SR question
mr twister
were substituted for photons. Here's the experiment. There's a train with a
table on it. Seated at opposite ends of the table are two men facing each
other. One is facing in the direction the train is traveling, and the other is
facing backwards to the direction the train is traveling. There is an observer
next to the table on the train, and an observer standing next to the train
tracks. In the middle of the table on a train is a machine that shoots photons
at the two seated men. So, to the observer on the train the photons reach the
two seated men simultaneously. However, to the observer watching next to the
tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon first, due
to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train. Now, I get it this
far I think, but my question is what would happen if instead of photons we shot
baseballs at each of them (besides the fact that it'd really hurt when they hit
them). Would there still be an argument over which hit first between the two
observers?
Phil
Nope. A given quantity of energy will accelerate objects to equal velocities, as
seen by the observers on the train.
I looked at a similar situation 8 years ago using electrons accelerated in opposite
directions in an electric field. If you simply assume that dropping the two
electrons through a potential of 1 volt changes the mass of both electrons by 1 eV
(the equations found in textbooks on modern physics state that such is the case),
and derive the corresponding velocities as seen by the "at rest" observer, it
appears that the moving observer should see different velocities for the two
electrons. A more careful analysis using numerical methods to carefully add up the
work done on two objects moving in opposite directions, however, showed that when
the stationary observer correctly calculates the final velocities, they would
appear to be equal as seen by the moving observer. In other words, it turned out
that the equations in the textbooks are simplified a bit, I suppose for ease of
use.
Phil
Martin Hogbin
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C774306...@jump.net...
> mr twister wrote:
>
> > I was wondering what would happen in a certian thought experiment if baseballs
> > were substituted for photons. Here's the experiment. There's a train with a
> > table on it. Seated at opposite ends of the table are two men facing each
> > other. One is facing in the direction the train is traveling, and the other is
> > facing backwards to the direction the train is traveling. There is an observer
> > next to the table on the train, and an observer standing next to the train
> > tracks. In the middle of the table on a train is a machine that shoots photons
> > at the two seated men. So, to the observer on the train the photons reach the
> > two seated men simultaneously. However, to the observer watching next to the
> > tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon first, due
> > to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train. Now, I get it this
> > far I think, but my question is what would happen if instead of photons we shot
> > baseballs at each of them (besides the fact that it'd really hurt when they hit
> > them). Would there still be an argument over which hit first between the two
> > observers?
>
> Nope. A given quantity of energy will accelerate objects to equal velocities, as
> seen by the observers on the train.
>
Not according to generally accepted theories of physics.
> I looked at a similar situation 8 years ago using electrons accelerated in opposite
> directions in an electric field. If you simply assume that dropping the two
> electrons through a potential of 1 volt changes the mass of both electrons by 1 eV
> (the equations found in textbooks on modern physics state that such is the case),
> and derive the corresponding velocities as seen by the "at rest" observer, it
> appears that the moving observer should see different velocities for the two
> electrons.
This is correct.
> A more careful analysis using numerical methods to carefully add up the
> work done on two objects moving in opposite directions, however, showed that when
> the stationary observer correctly calculates the final velocities, they would
> appear to be equal as seen by the moving observer. In other words, it turned out
> that the equations in the textbooks are simplified a bit, I suppose for ease of
> use.
>
It could, on the other hand, be that you are wrong.
Martin Hogbin
Phil
Are you sure we disagree? I'm saying his experiment does fall under the PofR, although I
thought differently years ago in terms of the electrons. If the first half of the
electron stuff is correct, it would follow that we could measure our velocity relative to
the medium of space by using a fairly ordinary vacuum tube, albeit at just a few volts
instead of several hundred, by measuring the difference in arrival times for electrons
sent in opposite directions to opposite plates (there are a few tubes out there with a
common cathode and separate plates on opposite sides). I really don't think this will
work (based on my numerical methods analysis), but it would be a pretty spectacular
refutation of the PofR if it did. You would have to use just a few volts, because the
difference in arrival times at higher voltage drops to nil. I do not have supreme
confidence in my analysis -- just good confidence -- so as you say, I could definitely be
wrong.
Phil
kenseto
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
news:20020223013406...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> I was wondering what would happen in a certian thought experiment if
baseballs
> were substituted for photons. Here's the experiment. There's a train
with a
> table on it. Seated at opposite ends of the table are two men facing each
> other. One is facing in the direction the train is traveling, and the
other is
> facing backwards to the direction the train is traveling. There is an
observer
> next to the table on the train, and an observer standing next to the train
> tracks. In the middle of the table on a train is a machine that shoots
photons
> at the two seated men. So, to the observer on the train the photons reach
the
> two seated men simultaneously.
Correct.
>However, to the observer watching next to the
> tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon first,
due
> to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train.
Wrong. This assertion would violate the constant light speed postulate in
the train. In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
observers.
>Now, I get it this
> far I think, but my question is what would happen if instead of photons we
shot
> baseballs at each of them (besides the fact that it'd really hurt when
they hit
> them). Would there still be an argument over which hit first between the
two
> observers?
If the photons were baseballs the track observer will still see them to hit
the men in the train at the same time (simultaneous). Observed relative
velocity by the track observer have no effect on the transit time in the
train.
Ken Seto
John Holland
kenseto <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c77a1a1$0$1598$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
of constant light speed in each inertial frame, will the two observers
disagree on the simultanenity of the hitting of the men by the photons;
incredible that in 5 months time you have not mastered this elementary
derivation. I can ensure you, now higher mathematics is involved. In fact
you can do the calculation graphically if you like, but you are more
stubborn than vulcanic rock.Now that i think of it, you have some oher
similarities with volcanic rock.
JH
mr twister
my question. It isn't about what the folks on the train see. I agree that in
their inertial frame the laws of physics of course don't change. What I'm
wondering about is just if using baseballs over photons would change the fact
that the observer next to the tracks (not on the train) doesn't see them hit
simultaneously. I'm assuming that the observers have the capability to discern
differences of millionths of seconds, etc.
mr twister
>> tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon first,
>due
>> to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train.
