Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
From: Tom Capizzi (etianshrldu_at_verizon.net)
Date: 01/17/05
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Simple question (Yes or No) Is there a Pre-Bang Universe?"
- Previous message: Harry: "Re: Einstein's math and physical objects"
- In reply to: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:48:37 GMT
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1105953412.809855.275860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Capizzi wrote:
>> "jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:1105926560.423646.318090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> > You haven't answered the question.
>> > Which apparatus, quartz or speedo, do I, the driver, believe will
>> > determine my arrival time at the end of the journey?? I am in the
> same
>> > FoR as both; are my tyres slipping?
>> > Put another way: when a rocket is enroute across the solar system,
> does
>> > NASA determine its arrival time by _its_ determination of the
> rocket's
>> > speed, or of that which the rocket would measure?
>> >
>> > Jim G
>> > c'=c+v
>> >
>> Maybe you didn't notice the first time, but if you were moving at a
>> relativistic speed so that you could even measure a difference in
>> clock times, I don't think either one will give you correct time,
>> compared to the stationary clock. The quartz clock suffers the
>> traditional time dilation. The speedometer is another question. The
>> odometer may report actual mileage - but I wouldn't swear to it.
>> But the speedometer has to perform an averaging operation to
>> produce a velocity, and its time is the same dilated time as the
>> quartz clock. So, if the odometer is correct, then the speedo is
>> probably not, since it mixes information from both frames of
>> reference. As I mentioned, I'm not even sure the odometer will be
>> correct either. From the perspective of the driver, the distance
>> traveled is supposed to be contracted, and from the frame of the
>> road, the wheels become ellipses, which don't have the same
>> circumference as a circle.
>
> Do we perform a wheel balance as we speed up? The vibration might get
>From the frame of the driver, the wheels stay circular.
> annoying, and the ride become a little rough. You see, energy is
> required to bring about these distortions, and before you mention
> squashing being due to inertia, what if the car is pulled, in which
Length contraction is a function of velocity - doesn't matter if it's a
result of push or pull.
> case it should be STRETCHED? (and the wheel bearings won't like it)
>>
>> Obviously, it isn't possible to make a car go fast enough, long
> enough
>> to actually perform this experiment. Among other things, the tire
> size
>> changes with wear, and probably exceeds the margin of error of the
>> intended measurements. So what do you claim is the answer?
>
> I say neither clock nor speedo alters its rate, nor distance change
> between the markers. SR is an (intellectual) illusion produced by the
> finite speed of light, and the erroneous assumption that c =c+v
> Like the header says: 1c+1c=2c NOT <2c
Not this header!
>
> Jim G
> c'=c+v
What does the finite speed of light have to do with the half life of
high speed muons? These particles are detected in apparatus which
is negligible in size compared to the flight distance of the muons.
There is no c', but there is time dilation or length contraction,
depending on which frame of reference you are in. Is the statistical
survival rate an illusion, too? For speeds close to c, the difference
is a factor of millions. Or do you claim like Wilson that they are all
invisible faster than c particles?
- Next message: Bill Hobba: "Re: Simple question (Yes or No) Is there a Pre-Bang Universe?"
- Previous message: Harry: "Re: Einstein's math and physical objects"
- In reply to: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Next in thread: Franz Heymann: "Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
