Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 141

Thread: Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478

    Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false.

    Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false. Time dilation cannot be true.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,671
    Welcome to the forum.

    That's a pretty big claim, that flies in the face of "quite a lot" of science.

    This is important: Have you read the rules? Have you read the advice threads? Will you be able to defend this claim?
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Welcome to the forum.

    That's a pretty big claim, that flies in the face of "quite a lot" of science.

    This is important: Have you read the rules? Have you read the advice threads? Will you be able to defend this claim?
    Yes, I will defend claim. It is false. I will use math.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,171
    They have plans here for a "beautiful" test of the "one way speed of light" in 2012 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1318.pdf

    "It only takes one experiment to dismantle a whole theory" (Hawking).

    There may yet be a surprise.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by wd40 View Post
    They have plans here for a "beautiful" test of the "one way speed of light" in 2012 http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1318.pdf

    "It only takes one experiment to dismantle a whole theory" (Hawking).

    There may yet be a surprise.
    I read you post.

    I can not know how that means for this thread.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478

    I forgot math

    Make all distance light travels in 1 second.
    I make rest frame observer go to ( 1/5, 0, 0 )
    I make moving observer go to ( -1/5, 0, 0 )

    Set v = 3/5.
    I must find t.
    vt = x - x'/[1 /( √( 1 - vē/cē ) ) ] =1/5 -(-1/5)(4/5) = 9/25.
    So, t = (9/25)(5/3) = 3/5.

    I use Einstein
    t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]
    t' = ( 3/5 - (3/5)(1/5) )(5/4) = 3/5.

    That means t = t'.
    Time dilation false.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,671
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    I can not know how that means for this thread.
    I agree. WD40 - please stay on topic. In an ATM thread that means asking questions for the OP to answer.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,321
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Yes, I will defend claim. It is false. I will use math.
    Hello, chinglu1998! Welcome to the forums!

    Will you please use math now, to defend the claim that time dilation is false?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by stutefish View Post
    Hello, chinglu1998! Welcome to the forums!

    Will you please use math now, to defend the claim that time dilation is false?
    Yes, I already make math here.

    It is lost.

    I will try again.


    Make all distance light travels in 1 second.
    I make rest frame observer go to ( 1/5, 0, 0 )
    I make moving observer go to ( -1/5, 0, 0 )
    Set v = 3/5.
    I must find t.
    vt = x - x'/[1 /( √( 1 - vē/cē ) ) ] =1/5 -(-1/5)(4/5) = 9/25.So, t = (9/25)(5/3) = 3/5s.
    I use Einstein
    t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]t' = ( 3/5 - (3/5)(1/5) )(5/4) = 3/5s.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,810
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false. Time dilation cannot be true.
    How do you explain why particles decay more slowly as they approach relativistic speeds?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by baric View Post
    How do you explain why particles decay more slowly as they approach relativistic speeds?
    I provide math time dilation false with special relativity.

    I do not know why they do this.
    you may look at math I provide and have understand.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Make all distance light travels in 1 second.
    I make rest frame observer go to ( 1/5, 0, 0 )
    I make moving observer go to ( -1/5, 0, 0 )

    Set v = 3/5.
    I must find t.
    vt = x - x'/[1 /( √( 1 - vē/cē ) ) ] =1/5 -(-1/5)(4/5) = 9/25.

    I use Einstein
    t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]


    No, you cannot claim that t'=t means that there is no time dilation.

    First off, t'=t doesn't prove anything because it has nothing to do with time dilation.
    Second off, t'=t implies

    t=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

    or t=vx/c^2*gamma/(gamma-1) where gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

    The above doesn't mean anything, there can always be a time t that satisfies the above, so you found no "contradiction"
    In reality, the time dilation gets derived totally differently:

    dt'=dt/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (see any introductory textbook in relativity). so, dt' and dt are NOT equal (unless v=0).


    A few observations:

    1. If you want to disprove SR, you must first learn SR, you haven't done so.
    2. Secondly, you need to learn the meaning of time dilation, you demonstrated that you don't know what it is.
    3. If you think that you found an inconsistency, you didn't. You just got your basic math and physics wrong.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,671
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    ... A few observations: ...
    Save the "observations". They are unnecessarily pointed (i.e. bordering on rude, even if true). Just stick to the facts and lay off the commentary.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,769
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    I provide math time dilation false with special relativity.