>
>Wrong. This assertion would violate the constant light speed postulate in
>the train. In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
>both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
>track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
>observers.
>
Ummm... no, you're wrong Ken. My question wasn't about that part, because
assuming the track observer can see differences of very small fractions of a
second, he in fact does not see the light reach the observers simultaneously.
It doesn't violate the constant light speed postulate in anyway, to both
observers light travels at light speed. In fact, the way you describe it, as
the observer not on the train seeing them hit simultaneously -- that violates
the constant light speed postulate so I respectively suggest you can't answer
my question because you don't understand SR. Thanks for trying though.
Martin Hogbin
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C7794D4...@jump.net...
> Martin,
>
> Are you sure we disagree?
I am unsure only to the extent that I do not understand what you
are talking about.
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message news:20020223013406...@mb-mo.aol.com...
I guess you mean "would there still be an argument over which of
the two targets were hit first, between the observer on the train and
the observer on the track".
Yes, there would be an argument. For the observer on the train the
events would be simultaneous. So the events are not simultaneous
for the observer on the track. It doesn't matter whether the targets
are hit by photons, baseballs or ken seto's excrementa.
If two events are simultaneous in one inertial frame, then they are
not simultaneous in another inertial frame.
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message news:20020223013406...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> were substituted for photons. Here's the experiment. There's a train with a
> table on it. Seated at opposite ends of the table are two men facing each
> other. One is facing in the direction the train is traveling, and the other is
> facing backwards to the direction the train is traveling. There is an observer
> next to the table on the train, and an observer standing next to the train
> tracks. In the middle of the table on a train is a machine that shoots photons
> at the two seated men. So, to the observer on the train the photons reach the
> two seated men simultaneously. However, to the observer watching next to the
> tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon first, due
> to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train.
It is important to note that this happens only because the light (photon) is
observed to travel at c by both obserevers relative to themselves.
> Now, I get it this
> far I think, but my question is what would happen if instead of photons we shot
> baseballs at each of them (besides the fact that it'd really hurt when they hit
> them). Would there still be an argument over which hit first between the two
> observers?
Yes.
The machine is obviously set up to shoot the baseballs at the same speed,
as measured by the observers on the train, so that they measure the two balls
to reach them simultaneously.
The question is, what would the trackside observer measure?
As I have said above, the result for light is based on the observation (strictly
a postulate) that light travels at the same speed relative to all (inertial)
observers.
Unfortunately, no experiments have been done on the speed of a baseball
as measured by a trackside observer when it is fired at speed x from a
train travelling at speed y. However SR provides a formula for this type
of thing, which is known as the composition (sometimes called addition) of
velocities. This tells us that the forward-moving ball will be measured by
the trackside observer to be travelling at slightly less than the speed of the
train plus the speed of the ball as measured by the observer in the train.
Similarly, the backward-travelling ball is measured to travel a bit faster than
expected by the trackside observer.
Thus, the trackside observer will say that the forward-travelling ball will reach
its destination after the backward-travelling ball.
Martin Hogbin
Phil
I am trying (although obviously not too gracefully) to say the same thing that
Dirk says below. The observers on the train would see the two events as being
simultaneous, whether using baseballs or photons, while an observer on the
tracks would see the events as being not simultaneous.
However, when the observers on the tracks calculate what the observers on the
train will see, they take into account the fact that not only the events, but
also the clocks on the train, are not simultaneous or synchronized as seen by
the track observers. Once all the factors are taken into account, the track
observers will conclude that the train observers will see the events as being
simultaneous, as they should.
My point about the electrons is that if the track observers simply assume that
the mass of the electrons on the train change by 1 eV (which can first reduce
and then increase the mass of the "left" electron, assuming the train is
moving right), then they will conclude that the train observers will not see
the time that the electrons hit a target as being simultaneous. My own
analysis showed that this was incorrect, however, because the work done on
electrons as they move through an electric field is more complicated than it
first appears. My more "brute force" analysis using numerical methods
indicated that the observers on the train would again see the electrons as
hitting their targets simultaneously. In other words, relativity is right,
although it is easy when using the standard formulas for electrons moving
through a field to conclude that it isn't.
Phil
kenseto
"John Holland" <hans_...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:a58p2l$3gq$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
No not wrong---you need to learn that relative veocity has no effect on
transit time in trhe train. In the train light will take the same transit
time to traverse an equal distance in all directions. This is what the
second SR postulate is all about. From the track observer's point of view he
will see the light path length to each man in the train to be L*gamma.
Therefore the transit time to each man is L*gamma/c. Therefore the photons
hit both men simultaneously but at a different time.
>as a result from consequently applying the postulate
> of constant light speed in each inertial frame, will the two observers
> disagree on the simultanenity of the hitting of the men by the photons;
The track observer cannot assume that he sees the men are moving relative to
the photons. He can only assumes that the second postulate is valid (a
constant c in all directions) in the train and that the light path length in
the train is L*gamma.
> incredible that in 5 months time you have not mastered this elementary
> derivation. I can ensure you, now higher mathematics is involved. In fact
> you can do the calculation graphically if you like, but you are more
> stubborn than vulcanic rock.Now that i think of it, you have some oher
> similarities with volcanic rock.
You are stupid. You assumed wrongly that relative motion will affect the
transit time for a length L in the train in different directions.
Ken Seto
Phil
> Phil, from what I understood of your question I think maybe you misunderstood
> my question. It isn't about what the folks on the train see. I agree that in
> their inertial frame the laws of physics of course don't change. What I'm
> wondering about is just if using baseballs over photons would change the fact
> that the observer next to the tracks (not on the train) doesn't see them hit
> simultaneously. I'm assuming that the observers have the capability to discern
> differences of millionths of seconds, etc.
You're right, I misunderstood. I am sure that the track observers will see the
events as being not simultaneous, because that is the only way that the events can
be simultaneous when seen by the train observers. Since a moving observer's clocks
are not synchronized as seen by a stationary observer, events that are simultaneous
in the rest frame cannot be simultaneous in the moving frame, unless the events are
"vertically stacked," when the motion is horizontal.
