Question about Einstein postulates and relativity:
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Question
Next: Talk with Timo.
From: Khattak on 24 Apr 2010 19:23 On Apr 19, 9:40 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Apr 19, 3:34 am, Khattak <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 8:11 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I glanced at the previous posts and I agree with Inertial, this looks > > > looks a 'spammer'/troll. > > > o > > > Anw, reading this post(below) quickly,... > > > > All these type of problems are easily resolved by not considering a > > > lightpulse but a spherical outgoing lightwave from the source. You > > > only need then to consider the wavefront remaining inside your > > > apparatus (lightclock). Try that to answer your questions. > > > > > Let a pulse enters the moving clock from its bottom. So for outside > > > > stationary observer, would a pulse of light deviates from its original > > > > straight path when exit at the top. > > > > > Lets change the set up of top and bottom mirrors to following > > > > isosceles triangle ABC in a moving spaceship close to speed of light. > > > > > Vertex angle A = 90 degree (Mirror) > > > > Base angles B and C = 45 degrees > > > > AB = BC = 1, 50,000 km > > > > > At rest a pulse starts from B to A and then B to C thus one second for > > > > both inside and outside stationary observers. > > > > > Now if a ship starts moving close to the speed of light and a pulse > > > > start from B to A and then B to C then would the time dilation > > > > equation be different or remained the same.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > looks a 'spammer'/troll. > > > I usually discuss idea with my friend and therefore question arises > > during discussion. So FYI Im not a spammer/troll. If you dislike my > > posts then im sorry about that and please just ignore all or tell me > > the other forum where I can post my question. I think criticism is not > > sin. > > Hi Khattthak, dlzc already answered your question and Inertial gave > some precisions. Furthermore rotchm gave some advice that may be > helpful (indeed I also found that the Huyghens construction works in > SRT). > If it doesn't work for you, you can try to sketch here in ASCII what > you did with mention of the problem that you encountered. Oh and for > easy calculation and construction it's handier to work with 0.8c. > > Regards, > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Closing speed can be eliminated if pulse enters and exits through the holes in the longitudinal sides of aforementioned ship. What do you think about the following Let a tennis ball is dropped from the ceiling of an ordinary building elevator of 9.8 m high. As acceleration due to gravity is constant, therefore at rest; ball covers a distance of 9.8 m in one second for both inside and outside stationary observer but if an elevator moves up it covers < 9.8m or vice versa in one second for outside stationary observer. twin paradox If we make a movie of both twins one rocket away into space and the other stayed on Earth and then would the movie of twin whom undergone into space journey be in slow motion or less duration if played after side by side.
From: BURT on 24 Apr 2010 22:19 On Apr 24, 4:23 pm, Khattak <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 9:40 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 19, 3:34 am, Khattak <zarm...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 18, 8:11 am, rotchm <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I glanced at the previous posts and I agree with Inertial, this looks > > > > looks a 'spammer'/troll. > > > > o > > > > Anw, reading this post(below) quickly,... > > > > > All these type of problems are easily resolved by not considering a > > > > lightpulse but a spherical outgoing lightwave from the source. You > > > > only need then to consider the wavefront remaining inside your > > > > apparatus (lightclock). Try that to answer your questions. > > > > > > Let a pulse enters the moving clock from its bottom. So for outside > > > > > stationary observer, would a pulse of light deviates from its original > > > > > straight path when exit at the top. > > > > > > Lets change the set up of top and bottom mirrors to following > > > > > isosceles triangle ABC in a moving spaceship close to speed of light. > > > > > > Vertex angle A = 90 degree (Mirror) > > > > > Base angles B and C = 45 degrees > > > > > AB = BC = 1, 50,000 km > > > > > > At rest a pulse starts from B to A and then B to C thus one second for > > > > > both inside and outside stationary observers. > > > > > > Now if a ship starts moving close to the speed of light and a pulse > > > > > start from B to A and then B to C then would the time dilation > > > > > equation be different or remained the same.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > looks a 'spammer'/troll. > > > > I usually discuss idea with my friend and therefore question arises > > > during discussion. So FYI Im not a spammer/troll. If you dislike my > > > posts then im sorry about that and please just ignore all or tell me > > > the other forum where I can post my question. I think criticism is not > > > sin. > > > Hi Khattthak, dlzc already answered your question and Inertial gave > > some precisions. Furthermore rotchm gave some advice that may be > > helpful (indeed I also found that the Huyghens construction works in > > SRT). > > If it doesn't work for you, you can try to sketch here in ASCII what > > you did with mention of the problem that you encountered. Oh and for > > easy calculation and construction it's handier to work with 0.8c. > > > Regards, > > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Closing speed can be eliminated if pulse enters and exits through the > holes in the longitudinal sides of aforementioned ship. > > What do you think about the following > > Let a tennis ball is dropped from the ceiling of an ordinary building > elevator of 9.8 m high. As acceleration due to gravity is constant, > therefore at rest; ball covers a distance of 9.8 m in one second for > both inside and outside stationary observer but if an elevator moves > up it covers < 9.8m or vice versa in one second for outside stationary > observer. > > twin paradox > > If we make a movie of both twins one rocket away into space and the > other stayed on Earth and then would the movie of twin whom undergone > into space journey be in slow motion or less duration if played after > side by side.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are no flat atomic forms. Mitch Raemsch
From: YBM on 24 Apr 2010 23:52
BURT a �crit : .... > There are no flat atomic forms. As I've told you before, flatering of nucleus is taken in account in ion collisions at CERN, if they weren't they wouldn't work. Did you ever READ and CHECK instead of posting NONSENSE ? |