Re: The relativity of the distance.
- From: "Stamenin" <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Nov 2006 12:57:09 -0800
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Stamenin" <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1163366268.450755.90180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
"Stamenin" <tasko.s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1163303696.738981.74800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEASURING-RODES AND CLOCKS IN MOTION
In page 37 0f his Relativity Einstein writes about the relativity of
the distance. There is very strange conclusion that the distance
becomes smaller when the speed v tends to the light speed c.
He takes as a base the relation of the Lorentz transformation:
x'=( x-v.t)/R which gives the distance x' in K' (train) when we
know the x and t in K (embankment). Here is what Einstein says in his
book:
"I place a metre-rod in the x'-axis of K' in such manure that
one end (the beginning) coincides with the point x'=0, whilst the
other end (the end of the rod coincides with the point x'=1. What is
the length of the metre-rod relative to the system K? In order to learn
this, we need only ask where the beginning of the rod and the end of
the rod lie with respect to K at a particular time t of the system K.
By means of the first of the Lorentz transformation the values of these
two points at the time t=0 can be shown to be:
x(beginning of the rod)=0.R
x(end of rod)=1.R
R being the squares root of the Lorentz transformation"..
In this way he finds that the distance between the points is
D=R=(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5.
When v=c, the distance D=0.
For me is very strange that nobody observed that the rod gets in this
case an infinite mass and a volume zero!!!
On the other hand the above relation is wrongly used. The real
relation which is valid for this case and allows us to resolve this
problem, is the following:
x=(x'+v.t')/R.
So the distance D becomes bigger and for v=c distance should have an
infinite value. That means that if the train travels with speed c the
two ends of the rode should be one in the infinite and one still here
near us.
This could be a real possibility, isn't it?
No, it couldn't, because when you use this equation, you
measure both end points of the rod simultananeously in the
K'-frame, with both t' = 0, which means that you don't
measure the distances at the same time in the K-frame,
so you get nonsense.
If you measure the distance of the front of a moving train
now and the distance to the back 10 minutes later, is the
difference between those distances the length of the train?
No, you just get a useless number.
That is why the other equation is used. The presence of t
allows the measurements of the distances to cancel, if the
values for t are the same (for instance t = 0).
By the way, the concept of relativistic mass is old fashioned:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
Forget about it.
Dirk Vdm
In my topic I show two deficiencies of the Einstein theory:
1) The first is that Einstein uses the wrong relation for his
demonstration that the distance becomes small by making the v tending
toward c and for v=c the distance becomes zero. For this question none
of you has given any answer.
I just have given you the answer.
The fact that you don't accept it as such, demonstrates that
you don't understand the meaning of the variables in the
equations you are using.
So, to get started, can you describe what the variables
x, t, x', t', v physically represent in the equations
x' = ( x - v t ) / R
x = ( x' + v t' ) / R.
?
Dirk Vdm
Einstein in his book Relativity in page 34 has represented the two
coordinate systems K and K' With K' in motion to the right. But he
hasn't represented the point M which usually represents a material body
with mass (m). So the coordinate x is the distance to this point in the
coordinate system K and x' the distance to the point M in the
coordinate system K'.
I have to mention that this point M is the subject of the analisis
done with the aid of the Galilei's principle of the relativity. Because
the light has no mass the use of this principle is impossible and
because of this Einstein has done a good mess in physics.
The relations,
x=(x'+vt')/R
t=(t'+x'v/c^2)/R
Are the relations that are used for the calculation of the x and t
when we know x' and t' and the relations,
x'=(x-vt)/R
t'=(t-xv/c^2)/R
are the inverse relations. If you look atentively to these relations,
you can't use them in an another way as Einstein did in his book with
the demonstration showing tha the distance of 1m becomes zero when
v=c.
I think that is better to stop teaching me and try to se wy all of you
who believe in Eistein have so big different understandings about
natural phenomena. I said in an another occasion that I believe in
Newton an this is the cause wy I have different opinions.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The relativity of the distance.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: The relativity of the distance.
- References:
- The relativity of the distance.
- From: Stamenin
- Re: The relativity of the distance.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: The relativity of the distance.
- From: Stamenin
- Re: The relativity of the distance.
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- The relativity of the distance.
- Prev by Date: Re: But Russell said SR is easy
- Next by Date: Re: Age Correspondences, When Both Travelers Accelerate
- Previous by thread: Re: The relativity of the distance.
- Next by thread: Re: The relativity of the distance.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
