...you have just worked out the depth of problem....
Thanks Orac!
Paul, if I understood Orac correctly, he was right about how my reply “worked out the depth of [the] problem,” relativity; unless he just meant the problem with algebraic skills.
That’s because I (
in composing my reply) had noticed that
by confronting the logic (and meaning) of the equation’s calculations,
the manifestation of relativity operating became more obvious—since the process of “relativity,”
and its consequence, quite quickly become almost undeniably apparent—like a mathematical slap in the face.
Maybe that could be said more simply.The implications of “relativity” become more obvious
when you observe the consequences (and meaning)
of performing those calculations ...for “time dilation” ...correctly.
But I suppose if one decided to deny relativity, then how those “calculations are performed” must also be denied.
===
And Paul, either way, with or without “t” in the denominators, of v and c,
there is still the t (time in seconds) in front of the square root sign.
Time is still used to calculate the dilated time.
It is just an equation relating time to dilated time,
by comparing one velocity with another—the speed of light—in a certain reference frame.
And one of those velocities is constant in all reference frames, so for comparing the effect of other different velocities,
the "constant velocity" makes a good common denominator.
So the idea that this might also be done by looking only at “distances” (without the time)
involved with those two different speeds, shouldn’t be surprising.
And the idea that you could simply compare the distances (without time),
to calculate the dilated time, might give you another insight into the nature of “relativity.”
Why again don’t you think the equation is true?
~
