No, in physics if every thing is being equal than we should get equal results.
In fact you have not disagreed that in the same frame every thing will be equal and that even in different frames it will be equal for the perpendicular direction, although the relativity of simultaneity does not...
You are using the velocity addition formula which is based on the relativity of simultaneity, so it can not be considered a solution rather it is part of the problem itself.
Again my question every thing being equal why should things on one side be different than the other, and why should it be...
Here is an easy experiment that every one can conduct.
Take two objects and tie them with a plastic rope that will be riped off when stretching to much, and start to move one of the objects, you will see that the rope will rip off at the side of the moving object even if the motion is uniform...
Your solution is based on length contraction which is not applicable here for two reasons.
1) Since the length of the rope at any instant in time before cutting the ropes can clearly not be smaller than the space between the objects (think about that), and it can also not be larger than the...
Let it be breaking the rope, still this will happen closer to one side according to the laws of physics which we can use to determine the one in motion.
So the problem is still there.
OK thanks all of you for your effort, but I do not understand your answers.
Forget a moment about the relativity of simultaneity, if fire spreads out in two directions with every thing being equal is there any reason for the fire going in one side faster than the other, or the ball flying in...
Hi.
The concept of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.
As a result of relativity we have the relativity of simultaneity, which says that two events that are simultaneous in one inertial frame are not simultaneous in other frames.
Now...
Hi all.
Suppose we have two objects A and B, and suppose we tie a rope R to the objects with the rope R's two edges hooked to a pole or hook on each of the objects.
The rope is loosely connected to the hooks on such a way that as objects will move away from each other, then as the rope will...
It looks as you have misunderstood my question.
My question is what will be if after cutting the two ropes we then bring the ropes together in the same frame and compare them there, and in this case there might be no disagreement on which one is shorter.
(Well one might ask why should this be...
My question is that since the principle of relativity is said for inertial frames only is it is evident by the twin paradox, as such what would be if the planet is in acceleration? (actually a gravitational field is anyway considered non-inertial even when not in acceleration).
Thanks for your answer.
Is this also true for a planet in acceleration? probably yes (although an object in acceleration cannot claim itself to be at rest as it is evident by the twin paradox, still here it makes sense that the point is not rest or motion but rather the planet's view).
Suppose we have two ships A and B in uniform motion according to each other(A claims B to in motion and B claims A to be in motion).
Let each one of the objects have a roll of rope on it (let us call the ropes a-> for A's rope and b-> for B's rope).
Now when the ships were initially close to...
Suppose we have two objects A and B in uniform motion according to each other with velocity v (A claims B to in motion with velocity v and B claims A to be in motion with velocity v).
After a while a big gravity field G appears on the site, and the escape velocity of objects in the field of G...
OK, thanks all of you for the replies, and I think I already got the idea.
The point here is that the definitions of inertial and non-inertial in relativity have nothing to do with general mechanics any more than sharing vocabulary.
While in Newtonian physics an object is inertial when the net...