Re: SR experts - help with simple circuit

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:14:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>message news:h_kye.4519$Qo.2367@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Dear Bill Hobba:
>>
>> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:ihiye.14488$oJ.4960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > <dseppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:42c9a48c.382239@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> I don't see how SR concepts work with the following
>> >> simple circuit. Can someone explain how Einstein's
>> >> concept of space-time work with the following circuit?
>> >>
>> >> Three ammeters are in series along a very long wire
>> >> that is connected across a battery. Assume the
>> >> resistance of the wire and the voltage of the battery
>> >> is such that each ammeter reads a current of one
>> >> ampere per second. Let the circuit be such that a
>> >> wire connects one terminal of the battery to one
>> >> terminal of ammeter A1, and another wire
>> >> connects the other terminal of ammeter A1 to one
>> >> terminal of ammeter A2, and another wire connects
>> >> the other terminal of ammeter A2 to one terminal
>> >> of ammeter A3, and another wire connects the
>> >> other terminal of ammeter A3 back to the other
>> >> battery terminal to complete the circuit.
>> >>
>> >> Now let the battery be at x=0, and let ammeter
>> >> A2 be at x=L, a very long distance away. Let
>> >> their relative velocity be zero. Assume that the
>> >> length of wire is sufficiently long so that the
>> >> battery and ammeter A2 can remain at fixed
>> >> positions along the x-axis while ammeter A1
>> >> (and the wires it is attached to) moves in the
>> >> positive x direction at V = 0.866c and ammeter
>> >> A3 moves in the negative x direction at
>> >> V = 0.866c.
>> >>
>> >> With the ammeters having this relative motion,
>> >> do they all measure the same value of one
>> >> ampere for the current flowing in this circuit?
>> >>
>> >> If not, how do they differ?
>> >>
>> >> If all the ammeters read the same value, and
>> >> they are measuring electrons per second, why
>> >> doesn't that contradict Einstein's notion that
>> >> time varies with relative motion?
>> >
>> > You have posted this before - the answer is still
>> > the same. You have been posting questions
>> > about relativity since at least 1997
>> >
>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ba178071000216af?dmode=source&hl=en
>> > None require more than a minimal aquatintance
>> > with SR to see their solution - why not get that
>> > acquaintance rather than posting the same stuff
>> > over and over again?
>>
>> Asperger's syndrome?
>
>Maybe - hard to tell. Perhaps like a lot of people SR offends his intuition
>and rather than accept nature does not necessarily conform to your intuition
>they believe it has a flaw and want to constantly come up with situations
>that shows it has a problem thus enabling them not to change their
>intuition. If they stop posting it means they need to accept their
>intuition is wrong - something they do not want to do - so they keep
>posting. It is akin to the Unskilled and Unaware of It phenomena. In order
>to break out of its vicious cycle you need first to admit you need to
>learn - something they will not admit they need to do in the first place.
The way I learn is to ask a simple question, like do all the ammeters
read the same value in this circuit.
Unfortunately, many of the posters in this group have physics skills
comparable to their medical skills and egos to match their doctor
personna. If some physics expert answers a simple yes or no to the
question, then I can learn something. But do please post non-physics
replies if you don't know the answer so that we can at least see your
name in newsgroup postings.
David
>Indeed believing there is a problem these supposed smart dudes are unable to
>explain makes you feel special - which may compensate for deficiencies in
>other areas of your life. But hey the foregoing is all pure speculation -
>it may indeed be a simple as Asperger's syndrome.
>
>Thanks
>Bill
>
>
>>
>> David A. Smith
>>
>>
>
>

.

Relevant Pages