Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Dec 2006 12:00:41 -0800
Pax wrote:
<Paradise_@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1165534787.202022.98580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pax wrote:
Anyway, what happens to the angles of the star in the direction of
flight? Does the thing appear to crumple in on itself? There are some
parts of the shape that are more subject to forward acceleration than
others, are they more affected, or is the affect uniform from nose to
tail, regardless of angle?
I will have to re-read your description of the star's orientation. Without
having re-read your description I would suspect that the star would merely
be compressed along the axis of motion with a possible expansion
perpendicular to the axis of motion (regardless of the star's
orientation).
Somehow, I don't picture it being that straightforward. I see the star
"melting" backwards, away from the direction of flight, with all angles
being affected differently, depending upon their magnitude of angle from the
x' axis of forward motion.
Perhaps you are correct. The base of each of the stars appendages would
be more resistant to stress than the ends. And the ends would likely
deform more towards the ends and less towards the base. This would
conceivably produce the result you describe (if I understand you
correctly). Very interesting. I will have to ponder this further.
If they [electrons] are each moving superluminally in relation to the
other, how could either detect the other?
According to the standard interpretation, it would only be impossible for
the particles to detect each other if they were moving AWAY from each
other at a relative velocity greater than c. If the particles are moving
TOWARDS each other, they are able to detect each other. Yet, the detected
signals would probably be phase inverted or phase conjugated (in other
words, backwards, so that positive appeared to be negative and vice
verse).
The detected signals would certainly not be accurate, one would assume. I
see what you're getting at, superluminal = time-reversal.
Yes. Supraluminal = Time-Reversal...
Be well - Pax
.
- References:
- A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paul Cardinale
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Pax
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Pax
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Pax
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Pax
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Paradise_
- Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- From: Pax
- A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- Prev by Date: Re: Another rotating clock - please explain experiment
- Next by Date: Re: On The Irrelevance Of The Absolute Rest Frame In Special Relativity
- Previous by thread: Re: A Challenge to Orthodox Relativity
- Next by thread: Addendum
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|