    I do not know why they do this.
    you may look at math I provide and have understand.
    You have shown a profound misunderstanding of relativity is all you have shown.

    You say time dilation is false, but if I use the equation:

    t'=γ(t-vx/c2) With v=.6c and x=0, I get

    t'=1.25t

    Odd. This says that the transformed second is a quarter longer.

    All you have shown is that you can set up a situation where the two clocks show the same time.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,209
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Special Relativity is wrong because time dilation is false. Time dilation cannot be true.
    Wow...care to tell us why we can measure it and it always comes up to the exact amount that SR predicts?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,209
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Yes, I already make math here.

    It is lost.

    I will try again.


    Make all distance light travels in 1 second.
    I make rest frame observer go to ( 1/5, 0, 0 )
    I make moving observer go to ( -1/5, 0, 0 )
    Set v = 3/5.
    I must find t.
    vt = x - x'/[1 /( √( 1 - vē/cē ) ) ] =1/5 -(-1/5)(4/5) = 9/25.So, t = (9/25)(5/3) = 3/5s.
    I use Einstein
    t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]t' = ( 3/5 - (3/5)(1/5) )(5/4) = 3/5s.
    I'll assume English is not your first language.
    Your thought experiment is confusing. You can't have a "rest frame" move...if it moves it isn't a "rest frame"

    so lets start at the beginning

    If you have something in motion relative to an observer the moving observer will experience "less time"


    So if you have one observer in motion travelling .5c then the equation is
    Δt' = Δt / √ 1 - v2/c2
    so we get Δt' = Δt / √ 1 - (.52/1)
    which is
    Δt' = Δt / √ 1 - .25
    Δt' = Δt / √ .75
    Δt' = Δt / 0.86602540378443864676372317075294
    so if Δt = 5 Δt' = 5.7735026918962576450914878050195
    5 != 5.7735026918962576450914878050195

    Δt != Δt'

    The only time they would be the same is with v = 0 IE the to observers are not in relative motion to each other.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    No, you cannot claim that t'=t means that there is no time dilation.

    First off, t'=t doesn't prove anything because it has nothing to do with time dilation.
    Second off, t'=t implies

    t=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

    or t=vx/c^2*gamma/(gamma-1) where gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

    The above doesn't mean anything, there can always be a time t that satisfies the above, so you found no "contradiction"
    In reality, the time dilation gets derived totally differently:

    dt'=dt/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) (see any introductory textbook in relativity). so, dt' and dt are NOT equal (unless v=0).


    A few observations:

    1. If you want to disprove SR, you must first learn SR, you haven't done so.
    2. Secondly, you need to learn the meaning of time dilation, you demonstrated that you don't know what it is.
    3. If you think that you found an inconsistency, you didn't. You just got your basic math and physics wrong.
    Yes, I can claim there is not time dilation.

    Einstein makes time dilation as follows.

    A clock move vt. He plugs into equation t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

    t'=(t-vvt/c^2)*\gamma = t(1-v^2/c^2)*\gamma = t/\gamma.

    He then said this clock may take any polygonal path from point A to point B.

    What he did is assume the clock is moved from the origin. He then claimed he proved for any point A and B a clock could be moved and there is time dilation. I am simply pointing out his mistake.

    When the origins of the 2 inertial coordinates systems are at the same place, time is marked in each coordinate system.

    What I showed is a clock is moved from point A which is ((-1/5)/\gamma,0,0) ((-1/5,0,0) in the moving coordinates (to point B (1/5,0,0) and each clock elapses the same amount of time for the two clocks to be at the same place.

    These are not my sayings, these are Einstein's since I use only Einstein's equations.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    You have shown a profound misunderstanding of relativity is all you have shown.

    You say time dilation is false, but if I use the equation:

    t'=γ(t-vx/c2) With v=.6c and x=0, I get

    t'=1.25t

    Odd. This says that the transformed second is a quarter longer.

    All you have shown is that you can set up a situation where the two clocks show the same time.
    It is agreed you can calculate as you did. If I add 2 + 2, can I say everytime I add two number I get 4?

