I think the fault lay in my not realizing that time dillation would have an effect on the observed velocity of light. Very stupid of me not to think, and then, i wouldn't have assumed that the time dillation perfectly slides with that difference in velocity.
thanks though! On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Michael Crosiar<[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Leaking Pen, > > I have to admit I cheated and looked ahead to Stephens reply. His reply is > far better than I could ever give. I will reply anyway as maybe I will get > corrected and learn something new... > >>Since the magnetic field is em radiation of a sort, think of it like > the classic spaceship with a flashlight scenario (which is the ONLY > thing i have EVER found in physics that i still cannot wrap my mind > against. I understand what it is saying, my brain just refuses to > accept it as accurate) > > I don't believe that a magnetic field is itself em radiation. By expanding > or collapsing the magnetic field we can induce EM radiation. I see the > magnetic field as a result of the geometry of space-time itself and that is > what I'm trying to explore. > >>if your on a spaceship going .9 c, and you turn on your headlamps, the > light will go forward at, to your appearence, c away from you, as if > you were standing still. Now, someone on the spacestation you're > passing would see you moving at .9 c, and the light moving at c, not > at c away from you PLUS your velocity, but simply c away from you, but > c from their perspective. > >>now, this means you each see the light reaching different distances at > the same time, which is where my mind rebels. > >>(If i have this incorrect, someone PLEASE correct me, as it hurts my >> head...) > > The basic problem I see here is not recognizing the differing frames of > reference. On the spaceship space and time have been contracted, time is not > moving forward at the same rate as for the person on the spacestation. Also > you are trying to measure distance, but the yard sticks you are using are > not the same length. Further, if you are going to measure how long something > takes to happen, an event, you also need a measure of time, which is also > different in each frame of reference. So you are not using the same yard > stick or the same clock, so it is hard to make comparisons about distance or > how long something takes to happen, or at what time an event has happened > from each of the different frames of reference. > > The question I have is, is the lorentz contraction purely a mathmatical > construct, or has the movement of the spaceship at .9c actually modified the > space-time it occupies in such manner that the measurements have been > changed? Can an outside observer on the spacestation determine by any means > that space-time of the spaceship has been contracted? For example, if we > observed a star that the spacecraft was passing in front of, would we > experiance a brief refraction of the light from the star as the spacecraft > passed in front of it? > > C. Michael Crosiar > >
