Re: time dilation
- From: rbwinn <rbwinn3@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:30:44 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 24, 9:07�pm, THE_ONE <flopp...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 10, 7:40�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
The work of famous scientist Galileo Galilei provides us with a
question about time dilation and Dr. Albert Einstein's statement that
the laws of physics must remain the same in all frames of reference.
Galileo carried two lead weights of unequal sizes to the top of the
leaning tower of Pisa and dropped them at the same time, disproving
the idea of scientists of his time that the heavier of the two weights
would strike the ground first. �Of course, it took some time before
scientists accepted the results of his experiment. �They did not all
believe in the principle of equivalence the moment the two lead
weights hit the ground.
� � � � 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, it falls a distance of y'. �In any
transformation equations this is always expressed as y'=y. � The
object travels the same distance vertically in S' as it does in S.
In Galileo's equations, it takes the same amount of time for the
object to travel from the roof of the train car to the floor in either
frame of reference. �t'=t.
� � �In the Lorentz equations, a clock in S', the frame of reference
of the train car, is slower than a clock in S, the frame of reference
of the train tracks.
t'=(t-vx/c^)/sqrt(1-v2/c^2). �According to this equation, it takes
less time for the object to fall from the roof of the train car to the
floor in S' than it does in S. �So how are the laws of physics the
same in both frames of reference?
� � � If a clock in S ticks once while an object is falling in the
train car, it will not tick in S' until after the object has hit the
floor. �This means that the object is falling with a faster velocity
in S' than in S.
� � � I am sure that some of our scientific friends who believe in a
distance contraction will be anxious to explain this phenomenon.
Robert B. Winn
If you accept the fact that all objects are in constant motion within
Time-Space, and that the magnitude of this motion is equivalent to the
magnitude of motion of the speed of light, then you will eventually
come up with all the equations that agree with today's eqations.
See -> �http://www.outersecrets.com/real/forum_againstum2.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well, you have an interesting idea which agrees somewhat with some
results I have taken from the Galilean transformation equations. If w
is the velocity of light, then
x=wt
x'=wn'
x'=x-vt
wn'=wt-vt
n'=t(1-v/w)
n' is the time on a moving clock where t is the time on a clock at
rest. From S', the frame of reference in motion, velocity is
calculated from a clock that is running slower than a cesium clock at
rest in frame of reference S, so the velocity of one frame of
reference to the other is faster as measured by the slower clock.
Consequently, if velocity is 1/4 c as measured from S, S' sees it as
-1/3c. If velocity is 1/3 c as measured from S it is -1/2c from S'.
If velocity is 1/2c from S, it is c from S'.
This provides quite a contrast with the interpretation Einstein
gave the Lorentz equations, which by his mathematics show that nothing
can ever attain the speed of light, therefore, light does not exist.
Robert B. Winn
.
- References:
- time dilation
- From: rbwinn
- Re: time dilation
- From: THE_ONE
- time dilation
- Prev by Date: Re: time dilation
- Next by Date: Re: simultaneity
- Previous by thread: Re: time dilation
- Next by thread: Re: time dilation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
