Einstein relativity question.

[deltapapha]

Did he derive it himself? In the derivation, it's the relative velocity between inertial reference frames that matters. But, time is still a scalar.

not that is just an equation I took from online as reference for anyone here who wanted to reference it if they needed to.

what I am wondering is is there anything in my friend's comment that just seems sort of like he doesn't quite "get it". I mean when he said the part about light's speed vs its velocity it seemed to me like he was misunderstanding the nature of time dilation, like he was attributing something to it that was not really what makes it what it is. For instance in the classic man on moon watching two ships one shooting light to the other illustration, the phenomenon of time dilation would still hold even if light only made one leg of travel without changing direction at all. It seemed to me like my friend's comment was attributing the light changing its direction to what accounts for time dilation.

 

[deltapapha]

You have no idea what you're talking about. How do you think a lens focuses?

yeah, lol, holmes needs to stay away from laser surgery

 

[rj144]

not that is just an equation I took from online as reference for anyone here who wanted to reference it if they needed to.

what I am wondering is is there anything in my friend's comment that just seems sort of like he doesn't quite "get it". I mean when he said the part about light's speed vs its velocity it seemed to me like he was misunderstanding the nature of time dilation, like he was attributing something to it that was not really what makes it what it is. For instance in the classic man on moon watching two ships one shooting light to the other illustration, the phenomenon of time dilation would still hold even if light only made one leg of travel without changing direction at all. It seemed to me like my friend's comment was attributing the light changing its direction to what accounts for time dilation.

The main point is that the two inertial reference frames have different velocities. Focus on the reference frames.

 

[deltapapha]

The main point is that the two inertial reference frames have different velocities. Focus on the reference frames.

Is this a 100% correct statement:

"The speed of light is constant, yes, which is a mind-blowing concept all by itself. But the velocity of light is not constant, since velocity is a measure of speed and direction, and consequently distance."

 

[90 50]

You have no idea what you're talking about. How do you think a lens focuses?

Yeah I do, I’ve ready all the shit on space time and black holes and relativity and shit years back.

Hawkins theory of everything is some good light (intentional) reading to get you started.

Lenses for one are devices that capture and direct light(let’s say onto a sensor or film in a camera for sake of argument) , which is not the question is talking about.

But , I’ll add one in your example since you put it in there.

You have a guy , with a flashlight , he clicks it on and it shines

Now light does not move straight, it’s waves go everywhere. Flashlights direct a majority of the waves along a similar plane, but it’s still moving everydirection it can at a known speed velocity and acceleration.

You can calculate this with the inverse square law, and even how much of of escapes through the shitty red plastic flashlight sides.

It arrives where and when it arrives at the same time, no matter if joe bob or the bear shitting in the woods have thier eyes open to perceive it or not, it still goes by them.

The rassler is hiding in the woods with his camera and telephoto lens, waiting for the train to go by to catch a sneak pic of St. Pierre on the train. It hits the front element of his lens and it directed to the sensor(or film he sounds poor) at the same time as it would have if a squirrel’s eye was there instead.

Now, the time it takes for the light to Be perceived by his sensor can change, depending on the f stop of his lens, but it hits the front element at the same time as it would have the squirrels eye.

None of it matters, the light uninterrupted will travel at the same rate and hit those spots when ever they did.

The time it takes for the perception is different because of the travel distance to the percivied viewpoints, but the focused beam on the train travels the same, all the time everytime.

 

[rj144]

Yeah I do, I’ve ready all the shit on space time and black holes and relativity and shit years back.

Hawkins theory of everything is some good light (intentional) reading to get you started.

Lenses for one are devices that capture and direct light(let’s say onto a sensor or film in a camera for sake of argument) , which is not the question is talking about.

But , I’ll add one in your example since you put it in there.

You have a guy , with a flashlight , he clicks it on and it shines

Now light does not move straight, it’s waves go everywhere. Flashlights direct a majority of the waves along a similar plane, but it’s still moving everydirection it can at a known speed velocity and acceleration.

You can calculate this with the inverse square law, and even how much of of escapes through the shitty red plastic flashlight sides.

It arrives where and when it arrives at the same time, no matter if joe bob or the bear shitting in the woods have thier eyes open to perceive it or not, it still goes by them.

The rassler is hiding in the woods with his camera and telephoto lens, waiting for the train to go by to catch a sneak pic of St. Pierre on the train. It hits the front element of his lens and it directed to the sensor(or film he sounds poor) at the same time as it would have if a squirrel’s eye was there instead.

Now, the time it takes for the light to Be perceived by his sensor can change, depending on the f stop of his lens, but it hits the front element at the same time as it would have the squirrels eye.

None of it matters, the light uninterrupted will travel at the same rate and hit those spots when ever they did.

