Re: Could someone check this is right - SR length and time

"blackboab" <blackboab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1128264537.482150.205090
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> but if he were to observe the clock of the stationary observer it would
> appear to him to take 1.66 seconds to move one second and the
> stationary observers meter rod would appear to be only 0.6 meters long.
>
> assuming the train starts and stops without acceleration then the two
> cloks would have been found to have beaten out an exact same number of
> seconds during the time of the journey.

If it starts and stops, then by definition it has accelerated.

> the clock on the moving train would only run slowly in an absolute
> sense if it underwent acceleration.
>
You're asking what a theory says about a situation that the theory doesn't
allow. The only sensible answer that you're going to get is that there are
no sensible answers to nonsense questions.


--
Steve Gray
sgray2@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Could someone check this is right - SR length and time
    ... |> but if he were to observe the clock of the stationary observer it ... | If it starts and stops, then by definition it has accelerated. ... |> the clock on the moving train would only run slowly in an absolute ... |> sense if it underwent acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Going Around in circles - help!
    ... > Suppose the moving clock/observer is orbiting ... We expect the stationary observer to get ... > less ticks from the moving clock than from his own clock. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)