Re: A twin contraction paradox
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:21:30 GMT
"tomtom" <Carmam1534@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1167764949.829123.194270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:How much does B's aft prong strike A before B's front prong?
You know that they strike A simultaneously according to B, so
dt' = 0
and you know that the distance according to B between them is L, so
dx' = L.
Just point at what you think is the error and explain what
is wrong with it.
Hello everybody, I trust you had a merry Christmas and a happy new
year.
Now back to the point at hand. We don't seem to be getting anywhere do
we?
No, you don't seem to get anywhere indeed.
I am now going to point at the error (again) and tell you what is
wrong. You (being third person plural means all relativists) insist on
using dx' = L (ie 1 meter) in the first part of the formula, because
that is the distance apart of the prongs as seen from B. You
conveniently ignore the fact that as seen from B, dt' = 0. If you
insist on using dx' = 1, then to be consistent, you must use dt' = 0.
This you do not do.
You seem to be unable to read, so I will repeat (for the 6th
time, if I count correctly):
How much does B's aft prong strike A before B's front prong?
You know that they strike A simultaneously according to B, so
dt' = 0
and you know that the distance according to B between them is L, so
dx' = L.
You can use the equation
dt = g ( dt' + v/c^2 dx' )
= g v/c^2 L
= g L/(2c) (with your v = c/2)
That is the time the aft prong strikes before the front prong.
So the aft prong of B strikes A during this time.
Since it has a velocity v = c/2, the length of the scratch on
A according to A, is the time multiplied with the velocity.
We get
g L/(2c) c/2
or in your notation
(gamma * L / 2c ) * c/2
Just point at what you think is the error and explain what
is wrong with it.
Dirk Vdm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A twin contraction paradox
- From: tomtom
- Re: A twin contraction paradox
- References:
- Re: A twin contraction paradox
- From: tomtom
- Re: A twin contraction paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: A twin contraction paradox
- Next by Date: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Previous by thread: Re: A twin contraction paradox
- Next by thread: Re: A twin contraction paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|