Now I must publish

[ponderer]

It seems to be contradictory to me. The Lorentz transforms tell you what the moving frame looks like, to the stationary frame. What you are proposing is inconsistent with this, and lacks both a theoretical framework and experimental evidence.

 

I am beginning to think that I may have an error in logic, in that I am considering the sequence of events inconsequential.

 

I have to consider this more.

 

It now seems to me that if we consider that space-time is distorted accordingly, that the sequence of events will be the same for both frames. In effect the transformation is being performed. That should give a flat result.

 

So I have been seeing things differently, because I was in error, interpreting the data incorrectly.

 

Thanks.

[ponderer]

I am beginning to think that I may have an error in logic, in that I am considering the sequence of events inconsequential.

 

I have to consider this more.

 

It now seems to me that if we consider that space-time is distorted accordingly, that the sequence of events will be the same for both frames. In effect the transformation is being performed. That should give a flat result.

 

So I have been seeing things differently, because I was in error, interpreting the data incorrectly.

 

Thanks.

 

One last thought however.

 

How do you go about distorting the relative space and time, for the moving frame, in such a manner?

 

It is all well and good to say that the relative space-time is distorted, but what underlying mechanism accounts for the distortion?

 

What I mean is the stationary observer should see the first graphic.

 

It is only because space and time are distorted according to the second graphic that you see, a more or less normalized view.

 

So what underlying mechanism accounts for the space-time distortion of the second graphic, that allows you to see a more or less normalized view?

Edited February 27, 2010 by ponderer

[swansont]

The distortion is due to the invariant speed of light, which is finite.

[StrontiDog]

Length contraction (and more generally, Penrose-Terrell rotation) are well-known consequences of relativity.

 

 

But we're still talking about a light cone, right?

 

Penrose-Terrell rotation refers only to objects (mass), not photons, the way I interpret it.

 

Do we know that photons distort anything when passing through space? Does their speed affect their size (length?), since they always travel at the same speed.

 

As far as I know, the 'length' of a photon is either the wavelength, or a continuous, straight line segment (through curved space, just for funzies) from the point of origin to the point of absorption. Both of which, of course, depends on how the cat is feeling when you open the box.

 

Just looking for clarification.

 

Bill Wolfe

[swansont]

 

Just looking for clarification.

 

 

It's not clear to me if the distortions are calculated effects from theory or merely a thought experiment based on what one naively expects, independent of relativity.

[ponderer]

The distortion is due to the invariant speed of light, which is finite.

 

Circular logic.

 

You start with the logical premise that there is no preferred frame of reference.

 

From this you conclude that the speed of light is constant in all frames.

 

That's where you start.

 

From this we can calculate the relative space-time distortion, between frames, which is required to make that conclusion correct.

 

This relative space-time distortion must exist, in some physical form, beyond those calculations.

 

You can't go back to the speed of light as your explanation, without some further explanation of how space and time are distorted to accomplish this.

 

That is a circular logic loop, that explains nothing.

Edited March 8, 2010 by ponderer

[Mr Skeptic]

From this you conclude that the speed of light is constant in all frames.

 

I think you mean, Maxwell's Equations, which describe electromagnetic waves and say exactly how fast they go.

[swansont]

Circular logic.

 

You start with the logical premise that there is no preferred frame of reference.

 

From this you conclude that the speed of light is constant in all frames.

 

That's where you start.

 

From this we can calculate the relative space-time distortion, between frames, which is required to make that conclusion correct.

 

This relative space-time distortion must exist, in some physical form, beyond those calculations.

 

You can't go back to the speed of light as your explanation, without some further explanation of how space and time are distorted to accomplish this.

 

That is a circular logic loop, that explains nothing.

 

Nothing circular about relativity. It is experimentally confirmed. if you want to propose some space-time distortion beyond this, you need a theoretical framework and experimental evidence.