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


"Steven Gray" <sgray2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96E38B0326245sgray2cflrrcom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| "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.


Don't be silly.
Androcles.


| --
| Steve Gray
| sgray2@xxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Could someone check this is right - SR length and time
    ... > but if he were to observe the clock of the stationary observer it would ... If it starts and stops, then by definition it has accelerated. ... > sense if it underwent acceleration. ...
    (sci.physics)