Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:01:02 +0200
Dono wrote:
On Jun 17, 3:19 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:snip<
Old fart,
The issue is what does Q(x,t') represent. Hint : nothing meaningful,
just an error in your initial post. It does take about 30-40 posts
from you to finally realize it :-)
Look.
We know that the coordinates of any event must fulfil the equations:
x' = gamma(x - vt)
t' = gamme(t - vx)
from this, it should be pretty obvious that an event is uniquely
defined by specifying any two of the set of coordinates (x,t,x',t'),
it doesn't matter which two, the other two will be determined.
Lets look at Uncle Ben's original statement:
| We consider an event at one end of the pole with coordinates
| x' = 0, t = 0, and x = 0
| and an event at the other end of the pole where
| x' = L, t = 0,
| and we want to know x, the length of the pole in the barn
| coordinates.
Two events are uniquely defined, one of the coordinates in
the first one is even redundant.
What is given for the second event is that x' = L (proper length),
and t = 0 (simultaneous with the first event in the unprimed frame,
x (and t') are the coordinates to be determined.
--
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Whoever
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Sue...
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Androcles
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- References:
- Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: rotchm
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: rotchm
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dirk Van de moortel
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- From: Dono
- Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Prev by Date: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Next by Date: Re: Relativistic QM
- Previous by thread: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Next by thread: Re: Lorentz Contraction for the even dumber
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|