Re: Where is the flaw?


"Spoonfed" <good4usoul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152164037.932314.91030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
| > This post is really a follow-up to another post a few months ago:
| >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/31732ed283f482d5/c72b57a46f96a9b2?lnk=st&q=cafeinst+relativity&rnum=2&hl=en#c72b57a46f96a9b2
| >
| > See http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/"TwinParadox".pdf
| >
| > I'm not an expert on relativity; I just took physics in high school,
| > which covered that topic. However, recollecting what I learned there,
| > it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity.
| > Are there any experts out there who can set me straight and point to
| > the flaw in this paper, assuming that there is a flaw?
| >
| > Thank you,
| > Craig
|
| You've got some guy standing on a 260,000 km long space ship and
| watching a buoy go by, timing when he sees the front and back end of
| the space ship pass the buoy at c*sqrt(3/4). The amount of time his
| clock reads will vary considerably depending on whether he does this
| from the front or back or middle of the ship.
|
| Note that the apparent speed of the receding buoy is less than half the
| speed of light, while the apparent speed of the approaching buoy is
| superluminal.
|
| And I don't really see the point of taking pictures of the stopwatches.
| It might be of some interest to take pictures of the spaceship from
| the buoy as it approaches (it would appear elongated) and as it
| recedes, (it would appear foreshortened.) And the considerable
| distortion of the image as it passed close to the buoy.
|
| Now, of course the two readings on the stopwatches are going to be
| different. I would like to find out, once the two different answers
| are given to the author, how he intends to discern which of the two
| objects was moving and which was stationary. He claims he would be
| able to, but I don't know whether he realizes he is bluffing.

Yes, you are right, the time at the back is different to the time at
the front. Here are the clocks at the back and front, speed 0.6.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/train.gif

The "author" is Einstein. He bluffed (actually, he LIED). He won't
tell you though, he's dead.
I'm surprised to see we agree, Spookfood.
Androcles.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity. ... the space ship pass the buoy at c*sqrt. ... And I don't really see the point of taking pictures of the stopwatches. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... it seems that this paper does a good job refuting special relativity. ... are at rest relative to spaceship and buoy. ... is measured by the stopwatches in their frames, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast