challenge the definition

[phyti]

SR implies (or is interpreted as) the space contraction and time dilation depends on the relative velocity of the two reference frames.

B moves at .6 c relative to A.

B sees objects of known dimensions passing in the opposite direction appearing contracted to .8 their length.

A accelerates to .2 c in the direction opposite of B.

The relative speed of separation is now approximately .8 c.

This would require the contraction B sees to be approximately .6 c.

The objects moving past B do not speed up when A moves.

How do you explain this?

[Callipygous]

assuming the objects B is passing are "stationary" according to your scenario, B is still moving at .6c compared to them(A's acceleration doesnt change the speeds of B or the stationary objects, or their speed relative to each other), and therefore the contraction doesnt change. B is moving at .8 compared to A, so A might look more contracted.

 

ive never understood anything about relativity, but these are my logical assumptions based on what ive been told. sorry for any inaccuracies.

[Klaynos]

Also, not sure I've quite understood your thread I'm a little bit worn out...

 

K frame is stationary to an observer.

K'' is moving at 0.8c according to an observer in K'

K' is moving at 0.5c accoring to the observer in K

 

The velocity of K'' measured in K' also suffers a transformation it is not simply 0.8c+0.5c...

[phyti]

When Klaynos listed 3 ref frames it got clearer. That's why someone else

looking from a distance sees the things that are right under your nose.

Thanks