<p>will two events that occur at the same place and same time for one observer be simultaneous to a second observer moving with respect to the first?</p>
<p>The time-dilation effect is sometimes expressed as moving clocks run slowly. actually, this effect has nothing to do with motion affecting the functioning of clocks what thend oes it deal with?</p>
<p>does the dilation mean that time actually passes more slowly in moving reference frames or that it only seems to pass more slowly?</p>
<p>does anyone know the answer for this!?</p>
<p>Your grammar and writing style is so bad that I can’t even comprehend the first two questions. The third question, yes. Time actually does, in reality, move more slowly.</p>
<p>I copied this straight off the textbook</p>
<p>The time-dilation effect is sometimes expressed as moving clocks run slowly. actually, this effect has nothing to do with motion affecting the functioning of clocks. what then d oes it deal with?</p>
<p>there was a typo in my 2nd question</p>
<p>Dude. This isn’t gonna come out in the SAT.
Yes, they will be simultaneous.</p>
<p>
The time passed in a frame, moving with respect to an initial frame, is different.
</p>
<p>I know it’s not gonna come out; it’s for my hw. I seriously don’t get this relativity concept</p>
<p>thanks a lot 
fiona! can i ask you more questions later on?</p>
<p>NO HOMEWORK HELP -___- Geez.</p>
<p>IM me, anyway. My AOL handle is fffffiona (five Fs)</p>
<p>sorry about that. hmm I don’t do IM or whatever. hhahahhahaha so sad thanks though</p>
<p>dude you don’t do IM? do you live in a cave?</p>
<p>I’m just ‘following community rules’. hahaha!! okay i just wanted to call you out on that. no problem</p>
<p>But for the record:</p>
<p>Two events that are siultaneous according to one observer will definitely NOT be simultaneous according to an observer in a moving reference frame. It is one of the strange things that follow when you accept that they DO agree about the speed of light.</p>
<p>There is a nice video explanation at </p>
<p>[Simultaneity</a> - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity](<a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4820883104387202016]Simultaneity”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4820883104387202016)</p>
<p>(And yes, I know that this is not an SAT topic. But teaching physics is my day job and you have to admit, this is more interesting than the SAT!)</p>
<p>@pckeller The two events are at the same place and time.</p>
<p>Well, yes, but I don’t think that is what the question means to ask. Because it is trivially true that if one observer observes a ruler of length zero and two clocks at either end of that ruler of length zero reading the same time, then they will conclude that length = 0 and no time has passed. And the moving observer will agree. There is not much physics to talk about, relativistically or classically, in the case where nothing moves and no time passes! So I am guessing that the question intended to address the point made in the video.</p>
<p>By “in the same place”, I think they meant “in one reference frame”.</p>
<p>@pckeller I do agree that the question seems “off” trivially true. But I won’t go so far as to take such a liberal interpretation of the statement</p>
<p>Is this too liberal?</p>
<p>“If an observer in one reference frame observes that two events occurred simultaneously in his reference frame at two points with different x coordinates, and a second observer views those events from a reference frame moving with a non-zero velocity in the x-direction, then that second observer will not believe that the two events were simultaneous.”</p>
<p>Where does the OP ask /that/ question?</p>
<p>I think that is the issue the original question is designed to investigate. But I could be wrong – if the question in the text really meant to ask what it said, then the trivial answer applies.</p>
<p>But I could be misreading it, I’m still new enough to these forums that I had to do a google search to find out what “OP” stood for! So what do I know.</p>