Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:50:55 -0700
Dear David:
"David" <dseppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:djeib3d29fuqhf6jqphp86197mqe13mhbe@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 19:16:07 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
\(dlzc\)"
<dlzc@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear David:
"David" <dseppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u87eb31kdqll2atvpp1bpqtja2i9n3718n@xxxxxxxxxx
...
If the steel wall were not there, either twin could shoot
the other twin as they passed each other. Or if the
steel wall prior to the gap was removed, then the evil
twin could shoot the passing good twin. Or if the
steel wall following the gap was removed, the evil
twin could hit the good twin. But if both sections of
the steel wall are present, then using this length
contraction formula, the evil twin's 100 millimeter
projectile cannot pass through the proton sized gap.
That makes no sense to me.
Fire the projectile "45 degrees" backwards, David.
Then the gap is 10 ly wide to the projectile... which
is the important thing.
In this problem as I stated relative to each spaceship
the projectile travels perpendicular to the ship.
Then the bullet is *much* narrower than the gap in the wall, and
there is no paradox.
What "makes no sense to you" is that you assumed the bullet was
in the moving ship's frame... with its stationary dimensions,
when you clearly moved it out of the ship's frame.
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: David
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- References:
- Evil Twin Paradox
- From: David
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- From: David
- Evil Twin Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Evil Twin Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