Phil
shuba
[accurate stuff, but *then*]
> If two events are simultaneous in one inertial frame, then they are
> not simultaneous in another inertial frame.
Allowing for more than one spatial direction, there are an infinite
number of frames in which two events are simultaneous. None of these
frames will have relative motion with respect to each other along the
x-axis, of course.
It's important, I think, to remind people that the two-dimensional
(time plus one spatial dimension) boost equations often presented in
intro texts and on this newsgroup as "the" Lorentz transformations
are only the beginning of the story.
---Tim Shuba---
Dirk Van de moortel
"shuba" <tim....@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:3c781ca5$0$98142$9ba6...@news.pclink.com...
of course.
of course again.
we are (almost) all intelligent enough to know that ;-)
Dirk Vdm
rryker1
Rod: But why ?
Rod Ryker
Dirk Van de moortel
"rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message news:3C78BE23...@fuse.net...
I think no one knows why. Nature seems to work this way.
Let me ask: "Why not?"
Dirk Vdm
Eli Botkin
mr twister <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
news:20020223013406...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Reply to mr twister:
Yes, according to the track-fixed observer, replacing the photons with
baseballs still results in the forward-facing observer getting hit first.
The difference between photons and baseballs is that the track-fixed
observer
(1) measures both oppositely moving photons to have the same speed, c; but
(2) measures both oppositely moving baseballs to have different speeds, U1
and U2.
If the two baseballs have speeds +U (forward-moving) and -U (rear-ward
moving) relative to the train-fixed frame, and the train speed is v relative
to the track-fixed frame, then, for the track-fixed observer, the baseball
speeds are U1 = (U+v)/[1+Uv/c^2] (forward-moving) and U2 = (-U+v)/[1-Uv/c^2]
(rearward-moving). Note that as U --> c the baseball speeds U1 and U2 -->
+c and -c, respectively.
Eli Botkin
rryker1
Rod: Could it possibly be that the observers see the events
at different times because the light that bounces from the
event has longer and shorter paths depending on frame .
Rod Ryker
mr twister
>the two targets were hit first, between the observer on the train and
>the observer on the track".
>Yes, there would be an argument. For the observer on the train the
>events would be simultaneous. So the events are not simultaneous
>for the observer on the track. It doesn't matter whether the targets
>are hit by photons, baseballs or ken seto's excrementa.
>If two events are simultaneous in one inertial frame, then they are
>not simultaneous in another inertial frame.
>
>Dirk Vdm
My confusion, and the reason I asked the question, concerns the following: As
I understood it the SR aspect of the photons was the fact that the train cannot
impart a photon with more speed. The photon of course always travels at light
speed. Because it can't be imparted with more speed in the direction of the
train, nor slowed down when traveling opposite to the direction of the train,
the photons will not appear to hit the two men simultaneously to the observer
next to the tracks. This is because of the unequally changing distances
between the two men to the observer standing next to the tracks. I think you
agree with this part so far, and I think I understand up to this point. The
problem I have is when you use baseballs instead of photons. Baseballs can be
imparted with speed. So wouldn't the track observer see the baseball headed in
the direction of the train moving faster than the one moving in the opposite
direction. And wouldn't this extra speed exactly compensate for the extra
distance it must travel due to the trains motion (to the outside track
observer). And so why wouldn't the two baseballs be observed to hit the men
simultaneously by both the track observer and the observer on the train?
mr twister
>as measured by a trackside observer when it is fired at speed x from a
>train travelling at speed y. However SR provides a formula for this type
>of thing, which is known as the composition (sometimes called addition) of
>velocities. This tells us that the forward-moving ball will be measured by
>the trackside observer to be travelling at slightly less than the speed of
>the
>train plus the speed of the ball as measured by the observer in the train.
>Similarly, the backward-travelling ball is measured to travel a bit faster
>than
>expected by the trackside observer.
>
>Thus, the trackside observer will say that the forward-travelling ball will
>reach
>its destination after the backward-travelling ball.
>
>Martin Hogbin
>
>
Martin, what you just described is where my confusion is coming from. I don't
understand how the two postulates of SR having to do with light always
traveling at c, and all constant velocity frames being able to claim their
inertial relate to the baseball situation. How do those postulates lead to the
forward baseball having less speed than the speed of the train + the speed of
the ball? It's not that I think you're wrong, it's that I don't understand it.
Otakar Krten
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
news:20020223013406...@mb-mo.aol.com...
A) regardless of photons or baseballs, the hits in the 'train' system are
simultanneous.
B) as 'seeing' means receiving information in the form of light, lets assume
that both hits in the 'train' system produce instantanneous omnidirectional
spray of photons.
C) the sequence of hits in the 'train' system can be observed (from the
'platform') either in sequence 1,2 or 2,1 (when the hits occur before or
after the 'train' passes by the 'platform' observer), with the exception of
one special case when they appear simultanneous. The special case occurs
when the one 'train' observer has already passed the 'platform' observer
while the other 'train' observer has not. The ratio of their respective
distances (as measured by 'platform' observer') must be:
|1P/2P| = 1 + (v/c)* |1,2|
where: 1P is the distance between the 'train' observer 1 (which did not yet
pass) and the 'platform' observer' P; 2P is the distance between the 'train'
observer 1 (which already passed) and the 'platform' observer; |1,2| is the
distance between 'train' observers according to 'platform' observer.
Joe Krten (member of the 'Stein' brothers)
Otakar Krten
"Otakar Krten" <ojk...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:avbe8.224494$I8.44...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Small correction: the second line from bottom should read: observer 2 (which
already passed....
>
>
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message news:20020224134738...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> >I guess you mean "would there still be an argument over which of
> >the two targets were hit first, between the observer on the train and
> >the observer on the track".
> >Yes, there would be an argument. For the observer on the train the
> >events would be simultaneous. So the events are not simultaneous
> >for the observer on the track. It doesn't matter whether the targets
> >are hit by photons, baseballs or ken seto's excrementa.
