Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity

On Sep 29, 11:38�am, Russell <rblacka...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 28, 9:08�pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 28, 11:27 am, Russell <rblacka...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 28, 9:43 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding here. The light
beams meet at a fixed event, *one* event in spacetime.
No matter who is watching this happen, all observers must
agree it is the same event, otherwise you have an observer
dependent reality (which you tell me you don't want--good!).
The problem with what you say is that the S and S' origins
cannot both be at that event, since everyone agrees they are
at *different* places when the beams meet. It makes no
difference what you think the nature of light is, the
contradiction remains.

Well, scientists see a contradiction here. �I do not see one. �If a
bell at the origin of S is to ring when light from both ends of the
train reaches it, then the bell rings when the origin of S' is a
distance of vt from the origin of S.

Fine, so I gather now that you are *not* claiming that a
similar bell on the train (at origin S') would ring, since it
is as you say, distance vt from where the meeting occurs.
Pardon my misunderstanding of what you wrote.

I am not saying that a bell at the origin of S' would not ring, but so
far no bell at the origin of S' has been mentioned. What scientists
are saying is that if an observer in S' cannot see light from both
directions meeting at the origin of S, then the bell cannot ring.
Even if an observer in S' is stone blind, the bell at the origin of S
is going to ring when the origin of S' is a distance of vt from the
origin of S because experiment shows that the light from the rear of
the train and the light from the front of the train meet in S at the
origin of S if the origin of S is midway between the marks left by
lightning on the tracks.


The problem with that is, in the train frame, you are claiming
that the lightning strikes front and back of the train at the
same time, and moreover that the light of these flashes travels
at velocity -c and c, respectively, in this frame; and yet from
the above you say these beams do not meet at origin of S'. �Sorry,
that doesn't work out.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that in the frame of reference
of the track, the flashes of light meet at the origin of S, which is
midway between the two marks left by lightning on the railroad track,
and in the frame of reference of the train, the flashes of light meet
at the middle of the train.

� Now at lower velocities, what this interpretation of the Galilean
transformation equations is saying is almost mathematically identical
to what the Lorentz equations say. �For instance, at the velocity of
the planet Mercury, 30 miles per second, times and distances agree to
several decimal places.
� So regardless of what scientists may think, the equations are good
enough for a welder. �What is lacking so far are irrefutable reasons
why the equations are wrong.

They are wrong for high velocities. �If all you care about
is low velocities, then it's fine to keep using the easier
transform of course. �That's what physicists themselves do
when making their calculations. �But if you are looking for
a general law that will cover all cases, Galilean transform
won't do.

As far as I can tell, the Galilean transformation equations will do
everything scientists say they are doing with the Lorentz equations if
you just get rid of the ether and let light have a speed of c in
either frame of reference. That means light has a velocity of c if it
is going in the +x direction on the x axis, and it has a velocity of -
c if it is going in the -x direction on the x axis.

��For instance, your objection that light

cannot be meeting at two different places appears to me to be overcome
by the fact that the event triggered by meeting of light at the origin
of S is shown in S' by the fact that the event occurs when the origin
of S' is a distance of vt from the origin of S'. �This is the only
objection to the equations that has been given. �It does not appear to
hold up to me.

My point is you are making incompatible claims. �If you agree
with me on one of them (meeting point at x=0 in S and not at
x'=0 in S') and disagree with me on the other (simultaneity of
the flashes in S') then there is a problem, and one of us is
wrong. �(And I know who. �;-) �You can't have it both ways.- Hide quoted text -

Well, the proof of who is right and who is wrong would be what happens
with a bell at the origin of S'. If that bell rings, then I am
right. We both agree that the bell at the origin of S would ring. I
say that a bell at the origin of S' would also ring.

Robert B. Winn
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... the bell at the origin of A rings. ... saying that A won't ring as seen in frame B. ... An observer in B using t'=t will observe the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... Now getting back to the two bells that ring when light from both ... the bell at the origin of B will ... the frame of reference of A. Light is emitted at -a and a. ... An observer in B using t'=t will observe the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... Now getting back to the two bells that ring when light from both ... you will notice that from frame of reference ... the bell at the origin of B will ... An observer in B using t'=t will observe the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... They meet at the origin of B from the point of view of B (so the bell, ... which is NOT at the origin of B at this time, doesn't ring) ... predict, as yours, that it rings in a frame and not in another one. ... For an observer in B, the bell at rest in B rings. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cannot run my antispyware or antivirus program
    ... with a teletype apart from ring the bell, or form feed it out of paper. ... off our arses in the operators rest room and give it another job. ... a roll of expensive heat-sensitive paper would be piled up on the ...
    (alt.computer.security)
Loading