    You must prove time dilation is true for any polygonal path like Einstein said. I simply show a path where a clock is moved from point A to point B and the stationary clock and trhe moving clock elapse the same time with no time dilation.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    I'll assume English is not your first language.
    Your thought experiment is confusing. You can't have a "rest frame" move...if it moves it isn't a "rest frame"

    so lets start at the beginning

    If you have something in motion relative to an observer the moving observer will experience "less time"


    So if you have one observer in motion travelling .5c then the equation is
    Δt' = Δt / √ 1 - v2/c2
    so we get Δt' = Δt / √ 1 - (.52/1)
    which is
    Δt' = Δt / √ 1 - .25
    Δt' = Δt / √ .75
    Δt' = Δt / 0.86602540378443864676372317075294
    so if Δt = 5 Δt' = 5.7735026918962576450914878050195
    5 != 5.7735026918962576450914878050195

    Δt != Δt'

    The only time they would be the same is with v = 0 IE the to observers are not in relative motion to each other.
    I can see where you miss understsand.

    The time dilation that is derived must have clock that is moving only at origin of rest coordinates as its start position.

    So, all you did in above is to make that true and then say true always. Einstein say clock moved from A to B and time dilation true.

    I show case a clock at point A is moved to B and not time dilation.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Yes, I can claim there is not time dilation.
    That's a bad claim that you keep repeating. So, according to the BAUT rules, I am going to start asking some questions that I will expect you to answer.

    Q1: Do you know that there are experiments that confirm relativistic time dilation?

    Q2: Did you understand that time dilation is not about the coordinate "t" but about the time interval "dt"?


    Einstein makes time dilation as follows.

    A clock move vt. He plugs into equation t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)

    t'=(t-vvt/c^2)*\gamma = t(1-v^2/c^2)*\gamma = t/\gamma.
    No, Einstein doesn't "make time dilation". Nature makes the time dilation. And it doesn't happen in the way you wrote it, it happens differently.

    Q3: Please derive the correct time dilation formula:

    dt'=\gamma *dt

    You can try using any textbook.


    He then said this clock may take any polygonal path from point A to point B.

    What he did is assume the clock is moved from the origin. He then claimed he proved for any point A and B a clock could be moved and there is time dilation. I am simply pointing out his mistake.
    The GPS functionality proves Einstein correct and proves you wrong.




    What I showed is a clock is moved from point A which is ((-1/5)/\gamma,0,0) ((-1/5,0,0) in the moving coordinates (to point B (1/5,0,0) and each clock elapses the same amount of time for the two clocks to be at the same place.
    I know what you showed, I proved it wrong.

    Q4: Did you understand my proof? Can you play it back to me, the way I played back your proof to you when I proved it incorrect?

    Q5: You are using the Lorentz transforms, are you aware that time dilation (and length contraction) are a direct consequence of the Lorentz transforms. By using the Lorentz transforms you are automatically accepting the notion of time dilation. Do you have a problem with this?
    Last edited by macaw; 2010-Nov-25 at 06:57 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,633
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    I show case a clock at point A is moved to B and not time dilation.
    No, you just took a very special case

    To try to translate your experiment.

    Observer/clock A is located at (-1/5, 0, 0)
    Observer/clock B is located at (1/5, 0. 0)
    Now, observer/clock B moves with a velocity of 3/5

    Then for some reason you use: x' = γ (x - v t)
    but you apply this to the location of A and the location of B, which does not make sense, because you can only do that when A is in the origin, now you have to use that x is equal to 2/5, the distance between A and B when B did not have a velocity.
    and you transform this to find the "time" t

    Then you take the next equation: t' = γ (t - vx/c2)
    Once more you use 1/5 instead of 2/5 for x and then you find somehow for this special case that t' = t.

    So finally: you just found a special case which, when you do the transformation incorrectly, you get that t' = t, which has nothing to do with reality or with SR being incorrect.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    That's a bad claim that you keep repeating. So, according to the BAUT rules, I am going to start asking some questions that I will expect you to answer.

    Q1: Do you know that there are experiments that confirm relativistic time dilation?