> >If two events are simultaneous in one inertial frame, then they are
> >not simultaneous in another inertial frame.
> >
> >Dirk Vdm
>
>
> My confusion, and the reason I asked the question, concerns the following: As
> I understood it the SR aspect of the photons was the fact that the train cannot
> impart a photon with more speed. The photon of course always travels at light
> speed. Because it can't be imparted with more speed in the direction of the
> train, nor slowed down when traveling opposite to the direction of the train,
> the photons will not appear to hit the two men simultaneously to the observer
> next to the tracks. This is because of the unequally changing distances
> between the two men to the observer standing next to the tracks. I think you
> agree with this part so far, and I think I understand up to this point.
In fact it is not because of the unequally changing distances, but
because of the fact that time, as measured by different observers,
seems not to be absolute.
Due to the fact that the distances change, the observer on the track
will *see* the events at different times, but when this observer would
calculate the times when the light signals of the hits were sent to him,
he would calculate different times too.
So the photons will not only *appear* not to hit the two men
simultaneously to the observer next to the tracks: the time he *assigns*
to the events will also be different.
So I'm afraid I don't agree with this part so far ;-)
> The
> problem I have is when you use baseballs instead of photons. Baseballs can be
> imparted with speed. So wouldn't the track observer see the baseball headed in
> the direction of the train moving faster than the one moving in the opposite
> direction. And wouldn't this extra speed exactly compensate for the extra
> distance it must travel due to the trains motion (to the outside track
> observer). And so why wouldn't the two baseballs be observed to hit the men
> simultaneously by both the track observer and the observer on the train?
In Galilean relativity, where time is absolute, the baseballs would
hit the men simultaneously for both the track observer and the
observer on the train. (The track observer would of course not
*see* the events at the same time because the front man is
farther than the back man, but the events take place at the
same time).
But alas, Galilean relativity is wrong. It does not correctly describe
the world: it seems to happily work with slowly moving particles but
it doesn't work with light, and it doesn't work with fast moving
particles. So Galilean relativity had to be modified to accommodate
both situations. By giving up absoluteness of time everything
fits nicely. One of the (many) consequences of the modification is
that the speed imparted on a baseball is not the algebraic sum of the
speeds (u+U), but the more complicated formula that Eli gave:
(v+U) / [ 1+vU/c^2 ]
As you can see, when v and U are small as compared to c, this
reduces to (v+U) for all practical purposes...
It seems weird, but it works. Why? No one knows.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message news:3C794503...@fuse.net...
No... that would be the case for Galilean relativity too.
See my last reply to mr twister.
Dirk Vdm
rryker1
Rod: Yep , you're right .
But there must be a reason for Rel.of Sim. .
I mean , what would cause each observer to
measure the speed of light as c regardless of frame .
Naturally assuming c+v and c-v hold in the theory .
Nature is obviously correct , but what in nature
causes this ?
Rod Ryker
Eli Botkin
The same thing, in nature, that "causes" [x^2+y^2+z^2] to be invariant under
a reorientation of the x,y,z-axes, also "causes" [(ct)^2-(x^2+y^2+z^2)] to
be invariant under a reorientation (boost) of the t,x,y,z-axes. It's just
how our spacetime got constructed. One could ask for a "cause" no matter
how it had turned out to be. Usually, insisting on a "cause" at this level
means our everyday experience is standing in the way of our accepting it.
Eli Botkin
shuba
> > [..] of course.
>
> of course.
And of course.
> > It's important, I think, to remind people that the two-dimensional
> > (time plus one spatial dimension) boost equations often presented in
> > intro texts and on this newsgroup as "the" Lorentz transformations
> > are only the beginning of the story.
>
> of course again.
> we are (almost) all intelligent enough to know that ;-)
Yes, but beware of the men and women behind the curtains! Some
trolls have learned from magicians and parlor-room psychics to
exploit the gullibility of a rational and logical thinker. By
considering person X (insert name of favorite babbler here) as
unintelligent, naive or incapable, we run the risk of being an
unwitting participant in the setup of a scam. This is not to say
that some folks aren't truly stupid, just that it's hard to be sure.
Case in point: consider a worthless troll named Rabbo who used to
post to this group. By changing his usenet name to Henry Wilson,
he is able to return to previously trolled waters and continue the
farce, laughing at both the old and new people who are foolish enough
to read his bullshit. Plus, he doesn't have to admit responsibility
for anything he previously said.
Message-ID: <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <36e45463...@news.bigpond.com>
Also try taking the "HW.htm" off of "Wilson's" URL.
---Tim Shuba---
rryker1
Eli Botkin wrote:
Rod: No Eli .
Above you compare apples and oranges and pears .
SR is what we will concern ourselves with here .
Only approximations in SR math are deemed satisfactory .
Hardly absolutes . :)
Regardless , you did not answer the question .
Rod Ryker
mr twister
>because of the fact that time, as measured by different observers,
>seems not to be absolute.
>Due to the fact that the distances change, the observer on the track
>will *see* the events at different times, but when this observer would
>calculate the times when the light signals of the hits were sent to him,
>he would calculate different times too.
>So the photons will not only *appear* not to hit the two men
>simultaneously to the observer next to the tracks: the time he *assigns*
>to the events will also be different.
>So I'm afraid I don't agree with this part so far ;-)
Dirk, I apologize, cause I worded that badly. The changing distances that I
was referring to were the ones between the two seated men and the device
shooting things at them. I realize for the two other men, the observers, that
the time it takes light of the event to travel to them must be taken into
consideration. My poorly put point didn't involve that aspect though. I was
just thinking about how to those on the train, the distance from the shooting
device in the middle of the table to the men seated on opposite ends of the
table never changes. While to the observer outside the train, the distances
that objects must travel become uneven between the time of firing something at
the seated men and impact.
>at the speed imparted on a baseball is not the algebraic sum of the
>speeds (u+U), but the more complicated formula that Eli gave:
> (v+U) / [ 1+vU/c^2 ]
>As you can see, when v and U are small as compared to c, this
>reduces to (v+U) for all practical purposes...
>It seems weird, but it works. Why? No one knows.
>
What I don't get is all the stuff about Einstein's two SR postulates and how
that relates to things slower than light. So what you're saying is those two
postulates led Einstein to find time must appear slower in a frame moving
relative to another because c is constant. And, knowing this happens from
that, he had to conclude that other odd stuff happened to sub-light speed
things. So, the fact that light travels at a max speed c isn't really a
necessity for SR existing, but without that fact it would have been tough for
Einstein to have realized SR existed. Does that make sense?
Stephen Speicher
>
> Case in point: consider a worthless troll named Rabbo who used to
> post to this group. By changing his usenet name to Henry Wilson,
> he is able to return to previously trolled waters and continue the
> farce, laughing at both the old and new people who are foolish enough
> to read his bullshit. Plus, he doesn't have to admit responsibility
> for anything he previously said.
>
> Message-ID: <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
> Message-ID: <36e45463...@news.bigpond.com>
>
> Also try taking the "HW.htm" off of "Wilson's" URL.
>
Holy moly, Batman!
Wilson a bigger phony than I thought. I would not have thought
it possible, but now...
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Speicher
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, shuba wrote:
>
> >
> > Case in point: consider a worthless troll named Rabbo who used to
> > post to this group. By changing his usenet name to Henry Wilson,
> > he is able to return to previously trolled waters and continue the
> > farce, laughing at both the old and new people who are foolish enough
> > to read his bullshit. Plus, he doesn't have to admit responsibility
> > for anything he previously said.
> >
> > Message-ID: <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
> > Message-ID: <36e45463...@news.bigpond.com>
> >
I forgot to ask before. How do you get to see these messages
listed above?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102022...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, shuba wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Case in point: consider a worthless troll named Rabbo who used to
> > > post to this group. By changing his usenet name to Henry Wilson,
> > > he is able to return to previously trolled waters and continue the
> > > farce, laughing at both the old and new people who are foolish enough
> > > to read his bullshit. Plus, he doesn't have to admit responsibility
> > > for anything he previously said.
> > >
> > > Message-ID: <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
> > > Message-ID: <36e45463...@news.bigpond.com>
> > >
>
> I forgot to ask before. How do you get to see these messages
> listed above?
Google advanced groups search:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=36e45463...@news.bigpond.com
In the second message he replies to .... Androcles ;-)
Hmmm....
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"shuba" <tim....@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:3c79b48e$0$1604$9ba6...@news.pclink.com...
;-)))
Also:
http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&querytime=wJcF&q=author%3Arabbo
That's for this evening!
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
shuba
> > > Message-ID: <37776351...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
> > > Message-ID: <36e45463...@news.bigpond.com>
> > >
>
> I forgot to ask before. How do you get to see these messages
> listed above?
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Paste the message ID <with or without angle brackets> in the
appropriate field and leave the rest blank.
---Tim Shuba---
Dirk Van de moortel
"rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message news:3C79E89D...@fuse.net...
Eli did answer the question. It was: "We don't know".
You asked "why?".
The answer was "we don't know".
Then you asked "what causes this?"
The answer is "we don't know".
In case you might wonder why we don't know: we don't know
why we don't know ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message news:20020224234620...@mb-fk.aol.com...
Yes, since the physics of the other stuff relies heavily on velocities
and accelerations, and since both these quantities in turn rely heavily
on distances and specially on time intervals, and since the constancy
of the speed of light gave us a hint about the non-absoluteness of
time intervals... the physics of the other stuff had to be modified too.
> So, the fact that light travels at a max speed c isn't really a
> necessity for SR existing, but without that fact it would have been tough for
> Einstein to have realized SR existed. Does that make sense?
I think that can make sense. If we were blind and wouldn't have
discovered electromagnetic radiation - i.o.w. if we were bats - we
probably wouldn't have had the need to modify Galilean relativity.
If we, being bats, would nevertheless have discovered muons and
their strange behaviour, we probably *would* have developed special
relativity and predicted one of its consequences, namely that there
must be some mysterious speed limit that can't ever be reached
by anyone or anything. Perhaps some smart theoretician bat would
have conceive something that is massless and that always travels at
this forbidden speed and call it "tyrewop" or "poilkub" or "light" ;-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
> >>However, to the observer watching next to the
> >> tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon
first,
> >due
> >
> >Wrong. This assertion would violate the constant light speed postulate in
> >the train. In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
> >both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
> >track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
> >observers.
> >
>
>
>
> Ummm... no, you're wrong Ken.
No I am not wrong.
> My question wasn't about that part, because
> assuming the track observer can see differences of very small fractions of
a
> second, he in fact does not see the light reach the observers
simultaneously.
So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the track
observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
principle??
Ken Seto
mr twister
>> Ummm... no, you're wrong Ken.
>
>No I am not wrong.
>
>> My question wasn't about that part, because
>> assuming the track observer can see differences of very small fractions of
>a
>> second, he in fact does not see the light reach the observers
>simultaneously.
>
>So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the track
>observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
>simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
>principle??
>
>
>Ken Seto
Yes you're wrong and what does the uncertianty principle have to do with this.
All you have to know is when the photon is emitted and when it hits the
observer.
P.S. by the way the example with the photons that you think is wrong was taken
directly from Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe. I don't know who to
believe..hmmm... Ken Seto or Brian Greene... close call...NOT.
Stephen Speicher
Thanks.
> In the second message he replies to .... Androcles ;-)
> Hmmm....
>
You know something, Dirk. Sometimes it is hard for me to believe
that there are so many cuckoo birds who post to this group. Maybe
you are on to something. Now that Wilson-Rabbo has collapsed
into one fruitcake, maybe there is a cuckoo wave fucntion which
when it collapses reveals that all the various kooks are really a
single one!
Stephen Speicher
Yes, thanks. Now I understand.
This Wilson-Rabbo fruitcake business demonstrates another
conservation law of physics -- conservation of loonies!
