On Wednesday, December 11, 2024 at 2:41:02 PM UTC-7 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 2:44 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: On Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 11:40:10 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: On Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 11:15:16 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote: Do I not only have provide a diagram I also have to explain it in detail just to end this silly thread?? *Yes you do. Providing plots without the numerical values in the LT, is useless. I can't tell if you're drawing plots to satisfy your biases, or if the numbers support the case you're making. Lesson learned; always do a real proof, which means supplying the arguments, or STFU. AG * *Brent; your numbers check out. The car fits with ease from the pov of the garage frame, but not from the pov of the car frame. But this bothers me since we know that all frames are equivalent in SR. How then can two, so-called equivalent frames, gives different results?* They both give the same results about all local events, like if there were clocks mounted to the front and back of the car synchronized in the car frame, and clocks mounted to the front and back of the garage synchronized in the garage frame, in Brent's example both would agree that when the back of the car passed next to the front of the garage, both the clocks mounted to car and garage there read 0, and when the front of the car passed the back of the garage, the clock mounted to the front of the car read -7.5 and the clock mounted to the back of the garage read 3.5. This agreement about local events is something I highlighted in my illustration of systems of rulers and clocks in relative motion at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/155016/59406 (Einstein used the notion of such a system to define the physical meaning of inertial reference frames). Also, when physicists talk about all frames being equivalent, what they are usually talking about is the equations expressing the general dynamical laws of physics such as Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, which don't depend on the specific arrangement of matter/energy you choose for your initial conditions; you can translate these dynamical equations from one frame to another via the Lorentz transformation just like you can with specific events, and when you do so you find that the equations have exactly the same form when expressed in a different inertial coordinate system. *Yes, I am aware of that, e.g., the E and B fields in EM are frame dependent, but ME are invariant under the LT. AG* The equations for length contraction and time dilation could be thought of as a special case of such general dynamical equations, in that values like velocity and rest length are left as variables, so you can plug any specific value in depending on the initial conditions you're looking at. Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d9c3e69f-3f53-4188-b413-07f76f54341en%40googlegroups.com.
