It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ball appears to curve, but that is only from one frame of reference. I have a problem with the mentality that a thing can be in two different states in absolute terms.
two different things didn't happen, only one happened; depending on whether you were observing from the train or observing as stationary relative to the tunnel.
the actual reality of the situation is completely relative to the observer.
And if you have two different observers in different frames of reference and they report different things then you must have two actual realities. Do you not see the problem here?
did the train pass through the tunnel, or the tunnel over the train? one reality per reference frame.
research muons more and you may get a better idea. i assure you, this phenomena has been experimentally verified.
I would have written similar replies to yours, but you beat me to it. This is really the answer.
there isn't a problem.
what the observers report is what happened relative to them. the observers are NOT equal. their perspectives are not comparable.
i think the problem you're having is viewing it from a third, overarching perspective. a perspective that doesn't exist in reality.
However if you stand on a train going half the speed of light and shine a flashlight emitting photons at the speed of light, you could apply the same logic to conclude that the outside observer should again see the sum of the two velocities, so the light beam would travel at 1.5 times the speed of light, but of course that's not what is observed.
I don't think I can explain it any better than Bob did. He nailed the answer I would have given.
That is special relativity, which I am not disputing in this thread. If you can explain to me how two different frames of reference which both report two clearly different things can both be equally valid and yet at the same time explain to me how something definitive did indeed happen regardless of their conflicting observations then I will be satisfied.
You can add a third observer, but this will still not be "what really happened", you then have three different versions of events instead of two.
Where it really defies our intuition is that even the sequence in which events occur is not absolute. Observer A can see sequence 1-2-3 and observer B can see sequence 1-3-2. The only resolution to that apparent paradox is that there is no absolute version of events. Neither is "what really happened".
What has been experimentally verified is time dilation and length contraction.
if you're accepting this as true, i don't understand what you're having trouble with.