Dirk Van de moortel
;-)
I found one thread, originated by "Rabbo", replied to by Tom Roberts,
and then a reply from "Henry Wilson", where he says something about
what he (being Rabbo) wrote.
So we have physical proof of the time of transmutation: 13-Apr-2000
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=38f5ca36...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net
(click on "Complete Thread (27 articles)" and look at the tree.
| On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:10:12 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
| wrote:
|
| >Rabbo wrote:
| >> The ratio of (c/c-v) and sqrt(c^2/(c^2-v^2)) is also far less than 400
| >> parts per million at these speeds.
| >
| >Nonsense. c/(c-v) = 4000 and sqrt(c^2/(c^2-v^2)) = 44.724. For c=1 and
| >v=0.99975 (as given in my previous post).
| >
| Sorry, I left out a couple of brackets, which made quite a difference
| to the program.
On the same thread Wilson replies on 30-Apr-2000 to Robert Dinse's reply
to Rabbo's original post.
I wonder which name would have appeared on the diploma's Wilson
proposed to post as binary attachments. He could just as well put them
on his website of course ;-)
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Ummm... no, you're wrong Ken.
> >
> >No I am not wrong.
> >
> >> My question wasn't about that part, because
> >> assuming the track observer can see differences of very small fractions
of
> >a
> >> second, he in fact does not see the light reach the observers
> >simultaneously.
> >
> >So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the track
> >observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
> >simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
> >principle??
> >
> >
> >Ken Seto
>
> Yes you're wrong
No I am not wrong.
>and what does the uncertianty principle have to do with this.
It has everything to do with it. You said that the track observer can know
the speed and position of a photon simultaneously. This is wrong.
> All you have to know is when the photon is emitted and when it hits the
> observer.
According to whose clock?? Also your assumption that relative velocity will
affect the transit time for a fix length in different directions is
defintiely wrong. The speed of light according to the SR postulate is
isotropic in all directions.
>
> P.S. by the way the example with the photons that you think is wrong was
taken
> directly from Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe. I don't know who
to
> believe..hmmm... Ken Seto or Brian Greene... close call...NOT.
So what. Einstein was proven to be wrong on his assertion of relativity of
simultaneity.
Ken Seto
Stephen Speicher
Wilson/Rabbo gives new meaning to the term fruitcake!
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7acbf2$0$15925$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Nice one ;-)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "Isotropic in all directions".
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message news:20020223140442...@mb-fp.aol.com...
> Phil, from what I understood of your question I think maybe you misunderstood
> my question. It isn't about what the folks on the train see. I agree that in
> their inertial frame the laws of physics of course don't change. What I'm
> wondering about is just if using baseballs over photons would change the fact
> that the observer next to the tracks (not on the train) doesn't see them hit
> simultaneously. I'm assuming that the observers have the capability to discern
> differences of millionths of seconds, etc.
It doesn't matter at all what the events are (being hit by photons,
baseballs or electrons, they are snapping their fingers, they are
hit by lightening bolts or ...)
As long as the events are simultaneous in the train frame, and the distance
between them is the same, (and the speed of the train the same),
then the track observer will find that one event happens before
the other by the same amount of time.
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c77a1a1$0$1598$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
> > I was wondering what would happen in a certian thought experiment if
> baseballs
> > were substituted for photons. Here's the experiment. There's a train with a
> > table on it. Seated at opposite ends of the table are two men facing each
> > other. One is facing in the direction the train is traveling, and the other is
> > facing backwards to the direction the train is traveling. There is an observer
> > next to the table on the train, and an observer standing next to the train
> > tracks. In the middle of the table on a train is a machine that shoots photons
> > at the two seated men. So, to the observer on the train the photons reach the
> > two seated men simultaneously.
>
>
> > However, to the observer watching next to the
> > tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the photon first,
> > due to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train.
>
> Wrong. This assertion would violate the constant light speed postulate in
> the train. In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
> both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
> track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
> observers.
I will not ask you what "simultaneous at a different time" means, Ken.
You have told me before.
It means that the train observer's clock and the track observer's clock
have different readings when they observe the simultaneous events.
And there are of course an infinite number of possible observers
with different clocks.
So we can conclude that the seated men are hit simultaneously
at an infinite number of different times.
Right?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7a4873$0$35566$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > Ken Seto wrote:
> > >In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
> > >both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
> > >track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
> > >observers.
So we know the positions of the photons at the instant they
are hit.
> So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the track
> observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
> simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
> principle??
Since we, knowing the positions of the photons, cannot know
at which speed they are moving, how can you then know that the two men
are hit by the photons simultaneously?
Paul
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:a5isir$bpk$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c7a4873$0$35566$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> > > Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
> > > >both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for
the
> > > >track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the
train
> > > >observers.
>
> So we know the positions of the photons at the instant they
> are hit.
No the track guy knows that the constant light speed postulate is valid in
the train. That means that the speed of light is isotropic in the train.
That means that it takes the same transit time for light to traverse the
same distance in all directions. That means that the photons hit both men
simultaneously.
>
> > So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the
track
> > observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
> > simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
> > principle??
>
> Since we, knowing the positions of the photons, cannot know
> at which speed they are moving, how can you then know that the two men
> are hit by the photons simultaneously?
The only thing that the track guy know for sure is that the constant light
speed postulate holds in the train. From that he can conclude that the
photons hit both men simultaneously.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7d1f29$0$1612$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
How on earth can a person say such an UTTERLY STUPID thing???
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "Seto's Special Principle of Simultaneity"
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
It means that according to the clock in the train the transit time for the
photons to reach the men in the train is different than that according to
the clock in the track frame. Your attempt to twist my interpretation as
shown below failed again.
> It means that the train observer's clock and the track observer's clock
> have different readings when they observe the simultaneous events.
> And there are of course an infinite number of possible observers
> with different clocks.
It means that only for your hand clapping gedanken.
>
> So we can conclude that the seated men are hit simultaneously
> at an infinite number of different times.
