Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR.
From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/04/05
- Next message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Previous message: Mitch Perkins: "Re: heat energy OR cold energy???"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Next in thread: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:12:30 GMT
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104877915.302108.222430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip for netiquette].
> Now, from the point of view of S, the emitter and mirror
|> are some distance d apart.
They are from any point of view.
> The light signal leaves the
> emitter at x1, at time t1.
Right.
> It is traveling toward the
> mirror at speed c,
IN THE M FRAME.
> but at the same time the mirror is
> receding at speed v.
IN THE S FRAME.
> So from the point of view of the S
> observer, the transmit time from emitter to mirror is
> d/(c-v).
WRONG. THE SPEED OF THE SIGNAL IN THE S FRAME IS c-v.
> Which means t2 = t1 + d/(c-v).
WRONG.
t2 = t1 + [d + v (t2-t1)] / (c-v) IN THE S FRAME.
IN THE M FRAME it is t2 = t1 + d/c.
Quit mixing frames.
[snip for netiquette]
Androcles.
- Next message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Previous message: Mitch Perkins: "Re: heat energy OR cold energy???"
- In reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Next in thread: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: Randy Poe's long-winded derivation of SR."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|