Re: time dilation
- From: tussock <scrub@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Apr 2008 03:29:34 +1200
rbwinn wrote:
This brings us to another question about falling objects which
arises from the idea of dropping an object in a moving train car, which
writers of textbooks about relativity often use to show how the Lorentz
equations work. If a weight is dropped from the top of a train car to
the floor, [...].
You've really got three identical experiments there, the first one on
the train, a second that released where and when the train weight was
released, and a third that impacted where and when the train weight
impacted.
Stationary observers measure the second experiment as having started
before the third. The relitivistic observer measures the third one
starting before the second. There's no agreement on how the stationary
observers should measure the time taken for the train experiment relative
to their own, because they naturally disagree on the syncronicity of
events at a distance.
A nuetral observer could move so as to syncronise all three drops;
doing so would also syncronise all three impacts.
--
tussock
I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: time dilation
- From: rbwinn
- Re: time dilation
- References:
- time dilation
- From: rbwinn
- time dilation
- Prev by Date: Re: I have a question about relativity so that I do not become another crackpot.
- Next by Date: Re: time dilation
- Previous by thread: Re: time dilation
- Next by thread: Re: time dilation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