> Right?
No they will hit the men simultaneously with the same amount of absolute
time. However, this amount of absolute time will be represented by different
clock reading in different frames. The difference is due to the different
states of absolute motion between the train and the different observers who
are in different states of absolute motion compared to the train.
Ken Seto
Bob Kolker
kenseto wrote:
>
> No they will hit the men simultaneously with the same amount of absolute
> time.
Where can I buy an Absolute Clock to measure absolute time? I would love to have
one.
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
Do you mean an Absolute clock which shows the same Absolute time
content for an Absolute second, as measured in Absolute time,
Absolutely? Oh, that one. Well, you may purchase one from Prof.
Freely at the University of Scunthorpe. You can find the address
by looking through the posts at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=University%20of%20Scunthorpe&hl=en
BE SURE to read at least the first three posts.
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> BE SURE to read at least the first three posts.
I.P.Freely? Hawwww!
Bob Kolker
kenseto
"Bob Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C7D3FAE...@attbi.com...
You don't need to buy an absolute clock. All clocks measure absolute time
except that the amount of absolute time they measure for a clock second is
different in different frames. An observer can define his clock second to
measure absolute time then he can use the LT or the Doppler Transformation
to calculate the clock time value of his defined absolute second in the
observed frame. That's how the GPS system works.
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7d3ab5$0$15925$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a5irv0$bli$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c77a1a1$0$1598$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > >
> > > both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
> > > track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
> > > observers.
> >
> > I will not ask you what "simultaneous at a different time" means, Ken.
> > You have told me before.
>
> It means that according to the clock in the train the transit time for the
> photons to reach the men in the train is different than that according to
> the clock in the track frame. Your attempt to twist my interpretation as
> shown below failed again.
So it means that the train clock and and the track clock will have
different readings when the photons hit the men.
> > It means that the train observer's clock and the track observer's clock
> > have different readings when they observe the simultaneous events.
>
> It means that only for your hand clapping gedanken.
Uhu?
Didn't you just say that the train clock and the track clock would
measure different transit times and thus show different readings
when the photons hit the men?
> > And there are of course an infinite number of possible observers
> > with different clocks.
> >
> > So we can conclude that the seated men are hit simultaneously
> > at an infinite number of different times.
> > Right?
>
> No they will hit the men simultaneously with the same amount of absolute
> time.
So in real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
observers, but it occurs at the same absolute time.
> However, this amount of absolute time will be represented by different
> clock reading in different frames. The difference is due to the different
> states of absolute motion between the train and the different observers who
> are in different states of absolute motion compared to the train.
But didn't it mean that only for my hand clapping gedanken?
But OK,it means that the train observer's clock and the track observer's clock
have different readings when they observe the simultaneous events.
And there are of course an infinite number of possible observers
with different clocks.
So we can conclude that the seated men are hit simultaneously
at an infinite number of different times. But all the different
times is the same absolute time.
Right?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7dc3b2$0$35573$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> You don't need to buy an absolute clock. All clocks measure absolute time
> except that the amount of absolute time they measure for a clock second is
> different in different frames. An observer can define his clock second to
> measure absolute time then he can use the LT or the Doppler Transformation
> to calculate the clock time value of his defined absolute second in the
> observed frame. That's how the GPS system works.
Ken, I think my absolute wrist watch must be a very special one.
It shows defined absolute time, but by some reason the clock second it
shows is always equal to the absolute second it shows, regardless
of which frame I am in.
Isn't that wrong?
Paul
kenseto
So it doesn't bother you that RoS means that the
track observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
principle??
Doesn't it bother you that my assumptions were proven experimentally??
Doesn't it bother you that RoS is not proven experimentally??
>
> > > > So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the
track
> > > > observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
> > > > simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
> > > > principle??
> > >
> > > Since we, knowing the positions of the photons, cannot know
> > > at which speed they are moving, how can you then know that the two men
> > > are hit by the photons simultaneously?
> >
> > The only thing that the track guy know for sure is that the constant
light
> > speed postulate holds in the train. From that he can conclude that the
> > photons hit both men simultaneously.
>
> So it doesn't bother you that your above assumptions means that the
> track observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
> simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
> principle??
So it doesn't bother you that RoS means that the
track observer can know the speed (c) and the postion of the photon
simultaneously??? Do you realize that this violates the uncertainty
principle??
Doesn't it bother you that my assumptions were proven experimentally??
Doesn't it bother you that RoS is not proven experimentally??
Ken seto
kenseto
Is there no limit to your stupidity?? Once you move to a new frame you
changed the orginal definition for a defined absolute second. The new
defined absolute second will have a new transform clock value in the
observed frame.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7e68c9$0$35578$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Just like you always stated: each frame has its own absolute
second. Moron.
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c7d3ab5$0$15925$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> >
> > "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> > news:a5irv0$bli$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> > >
> > > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c77a1a1$0$1598$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > >
> > > > In real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
> > > > both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for
the
> > > > track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the
train
> > > > observers.
> > >
> > > I will not ask you what "simultaneous at a different time" means, Ken.
> > > You have told me before.
> >
> > It means that according to the clock in the train the transit time for
the
> > photons to reach the men in the train is different than that according
to
> > the clock in the track frame. Your attempt to twist my interpretation as
> > shown below failed again.
>
> So it means that the train clock and and the track clock will have
> different readings when the photons hit the men.
More correctly: It means that the train clock and the track clock are
running at a different rate. This means that for a same interval of absolute
time the two clocks show differetn readings.
>
> > > It means that the train observer's clock and the track observer's
clock
> > > have different readings when they observe the simultaneous events.
> >
> > It means that only for your hand clapping gedanken.
>
> Uhu?
> Didn't you just say that the train clock and the track clock would
> measure different transit times and thus show different readings
> when the photons hit the men?
No both clocks measure the same interval of absolute time but this interval
of absolute time is represented by different clock readings in the train and
the track.
>
> > > And there are of course an infinite number of possible observers
> > > with different clocks.
