Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:06:36 GMT
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:AJadnSbcgbxUKdvZRVny1Q@xxxxxxxxx
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8Lx1g.381376$kU7.11025545@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:-N2dnTAc79tAOtvZRVnyig@xxxxxxxxx
"David" <dseppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:v8lc42dpp731snaggm8eg2me89b5ne4q77@xxxxxxxxxx
I'm trying to understand fundamental concepts of SR like time and
length. In my posting about clocks I got a varied opinions of what
constitutes a clock. This posting is a question about lengths. Can
anyone explain why this is or isn't allowed in SR?
I'm in an inertial frame.
An excellent start.
Since the speed of light is constant I
decide to make my standard unit of length equal to one light-second
(the distance light travels in one second as measured by synchronized
clocks in my inertial frame).
Good idea.
Now let there be an inertial frame moving along the x axis with
velocity V = 0.866c relative to my frame.
At time t0 I fire two lasers for a one second burst. The length of
each pulse is one light-second. The lasers are aligned along the
x-axis. One points in the positive direction, the other points in the
negative direction.
The moving observer measures the length of one pulse to be much less
than the length of the other pulse...
Why?
He properly explained in another message.
OK, I should have looked at his conversation with you first.
Let us see how he goes on this one.
It seems that he just lost interest in it. He already posted a
new problem. It is, as always, a variation of the previous one.
Now he brought probability into the picture again:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=seppala+probability
Next step will be an infinitely rigid conveyer belt two
lightyears long. After that we will probably get some new
questions about giant rotating cylinders.
Every time someone answers or solves one of his "questions"
or "problems", he responds with a period of dead silence,
and then he comes with a "new" variation of one of his old
problems.
From yesterday on this very thread he could have learned thatcarefully specifying his "problems" with events and coordinates
is the only way to make them crystal clear and understandable
by everyone, including himself - and then the problem solves
itself. Just look at the first reactions of different people to his
opening post.
So he just ignored it and posted a "new" problem, again with
his own classic style. It wouldn't surprise me that he merely
copied it from a few years ago.
I think he once again clearly demonstrated that he is just a (very
patient) troll with the purpose to make you work and test you.
I think he is a *very* dishonest person.
Dirk Vdm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- From: David
- Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- References:
- Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- From: David
- Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- From: Martin Hogbin
- Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- Prev by Date: Re: square root operator?
- Next by Date: Re: Math/Physics Gurus Help - SR probability problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- Next by thread: Re: Length definition in SR - can anyone explain
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
