The relativity of simultaneity shows flaw when an event which results from the simultaneous events is introduced in the „Ladder Paradox“ thought experiment.
Link to the Wikipedia page, explaining the ladder paradox – click HERE to read.
Please study the content from the above link, and refer to it when examining the problem presented by me.
For better understanding, I’ll use the same graphics, modified for the purpose of the problem.
To question the length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity I introduce a third event in the ladder paradox problem.
How? Simply, by attaching a rod to each door, which is welded perpendicularly on the inside of the doors, in a way that the rods tips touch each other when both the doors are closed. (See the red attached arms in the graphics)
Think of this touching event as verification of the simultaneity – touching verifies simultaneity, no touching – no simultaneity.
Obviously, this event will be absent in the ladder reference frame since the doors in that frame are not closing simultaneously.
Missing event in one of the reference frames is against the law of physics or open door to multiple realities.
Graphics:
1. left-hand side – garage reference frame with simultaneously closing doors.
The touching event is present in the third graphic from the top.
2. right-hand side – ladder reference frame with non-simultaneously closing doors.
The touching event is missing.
[EDIT]
Since too many opponents have been confused with the rods, arguing the technicality but not the logic, I decided to give an example which is more easy to visualize and understand.
Here it is:
As Einstein proposed it:
As it would be if Einstein was right:
It is obvious that if we add an event as a result of the simultaneous events, it will be missing in the second frame of reference where the simultaneity is missing. Note that on this event can be held the whole structure of the system, and since the event is missing in the second frame of reference, we need magic for the system to be present in that frame of reference, or we have to assume multiple realities.
And here is why length contraction wouldn’t work
Pal, you have not understood relativity. Time dilation and length contraction are consequences not from some kind of mystical phenomenon, but of velocity of bodies in relation to a speed which maintains itself the same in order to make Maxwell’s equations look the same from every perspective. The gifs you just showed are full of fatal flaws, if your intention is to make an honest critic of relativity. First of, the gifs do not show only one referencial frame, but three. Time dilation only takes place in relation to a choosen referencial frame, and the criteria is that it should… Прочети нататък »
I think that you didn’t understand my point, pal.
First, there are only two reference frames (left and right gifs) and
Second, you should focus on the fact that an event is missing (or adding) in one of the reference frames.
If I have to put it in a very simple way, if you clap your hands in your frame of reference, I would not have that event in my frame of reference.
What they taught you in school or university is irrelevant in this case. You have to solve the problem by forgetting that knowledge.
First, no, there are three. The gif that is not moving is also an inertial referencial. Second, no event is missing because it depends of the information of one inertial reference frame. I don’t think you understand, but you’re the one bringing relativity up. You want to find a contradiction in relativity in order to prove it’s false. If you will not take information from science, where are you going to take information for that? Third, yes, you would see the clap, but slowly. And for a matter effect, I should correct myself on one thing that simply passed through… Прочети нататък »
You make me lough, boy/girl 😀 Your arguments shows that you need much to learn about relativity. I don’t understand which gif you see as third frame, because there are only two gifs per example, but that’s not important any way. Telling me that I’ll see the clap contradicts the theory you are defending. Because if I see the clap the ladder wouldn’t be able to pass through the clapping doors of the garage. And no! the events in all frames of reference should be the same. You know why? – because if the events are not the same we… Прочети нататък »
„Your arguments shows that you need much to learn about relativity. I don’t understand which gif you see as third frame, because there are only two gifs per example, but that’s not important any way.“ That only proves you haven’t studied relativity AT all. Reference frames are basically the perspective of each of the objects envolved. We can measure the relations between different reference frames by giving to each one of them a certain coordinate system, which we can convert form one to another by a series of equations called the Lorentz Transformations. When I say frame, I don’t the… Прочети нататък »
You say: „There are three reference frames in one of the gifs showed, one of them is the cannon on the left, the other one the cannon on the right and the third one is meant to be you, standing still from the „photo’s perspective“, or the „camera’s perspective“.“ And I’ll say again, you should read again your school books. We have one inertial frame of reference and two objects in it. Even if we have two observers in that frame they would measure the same results, because they are not moving in relation to their frame of reference. Let… Прочети нататък »
„And I’ll say again, you should read again your school books. We have one inertial frame of reference and two objects in it.“ Count with me, please. 1 referencial frame, hahaha 2 referencial frames (one of the objects), hahaha 3 referencial frames (the other object), hahaha. A referencial frame doesn’t need to be a living being, ma’m. „Even if we have two observers in that frame they would measure the same results, because they are not moving in relation to their frame of reference.“ My dude, do you know something called „algebra“? Because if yes, do the following favor for… Прочети нататък »
Ha-hah 😀
You are either a troll or illiterate moron.
The theory of relativity is dealing with inertial frames of reference, not with point of view of the objects in the inertial frame of reference.
Two things, just so we can get this over. First, anything can observe other things. An electron can observe the spin of another electron, for example. If so, it’s fundamental that objects have their own inertial frame of reference. And may I notice that when I use the word „object“, I’m not using and academic term but a simple day-to-day term. A mug could have a inertial frame of reference if it’s moving. It’s a frame of reference which moves WITH the mug. What relativity is trying to do is to convert one coordinate from an inertial frame of reference… Прочети нататък »
Ah, and another observation about the ladder-house case. You’re transforming two distinct events into only one single event. Each one of the doors closing are separate events. If a certain event happens to unite both of them, like the case with the train and the lamp, it would still happen, with time dilation effects being counted aswell, because of that think about reference frames.
And I should point out that that’s why imagination is so important in relativity. You should be able to put yourself on the place of the cannon, and not sit still in the referencial of the gif.
Not putting yourself in the perspective of the moving body leads to fatal calculation flaws, since that’s what relativity really is interested in doing.