> > >
> > > So we can conclude that the seated men are hit simultaneously
> > > at an infinite number of different times.
> > > Right?
> >
> > No they will hit the men simultaneously with the same amount of absolute
> > time.
>
> So in real life the track observer will also see the photons hit
> both observers in the train simultaneously. But the simultaneity for the
> track observer occurs at a different time than that observed by the train
> observers, but it occurs at the same absolute time.
>
> > However, this amount of absolute time will be represented by different
> > clock reading in different frames. The difference is due to the
different
> > states of absolute motion between the train and the different observers
who
> > are in different states of absolute motion compared to the train.
>
> But didn't it mean that only for my hand clapping gedanken?
Your hand clapping gedanken have zero transit time (absolute time) in both
frames so they are simultaneous in both frames. So the difference in clock
time reading is zero. When I said that there is a difference in clock
readings I meant that the two guy can set their clocks anyway they want.
This was meant to give you some shit because you kept on badgering me about
where is the difference in clock time readings in your hand clapping
gedanken. BTW did you know that your hand clapping gedanken proved that RoS
is wrong???
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7dc3b2$0$35573$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Nice. (Thanks Paul C.)
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "That's how the GPS system works."
Dirk Vdm
rryker1
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message news:3C79E89D...@fuse.net...
> > Hi Eli
> >
> > Eli Botkin wrote:
> >
> > > rryker1 <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C79B50F...@fuse.net...
> > > > Hi Dirk
> > > >
> > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C794503...@fuse.net...
> > > > > > Hi Dirk
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "rryker1" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3C78BE23...@fuse.net...
> > > > > > > > Hi Dirk
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "mr twister" <mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote in message
> > > news:20020223013406...@mb-mo.aol.com...
> > > > > > > > > > I was wondering what would happen in a certian thought
> > > experiment if baseballs
> > > > > > > > > > were substituted for photons. Here's the experiment. There's
> > > a train with a
> > > > > > > > > > table on it. Seated at opposite ends of the table are two men
> > > facing each
> > > > > > > > > > other. One is facing in the direction the train is traveling,
> > > and the other is
> > > > > > > > > > facing backwards to the direction the train is traveling.
> > > There is an observer
> > > > > > > > > > next to the table on the train, and an observer standing next
> > > to the train
> > > > > > > > > > tracks. In the middle of the table on a train is a machine
> > > that shoots photons
> > > > > > > > > > at the two seated men. So, to the observer on the train the
> > > photons reach the
> > > > > > > > > > two seated men simultaneously. However, to the observer
> > > watching next to the
> > > > > > > > > > tracks the man facing forward on the train gets hit with the
> > > photon first, due
> > > > > > > > > > to the decreasing distance from the movement of the train.
> > > Now, I get it this
> > > > > > > > > > far I think, but my question is what would happen if instead
> > > of photons we shot
> > > > > > > > > > baseballs at each of them (besides the fact that it'd really
> > > hurt when they hit
> > > > > > > > > > them). Would there still be an argument over which hit first
> > > between the two
> > > > > > > > > > observers?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I guess you mean "would there still be an argument over which of
> > > > > > > > > the two targets were hit first, between the observer on the
> > > train and
> > > > > > > > > the observer on the track".
> > > > > > > > > Yes, there would be an argument. For the observer on the train
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > events would be simultaneous. So the events are not simultaneous
> > > > > > > > > for the observer on the track. It doesn't matter whether the
> > > targets
> > > > > > > > > are hit by photons, baseballs or ken seto's excrementa.
> > > > > > > > > If two events are simultaneous in one inertial frame, then they
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > not simultaneous in another inertial frame.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rod: But why ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think no one knows why. Nature seems to work this way.
> > > > > > > Let me ask: "Why not?"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rod: Could it possibly be that the observers see the events
> > > > > > at different times because the light that bounces from the
> > > > > > event has longer and shorter paths depending on frame .
> > > > >
> > > > > No... that would be the case for Galilean relativity too.
> > > > > See my last reply to mr twister.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dirk Vdm
> > > >
> > > > Rod: Yep , you're right .
> > > > But there must be a reason for Rel.of Sim. .
> > > > I mean , what would cause each observer to
> > > > measure the speed of light as c regardless of frame .
> > > > Naturally assuming c+v and c-v hold in the theory .
> > > > Nature is obviously correct , but what in nature
> > > > causes this ?
> > > >
> > > > Rod Ryker
> > > >
> > >
> > > The same thing, in nature, that "causes" [x^2+y^2+z^2] to be invariant under
> > > a reorientation of the x,y,z-axes, also "causes" [(ct)^2-(x^2+y^2+z^2)] to
> > > be invariant under a reorientation (boost) of the t,x,y,z-axes. It's just
> > > how our spacetime got constructed. One could ask for a "cause" no matter
> > > how it had turned out to be. Usually, insisting on a "cause" at this level
> > > means our everyday experience is standing in the way of our accepting it.
> > >
> > > Eli Botkin
> >
> > Rod: No Eli .
> > Above you compare apples and oranges and pears .
> > SR is what we will concern ourselves with here .
> > Only approximations in SR math are deemed satisfactory .
> > Hardly absolutes . :)
> >
> > Regardless , you did not answer the question .
> >
> > Rod Ryker
>
> Eli did answer the question. It was: "We don't know".
>
> You asked "why?".
> The answer was "we don't know".
> Then you asked "what causes this?"
> The answer is "we don't know".
> In case you might wonder why we don't know: we don't know
> why we don't know ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Rod: Ahh , but I know . :)
Rod Ryker
Charles Cagle
<mrtwist...@aol.comFunkSpam> wrote:
> I was wondering what would happen in a certian thought experiment if baseballs
> were substituted for photons.
When the field lights were switched on at the world series game the
baseballs produced in the first 30 seconds would produce a volume
greater than the earth and everyone at the game and on the earth would
be killed and the balls would stack up so high that the orbits of the
sports satellites would immediately totally decay which wouldn't matter
since no one would be left to play or watch the game anyway :-).
CC