Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
With what you've stated as a given-only two clocks-you can't. They are both entitled to claim the other experience's time dilation and length contraction. They will never meet again, given inertial motion only, and so can't determine which clock was moving slow or who was contracted. The reason cjl4 posted that story, is that what you are asking is simply a version of the twin paradox.
Now, you can postulate a third observer (such as the word YOU) in the given, but then YOU will have relative motion between the others and you will see both of the others contracted/dilated by different amounts, depending on their motion.
What you have done is to set up the YOU observer as some sort of absolute frame observer, and that is outside the scope of SR. SR doesn't admit to ANY absolute frame.
|
I have seen this arguement before but it simply is not true. The affects of relativity are calcuable and flight schedules can be planned such that both observers record time ONLY during inertial periods of the flight.
Simultaneity is not a protector of SR either in that to be "Relative Velocity" the conditions MUST be simultaneous.
I'll post a scenario demonstrating this failure.
To do that efficiently I think we should agree step by step and not rely on misunderstanding due to a complex scenario one time posting.
To start this process do you agree that discussing time dilation vs length contraction is a matter of conveince and clarity and not an actual change in topic since they are complimentary affects of SR and that where we have methods and emperical data for time dilation there is none known for length contraction.
Question: Are you willing to proceed with this discussion on length contraction using time dilation as a surrogate enity since it is easier to substantiate and they are complementary affects such that failure of one represents failure of the other.?