A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: JT on 26 Jul 2010 18:03 On 26 Juli, 23:58, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 4:22 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Juli, 23:18, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/26/10 4:12 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > simultaneously. > > > > Ken, order of event is observer dependent and nicely presented > > > in the 30-minute episode of the Mechanical Universe you can watch > > > on your computer! > > > > The Mechanical Universe series. > > > http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html > > > > 42. The Lorentz Transformation > > > If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > > > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > > > depends on who measures it. > > > > Lesson 42: The Lorentz Transformation > > > > If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as > > > indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) the equations for time and > > > space are not difficult to find. But what do they mean? They mean that > > > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of ticking of a clock depends > > > on who measure it. > > > > Text Assignment: Chapter 46 > > > > Instructional Objectives > > > > Be able to use the Lorentz Transformation to work problems relating time > > > or space intervals in different reference frames. > > > Be able to give some of the hypothetical explanations put forward to > > > account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. > > > Be able to discuss the concept of length contraction. > > > Be able to understand and use spacetime diagrams. > > > Be able to define and discuss the concept of simultaneity. > > > Be able to define and discuss clock synchronization. > > > It is childish to resort to recitations from book Sam, try to argue > > the case would be more proper. > > > JT > > You mean to try to teach you would be more proper? > No, it would not be more proper. > What would be more proper is you learning about relativity from a good > reference about relativity. Like a book. Or a class. > Looking for an education about relativity here is not proper at all.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - There is nothing proper about relativity it uses noneequivalent units as they were the same. It does not have a thoughthru geometrical base. It can not even handle two simultaneous transmissions towards earth, without to resort to Euclidian geometry using pet name for relative velocity, AKA closing speed. JT
From: PD on 26 Jul 2010 18:26 On Jul 26, 5:03 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 26 Juli, 23:58, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:22 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 26 Juli, 23:18, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 7/26/10 4:12 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > Ken, order of event is observer dependent and nicely presented > > > > in the 30-minute episode of the Mechanical Universe you can watch > > > > on your computer! > > > > > The Mechanical Universe series. > > > > http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html > > > > > 42. The Lorentz Transformation > > > > If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > > > > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > > > > depends on who measures it. > > > > > Lesson 42: The Lorentz Transformation > > > > > If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as > > > > indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) the equations for time and > > > > space are not difficult to find. But what do they mean? They mean that > > > > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of ticking of a clock depends > > > > on who measure it. > > > > > Text Assignment: Chapter 46 > > > > > Instructional Objectives > > > > > Be able to use the Lorentz Transformation to work problems relating time > > > > or space intervals in different reference frames. > > > > Be able to give some of the hypothetical explanations put forward to > > > > account for the Michelson-Morley experiment. > > > > Be able to discuss the concept of length contraction. > > > > Be able to understand and use spacetime diagrams. > > > > Be able to define and discuss the concept of simultaneity. > > > > Be able to define and discuss clock synchronization. > > > > It is childish to resort to recitations from book Sam, try to argue > > > the case would be more proper. > > > > JT > > > You mean to try to teach you would be more proper? > > No, it would not be more proper. > > What would be more proper is you learning about relativity from a good > > reference about relativity. Like a book. Or a class. > > Looking for an education about relativity here is not proper at all.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > There is nothing proper about relativity it uses noneequivalent units > as they were the same. Equivalence of units is determined by calibration against a LOCAL standard process. It is NOT established by what you think it should be. Sorry, but it just isn't. > It does not have a thoughthru geometrical base. > It can not even handle two simultaneous transmissions towards earth, > without to resort to Euclidian geometry using pet name for relative > velocity, AKA closing speed. There's jargon in any field, that you have to learn in order to discuss anything in the field. This isn't a trap or a failing. It's just a fact of life. If you don't want to have to learn jargon, then stop complaining about it being confusing.
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2010 19:01 On 7/26/10 5:03 PM, JT wrote: > There is nothing proper about relativity it uses noneequivalent units > as they were the same. It does not have a thoughthru geometrical base. > It can not even handle two simultaneous transmissions towards earth, > without to resort to Euclidian geometry using pet name for relative > velocity, AKA closing speed. > > JT > Pure gibberish Jonas!
From: Inertial on 26 Jul 2010 21:07 "kenseto" wrote in message news:eee3d27b-1f77-4145-b190-70e63a1b2122(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > Another one you're going to start lying about I'm sure once correct SR answers are given > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: So I guess we assuming the one shown here.... http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html vâ> |--------Mâ-------| Train =========A========M========B========== Embankment >When M and M' are coincide with each other...... >two lightning strikes >hits the ends of the train Of course, one needs to specify 'when' in which frame? 'when' at two different places is frame dependent. So I assume you mean âwhenâ in the embankment frame. So lightning strikes at A and B at the same time according to the embankment. > and the light fronts arrive at M' non- >simultaneously. Yeup. Light from B hits Mâ first... ......> <...... Light vâ> |-------Mâ-------| Train =========A========M========B========== Embankment And light from A hits Mâ second... ................> Light vâ> |-------Mâ-------| Train =========A========M========B========== Embankment I donât see any modification from the usual gedanken in what you say > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > arrive at him simultaneously? Of course it does .. M is halfway between the source of light (A and B) at all times (it is not moving, like Mâ is), and the lightning struck the points A and B simultaneously in the embankment frame, so the light travels the same distance and the same speed starting at the same time and so arrive at the same time. Very simple. > Since there are an infinite number of pairs of strikes that can cause > the light fronts to arrive at M' non-simultaneously, No .. only one as youâve described it .. where the strikes are at the ends of the train (A and B) when the lighting strikes at the same time that M is adjacent Mâ in the embankment frame. If you think there the description describes more than one possible pair of strikes .. please show me. > does that means > that there are infinite pairs of strikes that M will see their light > fronts to arrive at him simultaneously????? No .. as there is only one
From: eric gisse on 26 Jul 2010 23:59
kenseto wrote: [...] I got a better puzzle. Why does the kenseto keep posting despite 15 amply- documented years of not understanding relativity? |