Hard SR questions? [Relativity]

Prev: Basic postulates of SR
Next: Questions on world-line

From: jt64 on 13 Aug 2006 16:33

From: jt64 on 13 Aug 2006 17:52

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) skrev:

> Dear jt64:
>
> <jt64(a)tele2.se> wrote in message
> news:1155494971.336801.33070(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > (According to relativity) and Lorentz it is easy to see
> > when you check my figures for the actual length
> > contraction above. Nothing else, it is just wishful
> > thinking on your behalf.
>
> Your figures are mutually inconsistent.
>
> Care to try for second prize?
>
> David A. Smith

I understand that the expected Hz would need to be a fraction of 1/7
when travelin in 0,99c.

Within the example 6000/7

However it will not happen because there is inconsistency between the
relativity doppler effect and the lorents transformation for some
reason the actual so there must be something wrong with the lorents
transformation.

Because without any doubt 60 frames will pass in 0.01 seconds according
to relativity because *FIRST BIT IN FRAME MUST PASS EXACTLY AFTER ONE
SECOND*<--->*LAST BIT LAST FRAME MUST PASS BEFORE SHIP* so.........
1.01-1=0.01.

There is no room for interpretation of the above. ANYONE CAN SEE IT

So if we know the factor is dilated by roughly 7 at ship. We actually
know that *FROM WITHIN THE SHIP FRAME* it is sent out 60 frames during
0,14285714285714285714285714285714.

*THIS IS NOT NEGOTIABLE OR A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION*

And if we know this we also know that in 1 second the framerate will be
60/0,14285714285714285714285714285714.

DO YOU FIND THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

JT

From: jt64 on 13 Aug 2006 18:13

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) skrev:

> Dear jt64:
>
> <jt64(a)tele2.se> wrote in message
> news:1154870281.617016.89810(a)m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > Ship (A) travel 0.99c approaching earth.
>
> Presumably earth = B?
> Presumably the 0.99c is as determined by B?
>
> gamma = ~7
> let c = 300,000 km/sec
>
> > At a distance of 300 000 km as seen from
> > planet (B) inertial frame the ship start a
> > framed TV transmission.
>
> ... assumed the transmission is periodic, continuous, and the
> last frame is completed as A passes B.
>
> > The transmission is such that 60 frames will
> > be sent from ship (A) during the distance of
> > 300 000 km relative earths inertial frame.
> >
> > Now my question.
>
> ... Question*s* ...
>
> > 1. How long time will it take to travel to
> > planet using (ship point of view).
>
> "It"? Do you mean the transmission or the ship? It is a
> continuous data stream, whose last frame exits A's transmitter
> just as A passes B, right?
>
> The distance travelled during this transmission is (300,000 / 7)
> km. The ship also measures B moving at 0.99c. So the duration
> is
>
> 1/7 = (1 + 0.99)*t

No banana for you Smith the distance not 600 000 km you can not add
either time or length of two objects travelin one frame and say that is
the time or distance measured.

> t = 0.07 sec.
>
> > 2. What is the framerate for the transmission
> > within the ship.(ship point of view)
>
> To meet your givens:
> 60 / 0.07 = 840 frames per second.
>
> > 3. How long will it take until the front of first frame
> > is received at planet.(planet point of view)
>
> How about the frame previous to the one that started emitting at
> 300,000? The math is cleaner. The one that just finished at
> 300,000 km arrived 1 second later.
>
> > 4. How long will it take until the ship pass planet.
> >(planet point of view)
>
> 1 / 0.99 = 1.01 seconds
>
> > (*5*) How long was the time span between the
> > first and last frame(planet point of view)
>
> From the *start* of the first frame...
>
> 0.01 seconds.
> framerate: 60 / 0.01 = 6000 Hz
> checking to see if we get ship's gamma:
> 6000 / 7 = 857 Hz ... the difference between this and 840 Hz is
> roundoff error.
>
> No one expects you to *like* relativity. But you will find that
> it is self-consistent.
>
> David A. Smith

From: *"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox on 13 Aug 2006 18:18

Dear jt64:

<jt64(a)tele2.se> wrote in message
news:1155501219.762886.201870(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) skrev:
>
>> Dear jt64:
>>
>> <jt64(a)tele2.se> wrote in message
>> news:1155494971.336801.33070(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>> > (According to relativity) and Lorentz it is easy to see
>> > when you check my figures for the actual length
>> > contraction above. Nothing else, it is just wishful
>> > thinking on your behalf.
>>
>> Your figures are mutually inconsistent.
>
> No it is not my figures that are inconsistent,

I showed the entire set to be completely consistent. You come up
with mysterious factors, confuse yourself, then blame others.
How... unusual.

> if anything by this setup is inconsistent

It is your setup, and it yields a consistent result.

> it is the "relativity doppler effect" and in fact
> the whole Lorents transformation.

None is as blind as one who will not see. I have no time for
voluntary ignorance. Goodbye.
<plonk>

David A. Smith

From: jt64 on 13 Aug 2006 18:44

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) skrev:

> Dear jt64:
>
> <jt64(a)tele2.se> wrote in message
> news:1155501219.762886.201870(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) skrev:
> >
> >> Dear jt64:
> >>
> >> <jt64(a)tele2.se> wrote in message
> >> news:1155494971.336801.33070(a)p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> ...
> >> > (According to relativity) and Lorentz it is easy to see
> >> > when you check my figures for the actual length
> >> > contraction above. Nothing else, it is just wishful
> >> > thinking on your behalf.
> >>
> >> Your figures are mutually inconsistent.
> >
> > No it is not my figures that are inconsistent,
>
> I showed the entire set to be completely consistent. You come up
> with mysterious factors, confuse yourself, then blame others.
> How... unusual.
>
> > if anything by this setup is inconsistent
>
> It is your setup, and it yields a consistent result.
>
> > it is the "relativity doppler effect" and in fact
> > the whole Lorents transformation.
>
> None is as blind as one who will not see. I have no time for
> voluntary ignorance. Goodbye.
> <plonk>

Plonk plonk there is no reason to plonk 1 orange in 7 parts is 1/7 of
an orange no more no less.

Why you consist there is 14 parts to make the full orange even though
you sliced it nicely in 7.

You tried to solve your face and relativities by claiming the orange
actually was twice the size it was.

No oranges do not expand more then they are contracted by velocity even
in relativity an orange contracted by X suddenly not contracted by 2X,
an orange dilated by X suddenly not dilated by 2X an orange transmitted
in X fps or Hz will not suddenly be transmitted in 2X fps or 2X Hz, not
even within the theory of SR.

JT

> David A. Smith

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Basic postulates of SR
Next: Questions on world-line