Re: Principle of equivalence

On Apr 18, 10:31 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 18, 10:29�pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 18, 9:14�pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Well, in the first place, Bryan, there is no way to know for certain
what the Lorentz equations say with regard to where a clock thrown
from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown
from the frame of reference.

"In the first place" you posted wrong or nonsensical statements on
what the Lorentz transform predicts. In the second place, I did the
math you challenged me to do, and showed the result for which you
asked. We're not in the first place anymore, nor the second. Now you
are changing the question because the theory you do not like turned
out to work in the first place, contrary to your reporting.

So if I say that a clock is thrown from
the moving frame of reference in the opposite direction to the motion
of the frame of reference at half the velocity of the frame of
reference, then does that clock hit in S at x=0?

What a mess. I assume you mean it is thrown from the train such
that in our frame of reference S its velocity is v/2, or in S'
its velocity is -v/2.

No, I do not think so.

Did anyone say it would in that case? If so, who?

�So how do you figure out where it hits in S using the Lorentz
equations?

The Lorentz transform expresses the S'coordinates of an event
as functions of the the S coordinates. In this case, we have
all the quantities relative to S, and you ask for "where it
hits in S". What's to transform?

If you want see the key bit of math showing that the Lorentz
transform supports the principle of equivalence, take the
transform's equations and solve them for x and t. The
transform expresses of x' and t' in terms of x and t; by
solving for x and t, you express them in terms of x' and t',
thus producing the inverse Lorentz transform.

--
--Bryan

No. The principle of equivalence states there is an equivalence
between uniform acceleration and gravitation - the principle you are
looking for is the principle of relativity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, Eric, the principle of Equivalence would show that a cesium
clock thrown from a moving frame of reference S' with a velocity equal
and opposite to the velocity of S' would fall straight down in S and
would hit the floor at the same time another cesium clock dropped in S
would hit.

No, that is not what the principle of equivalence states. Plus you
need to learn to define your terms - arbitrary frames of reference are
worthless.

[snip]
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... what the Lorentz equations say with regard to where a clock thrown ... from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown ... from the frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown ... from the frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Principle of equivalence
    ... from a moving frame of reference will hit just by saying it was thrown ... from the frame of reference. ... what the Lorentz transform predicts. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... Cartesian coordinates S to represent the frame of reference of the ... where it is reflected by the mirror. ... Nobody knows the essence of the physics they are talking ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: .Re: Why all the fascination with E = mc^2 ??
    ... specific frame of reference. ... >> No. Einstein took the classical Conservation of Energy is both frames. ... >> had already calculated how the energy of radiation transforms between ...
    (sci.physics)