The time it takes for the perception is different because of the travel distance to the percivied viewpoints, but the focused beam on the train travels the same, all the time everytime.

What it's acceleration? Also, what exactly are you calculating with the inverse-square law? Does this same calculation work for a laser or something that doesn't emit light symmetrically?

 

[Phr3121]

Does time dilation involve direction for its results?

No. The speed of light is constant. As an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down.

 

[deltapapha]

No. The speed of light is constant. As an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down.

so then, is there anything incorrect in the following comment made by my friend in a discussion group:

"As for the concept of time dilation, it's one and the same with the relativity of motion. The speed of light is constant, yes, which is a mind-blowing concept all by itself. But the velocity of light is not constant, since velocity is a measure of speed and direction, and consequently distance."

 

[rj144]

so then, is there anything incorrect in the following comment made by my friend in a discussion group:

"As for the concept of time dilation, it's one and the same with the relativity of motion. The speed of light is constant, yes, which is a mind-blowing concept all by itself. But the velocity of light is not constant, since velocity is a measure of speed and direction, and consequently distance."

No.

 

[YellowBanenoo]

 

[90 50]

so then, is there anything incorrect in the following comment made by my friend in a discussion group:

"As for the concept of time dilation, it's one and the same with the relativity of motion. The speed of light is constant, yes, which is a mind-blowing concept all by itself. But the velocity of light is not constant, since velocity is a measure of speed and direction, and consequently distance."

The velocity isn’t changing, as the light doesn’t instantly show up at two different distances. So it does actually take more time for it to arrive.

This is some of the shit they’ve tested with the haldron collider

 

[Phr3121]

So then, is there anything incorrect in the following comment made by my friend in a discussion group:

"As for the concept of time dilation, it's one and the same with the relativity of motion. The speed of light is constant, yes, which is a mind-blowing concept all by itself. But the velocity of light is not constant, since velocity is a measure of speed and direction, and consequently distance."

What does he mean by 'time dilation'? Direction has nothing to do with the theory. Velocity = Speed. The speed/velocity of light is constant. Your friend is wrong.

 

[rj144]

What does he mean by 'time dilation'? Direction has nothing to do with the theory. Velocity = Speed. The speed/velocity of light is constant. Your friend is wrong.

Velocity does not equal speed.

 

[Phr3121]

Velocity does not equal speed.

No? My dictionary says it does. "Velocity: The speed of something in a given direction."

 

[Agent Mulder's Hair]

The beam of light stays the same but the train bends.

 

[90 50]

The beam of light stays the same but the train bends.

Is it the train that bends or your mind that bends?

 

[deltapapha]

Is it the train that bends or your mind that bends?

there is something physical (not just 'mental') that is bending because they have conducted atomic clock experiments where the times were the same at the start of one's journey but differently at the end of one's journey

 

[90 50]

there is something physical (not just 'mental') that is bending because they have conducted atomic clock experiments where the times were the same at the start of one's journey but differently at the end of one's journey

It was a bent spoon reference, guess it went over your head.

But anyway , this is perplexing as a phenomenon. They have done testing in the collider that shows this as well.

Before it was a thought that maybe the movement messed with the clocks, but in the collider tests using what ever it was they used(nuke decay or something been a while since I read it) it wasn’t possible.

So yeah something is happening there, but it has nothing to do with the way the question was asked. Since that was about the perception of the light.

Which isn’t time dislatiln , like in the clock conundrum

 

[nhbfan8080]

No? My dictionary says it does. "Velocity: The speed of something in a given direction."

Velocity takes into account the vector or direction whereas speed is just a scalar value.

 

[elreece]

I run a facebook group where about 20 friends I've known over the years raise some interesting topic for debate or discussion. One recent post was this: "Relate the first time you had relativity explained to you and understood it enough to have your mind blown."

After a couple of replies one gentleman wrote this, (and here is my question specifically). Is there anything wrong with what he wrote here? Does time dilation involve vectors and direction as well as magnitude?

[EDIT: I know it involves magnitude but was just wondering if direction was involved]

Here is his comment:

"As for the concept of time dilation, it's one and the same with the relativity of motion. The speed of light is constant, yes, which is a mind-blowing concept all by itself. But the velocity of light is not constant, since velocity is a measure of speed and direction, and consequently distance.

If a beam of light were shot up from a mirror lying flat on the floor of the train, to hit a mirror directly above it level with the ceiling of the train, an observer on the train would observe the light beam moving straight up and down. But an observer from outside the train would see the light beam moving diagonally. Thus, to the observer, the light beam, moving at the same speed for both observers, would appear to the observer outside the train to take a longer amount of time to bounce between the two mirrors. Even though the speed of light is the same for both, the velocity and distance covered are different."

HAHAHA good one TS 20 friends.