Re: Simple Sagnac
- From: "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:56:38 GMT
"sal" <pragmatist@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.02.15.03.18.530884@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| You must be right; I must be stupid. Nothing else would explain my
| wasting yet more time looking over this post of yours again. Be that
| as it may, that's what I'm doing, and I saw a couple of items worth
| additional comments...
[snip, cutting to the chase]
| With x held fixed at 60, when t=4, tau=-4. Got that?
| It's not 8,
| it's -4.
Negative velocity you can have, but negative time? No way.
| In the frame of the train, the event at those coordinates
| had already happened before the train left the origin.
Now you are REALLY being silly.
|
| On the other hand, at time t=4 the light ray was actually at x=20
| ... it hadn't gotten to x=60 yet, and wouldn't for quite a while.
True enough. The light reaches 60 at t = 12.
Then it returns to 60 at t = 20.
tau (60,0,0,12) = tau(60,0,0,20)
What is the (so-called linear) function tau?
[snipped the rest, unread, you are short of time and that is enough for
you
to get on with, you don't read my posts anyway]
Androcles.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Simple Sagnac
- From: sal
- Re: Simple Sagnac
- References:
- Re: Simple Sagnac
- From: sal
- Re: Simple Sagnac
- From: Androcles
- Re: Simple Sagnac
- From: sal
- Re: Simple Sagnac
- Prev by Date: Re: Little guy on the train
- Next by Date: Re: womens and relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple Sagnac
- Next by thread: Re: Simple Sagnac
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|