|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On May 24, 7:06 am, funkenstein wrote:
One further thing that might help is that there is no problem with both clocks looking slower to one another.. One similar example of such a thing is that people look smaller when they are far apart due to perspective. Each one looks smaller to the other, this can agree with intuition. What a pile of nonsense! Time dilation is accumulative while length contraction is not. Similarly, your suggestion of objects looked smaller at a distance is not an accumulated result. shrug Keep in mind also that each reference frame has an implicit network of synchronized clocks (synchronized in that frame). As one clock moves through the others frame, the "tick" will occur at a different location. Because the two observers don't agree on the synchronization, they will also disagree about the rate of ticks.. hence the symmetrical time dilation. It is not the case. The mathematics of (dt’ = dt sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2) proves you wrong. It is a quantity that does not depend on any location but speed. shrug Try to understand the Lorentz transform first. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
you are very simply leaving out acceleration
of your departing clone; hasn't this been pointed-out to you, over N times? at least, he'll tell your hagard self all about it, when he gets back with his quantum of youth. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
throw into the obvious fact that
they both see the same doppler shift of the other's image, but one is seeing it with his photoreception & brainfunction, slowed relativistically. you better not answer! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On May 24, 9:00*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On May 24, 7:06 am, funkenstein wrote: One further thing that might help is that there is no problem with both clocks looking slower to one another.. *One similar example of such a thing is that people look smaller when they are far apart due to perspective. *Each one looks smaller to the other, this can agree with intuition. What a pile of nonsense! *Time dilation is accumulative while length contraction is not. * Not precisely true. The distance from one point to another is subject to length contraction. Therefore, the length contraction of each segment of the journey does accumulate to change the total distance of the journey as seen by the rocket twin. After acceleration to a high velocity, the rocket twin sees a small distance to the target than the stationary twin. The distance to the target has not changed according to the stationary twin. However, the distance to the target has greatly decreased to the accelerated twin. The accelerated twin gets to the turn around point faster because the distance is smaller. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
I'll have to think about that;
relativity is fun! there are at least two possibilities re redshifting of stellar spectra with distance: a) medium of space absorbs energy (or Universe is expanding, even accelerating away from us "according to Hubble's thoughtbubble"); b) maybe the frequency really has downshifted, and it's just going to take the Z-factor longer, to get to us. if that is new, this is not an apple. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On May 25, 4:00*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote: I'll *have to think about that; relativity is fun! The "moving" observer does not see the same distance between the two points as the "stationary" observer. The "moving" observer sees a shorter distance between the two points. Thus, his trip is "shorter" in terms of his time. Maybe this ling will help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction "In physics, length contraction – according to Hendrik Lorentz – is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer of objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction) is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; the contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
oops; I almost replied to Androhuff,
with his "alt.moronicAntiSRians" newsgroup. thus: yes, he does see the same distance; it is merely blueshifted. you kneejerk antirelativity people try not to see that, when it is such a simple extension of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity. yes, he does see the same distance; it is merely blueshifted. you kneejerk antirelativity people try not to see that, when it is such a simple extension of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity. http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...ll02/Moon.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...n_stronomy.pdf well, there are other things to do, than to willingly hang-around in a googolplex ghetto. yeah. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Simple question about SR paradox
On May 26, 11:15*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote: oops; I almost replied to Androhuff, with his "alt.moronicAntiSRians" newsgroup. thus: yes, he does see the same distance; it is merely blueshifted. you kneejerk antirelativity people try not to see that, when it is such a simple extension of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity. yes, he does see the same distance; it is merely blueshifted. you kneejerk antirelativity people try not to see that, when it is such a simple extension of your God, Galileo, and his principle of relativity.http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ed...n_stronomy.pdf Galilean relativity has a bit of a limitation that was apparent even before Einstein's 1905 article. Galilean invariance is not consistent with the delay in electromagnetic forces characterized by the speed of light. The Galilean invariant rules mechanics, as embodied in Newton's bood "Principia," require that forces propagate from one body to the other instantaneously. However, electrodynamic forces as embodied by Maxwell's equations have a delay in propagation characterized by "c", the speed of light. The delay in the electromagnetic forces had already been shown to exist my Tesla, Marconi, and all those people studying radio waves. The delay in the electromagnetic forces was consistent with the speed of light measured long before 1905. Galilean invariance is also not consistent with the facts, established before 1905, with the fact that matter is made of electrically charged particles. Electrically charged particles were known to exert magnetic forces when set in motion. These magnetic forces would exert a type of stress on the electrically charged particles. Therefore, objects could not keep the same shape when set in motion. Vibrating objects could not keep the same frequency of vibration when set in motion. Either the laws of mechanics in Principia or the laws of electrodynamics by Maxwell or both had to be at least a little bit wrong. Even had there been no Michaelson-Morley experiment, even if there had been no muon decay experiments, there would have been inconsistencies due to the delay in electromagnetic forces. Because of the electrically charged particles, one would have expected the dimensions of a measuring-rod to vary with the state of relative velocity. Because of the delay in the propagation of force, there would have to be an effect on clocks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 68 | May 26th 11 07:33 PM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 25th 11 12:35 AM |
Simple question about SR paradox | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | May 24th 11 07:25 PM |
FW: Simple Question | Steve Willner | Research | 13 | July 11th 03 10:46 PM |
FW: Simple Question | Richard S. Sternberg | Research | 0 | July 7th 03 06:14 PM |