Re: Distance-dependent time contraction
From: Dirk Van de moortel (dirkvandemoortel_at_ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com)
Date: 06/14/04
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Previous message: Harry: "Re: Why LET Is Superior to SR!"
- In reply to: mich: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Next in thread: mich: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Reply: mich: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:34:10 GMT
"mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message news:10cps40ov8tnv12@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:a0Vyc.154500$RV3.7664747@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "mich" <mich@efni.com> wrote in message
> news:10cnid98fvh0163@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > Andre, please don't reply to this message before you have
> > read the last paragraph. Thanks.
>
> o.k.....oops,... sorry :)
:-)
[snip]
[inserted extra quoting character ">" below]
> > Ha, here is another problem. There a three frames:
> > 1) The frame in which I (who stays at home) am at rest. I am
> > just sitting there, doing nothing, feeling nothing, reading
> > books and looking at my clock.
> > 2) The frame in which you are at rest while you are travelling
> > away from me, reading books and looking at your own
> > clock while it ticks.
> > 3) The frame in which you are at rest while you are coming
> > back to me.
> > You see, you had to do something at the half-way point:
> > Either you had to jump from one rocket into another rocket
> > already on its way back, or you had to severely decelerate,
> > stop, and accelerate again in my direction.
> > I just kept on sleeping.
> >
> > Under these circumstances we will notice - *measure*,
> > when we meet again and are at the same place, and don't
> > move anymore with respect to each other, that your clock
> > on your wrist had less elapsed time than my clock on my
> > wrist.
> >
> o.k. so, am I correct to say that the measurement, being
> observed only after the two frames (yours and mine) have
> come together, is the only thing important in
> the twin paradox, so that what happens to clocks and
> measuring rods during the period when the two frames are
> different inertialy is unimportant? This is what you seem to
> be saying.
That is correct indeed (provided you replace the word
'frames' with 'clocks').
When two clocks are moving with respect to each
other, it does not make sense to ask "which one runs
faster".
Compare it with the following well known situation.
You and I are standing at a distance of let's say 10
meters from each other, and we look at each other
through a small space between our fingers. You look
very small to me (1 cm or so), and I look very small
to you. Does that mean that we are smaller than each
other? No, it means that this way of measuring and
then comparing our lengths is useless.
But I *can* use this method to compare your length
with your brother's who is standing right next to you.
In that case I will be able to find out who is taller.
And of course, you and I can compare our lengths
when *we* are standing next to each other, albeit
with a slightly modified version of the finger gap
method :-)
>
> I'll just stop here with this for now.
Okay - do some thinking... and... always in terms
of measurements.
And remember... there is a cat in the garden :-)
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
- Next message: Mike: "Re: Tom Van Flandern and Newtonian Gravity"
- Previous message: Harry: "Re: Why LET Is Superior to SR!"
- In reply to: mich: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Next in thread: mich: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Reply: mich: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