    Q2: Did you understand that time dilation is not about the coordinate "t" but about the time interval "dt"?
    Many apologies. I assumed it was understood the time starts when the origins are at the same location. So, the interval for this is from the time the origins are same to the time the two clocks are at the same location.
    I can show more. How much elapsed time from the origins at the same location and moving observer ( -1/5, 0, 0 ) at the same location as ( 1/5, 0, 0 ).
    ( -1/5, 0, 0 ) is moving so length contraction.
    In time t at v = 3/5c, ( -1/5, 0, 0 ) must move a distance vt to be at ( 1/5, 0, 0 ).
    vt = 1/5 - (-1/5)/(1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )) = 1/5 + 1/5(4/5) = 9/25
    so (3/5)t = 9/25.
    t = 3/5. This is a time interval. Then I used Einstein t' equation to get the moving clock interval.



    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    No, Einstein doesn't "make time dilation". Nature makes the time dilation. And it doesn't happen in the way you wrote it, it happens differently.

    Q3: Please derive the correct time dilation formula:

    dt'=\gamma *dt

    You can try using any textbook.

    I set x = vt just like Einstein and use Einstein equation.
    Between the quantities x, t, and t', which refer to the position of the clock, we have, evidently, x=vt and
    t' = t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]
    Therefore,
    t' = t √( 1 - vē/cē ) = t - (1 - t √( 1 - vē/cē ))t
    whence it follows that the time marked by the clock (viewed in the stationary system) is slow by 1 - t √( 1 - vē/cē ) seconds per second.

    http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...el/specrel.pdf



    Quote Originally Posted by macaw View Post
    I know what you showed, I proved it wrong.

    Q4: Did you understand my proof? Can you play it back to me, the way I played back your proof to you when I proved it incorrect?
    I proved clock moved from point A to point B and moving clock and rest clock both elapsed 3/5s. Moving clock moved a distance vt just like Einstein said. You did not prove this wrong.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    No, you just took a very special case

    To try to translate your experiment.

    Observer/clock A is located at (-1/5, 0, 0)
    Observer/clock B is located at (1/5, 0. 0)
    Now, observer/clock B moves with a velocity of 3/5

    Then for some reason you use: x' = γ (x - v t)
    but you apply this to the location of A and the location of B, which does not make sense, because you can only do that when A is in the origin, now you have to use that x is equal to 2/5, the distance between A and B when B did not have a velocity.
    and you transform this to find the "time" t

    Then you take the next equation: t' = γ (t - vx/c2)
    Once more you use 1/5 instead of 2/5 for x and then you find somehow for this special case that t' = t.

    So finally: you just found a special case which, when you do the transformation incorrectly, you get that t' = t, which has nothing to do with reality or with SR being incorrect.
    I used x' = γ (x - v t) because it you know x and x' then you solve to t. That is how long it takes for x' to move to x when time begins when origins at the same location.
    x' / γ = x - vt,
    t = ( x - x' / γ ) / v
    Then I use Einstein to find the elapsed time to the moving clock at (-1/5, 0, 0) in the moving coordinates to go to (1/5, 0. 0).
    t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]
    Einstein does not make only coordinates at the origin. I do not understand why you use 2/5.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    4,139
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    It is agreed you can calculate as you did. If I add 2 + 2, can I say everytime I add two number I get 4?

    You must prove time dilation is true for any polygonal path like Einstein said. I simply show a path where a clock is moved from point A to point B and the stationary clock and trhe moving clock elapse the same time with no time dilation.
    Can we determine what it is that you accept, i.e. what can we use as a starting point?

    1) Do you accept the validity of the two postulates of SR, e.g. speed of light in vacuum being the same in all inertial frames, etc?

    2) Do you accept that the Lorentz transform follows from the two postulates of SR?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,769
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    I can see where you miss understsand.

    The time dilation that is derived must have clock that is moving only at origin of rest coordinates as its start position.

    So, all you did in above is to make that true and then say true always. Einstein say clock moved from A to B and time dilation true.

