the flash at B at t=3.
If you add a clock C at a right angle to the line from A-B, and 1 ls from the light, C will say that the flash reached C at t=1 and it reached A and B simultaneously at t=2.4 seconds.
If the three observers then get together and compare notes, they will all see things different. That is what SR does