    I show case a clock at point A is moved to B and not time dilation.
    No, all you showed was a situation where the two clocks have the same time, not time dilation. All you have is two clocks with the same setting at the same time, not that one clock is slower than the other.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,633
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    I used x' = γ (x - v t) because it you know x and x' then you solve to t. That is how long it takes for x' to move to x when time begins when origins at the same location.
    No that is incorrect. That is NOT how long it takes to come from x' to x, that is easily calculated by (x' - x) / v = 2/5 / 3/5 = 2/3 seconds
    That whole interpretation does not make any sense at all.

    x' / γ = x - vt,
    t = ( x - x' / γ ) / v
    so you forget simply gamma here?
    I get the same time as you without the gamma.

    Then I use Einstein to find the elapsed time to the moving clock at (-1/5, 0, 0) in the moving coordinates to go to (1/5, 0. 0).
    t' = ( t - vx/cē )[1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )]
    Einstein does not make only coordinates at the origin. I do not understand why you use 2/5.
    I used 2/5 because that is the distance between 1/5 and -1/5.
    Sorry to say that your whole setup does not make sense and your explanation cannot be understood.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,398
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu1998 View Post
    Many apologies. I assumed it was understood the time starts when the origins are at the same location. So, the interval for this is from the time the origins are same to the time the two clocks are at the same location.
    I can show more. How much elapsed time from the origins at the same location and moving observer ( -1/5, 0, 0 ) at the same location as ( 1/5, 0, 0 ).
    ( -1/5, 0, 0 ) is moving so length contraction.
    It is getting worse and worse.

    In time t at v = 3/5c, ( -1/5, 0, 0 ) must move a distance vt to be at ( 1/5, 0, 0 ).
    Nope. tusenfem just showed you that this is wrong. Twice.

    vt = 1/5 - (-1/5)/(1 / √( 1 - vē/cē )) = 1/5 + 1/5(4/5) = 9/25
    so (3/5)t = 9/25.
    t = 3/5. This is a time interval.
    So, you do not understand what you are doing. Thank you.

    Then I used Einstein t' equation to get the moving clock interval.
    But you used it in an incorrect way. Several of us showed you several different ways that you don't know what you are doing. tusenfem has made the effort to do it correctly for you, twice.

    Here it is again, in symbolic form only:




    so:





    When you try to measure time dilation , you need to do the measurements in the same place in the primed frame, so dx'=0. This means dx=vdt. (tusenfem showed you that dx=2/5 and dt=dx/v=2/3 in an earlier post). Substitute in the second expression and you get:

    dt'=\gamma (dt-(v/c)^2*dt)=dt/\gamma

    or:

    dt=\gamma *dt'

    So, dt' and dt are not equal (unless v=0 and \gamma=1).
    Last edited by macaw; 2010-Nov-26 at 05:35 PM.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by Fortis View Post
    Can we determine what it is that you accept, i.e. what can we use as a starting point?

    1) Do you accept the validity of the two postulates of SR, e.g. speed of light in vacuum being the same in all inertial frames, etc?

    2) Do you accept that the Lorentz transform follows from the two postulates of SR?
    The invariance of the spacetime interval between the frames proves the Lorentz transforms follow from the two postulates. But, I only want to discuss about this time dilation.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by korjik View Post
    No, all you showed was a situation where the two clocks have the same time, not time dilation. All you have is two clocks with the same setting at the same time, not that one clock is slower than the other.
    The Lorentz equations only return elapsed times since the origins were at the same place. These are not local clock times.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    No that is incorrect. That is NOT how long it takes to come from x' to x, that is easily calculated by (x' - x) / v = 2/5 / 3/5 = 2/3 seconds
    That whole interpretation does not make any sense at all.



    so you forget simply gamma here?
    I get the same time as you without the gamma.



    I used 2/5 because that is the distance between 1/5 and -1/5.
    Sorry to say that your whole setup does not make sense and your explanation cannot be understood.
    x' is in the coordinates of the moving frame not the rest. It is length contracted.

    So, the distance between the two is 1/5 - (-1/5)/\gamma = 9/25.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 2011-Mar-20, 03:17 PM
  2. Special relativity - who's really experiencing time dialation?
    By tgoolsby2 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-22, 07:53 PM
  3. Special Relativity
    By jtowich in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2007-Dec-02, 05:47 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2007-Oct-02, 02:12 AM
  5. Dilation of Perception instead of Dilation of Time
    By kmarinas86 in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-16, 10:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: