 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2007Simultaneous moments within SR
How come that during a simultaneous moment, when two beam of light "fired from the center within the ship", hit the front wall and the backwall in the ship, they can be spatially separated by a greater length/distance within the rest space the ship travel. This is a mystery because i thought the ship was supposed to contract not expand. Below simultaneous expanding lightfronts from front and back sent from ship none symmetric wavefronts Ship 0.9 c traveldirection-------> lightfront<------------------------- |ship|--->lightfront Below simultaneous expanding lightfronts sent from a pole within the ship | <-------------------i------> | As anyone can see it is not possible for the lightbeams to hit the walls at the same moment, because the none symmetric expansion within the ship. Relativist will however say that within the ship the light will travel symmetric in the inertial frame. But problem still remain the lightfronts hit the back and the front wall at different places in the space it will travel although was sent out at one and same moment from pole. So either the ship must have expanded to the length of the spatially separated events(hit front, hit back) in the surrounding space........... or simultanity for events have nothing to do with where a travelling object is when the event occur. It is quite interesting that SRians have no trouble defining ONE EVENT for a travelling objekt of let us say length 10 meter in space to have cordinates spatially separated by any distance in space. Any other sane person would say that the event actually was not an event it was two events that took place because event require simultanity. OR could it be so simple that the light did not travel invariant within the ship frame. JT On Mar 23, 9:33 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > How come that during a simultaneous moment, when two beam of light > "fired from the center within the ship", hit the front wall and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is a mystery because i thought the ship was supposed to contract > not expand. Imagine you marked the position of the back of a moving train at time 1:00, and the front of the train a minute later. The train has traveled during that minute. The positions of those two markers will be farther apart than the length of the train. Same thing with the light pulses. In the outside frame, the pulses don't arrive at the front and back of the rocket simultaneously. So we are marking the front and back positions at different times, and the resulting distance is not a measurement of the length. - Randy > On Mar 23, 9:33 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > has traveled during that minute. The positions of those two > markers will be farther apart than the length of the train. Huh, one minute apart and still simultaneous i really do not understand, you claim you did the markings simultaneous, but separated in time i do not understand. > Same thing with the light pulses. In the outside frame, > the pulses don't arrive at the front and back of the > rocket simultaneously. So we are marking the front and > back positions at different times, and the resulting > distance is not a measurement of the length. Hello i thought light should travel invariant through space what are you talking about. Dear Randy if you have person A walk backward front and B front backward, and B reach back rather immediatly while A not yet finished his first step when reaching Alpha Centauri. A. You still claim they are walking velocity invariant B. You still claim they reach the walls simultaneous. C. You change your mind and realise the moments are not simultaneous, and their walking velocity was vector dependent (due to the lorentz transform), they will have symmetric roundtrips but different variant vector dependent velocity. JT > - Randy >> On Mar 23, 9:33 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Hello i thought light should travel invariant through space what are > you talking about. According to the measurement system of the outside observer, the light travels invariantly at c in *that* space while the train is moving as well in that space. Thus, according to that measurement, while the backward going light moves at c, the train moves at v towards it, so that the light touches the back of the train as it meets it rather soon because the distance is reduced. Similarly, the forward going light touches the front of the train much later as it catches up with it, at a much increased distance. Harald > Dear Randy if you have person A walk backward front and B front > backward, and B reach back rather immediatly while A not yet finished [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > JT >> - Randy > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - I am not sure how your answer relate to the actual question, can a simultaneous event occur (for a small object in space) at two different places separated by lighyears. The spatial separation of two simultaneous events CAN NOT HAVE LARGER SPATIAL SEPARATION THAN THE OBJECT ITSELF. Because that would mean the object either occupy two places in space at the same time OR THAT IT EXPANDED, do you agree? The light beam started its expansion at one place in space, in two directions within the ship the optic fibre that send the signal was placed in middle of the ship. There is no way that the two lightpulses can reach front and back of ship and still be simultaneous but that is what SR claim. This is not working. JT Because this is easy to show for > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the back of the train as it meets it rather soon because the distance is > reduced. I hope you realise what you say here you say that the light travels c +v, if you call this light invariant you have me stumped. There is no c+v c-v in relativity, on the other hand your example not even valid in emitter theory. Because the train pole is mounted in train so the light will expand symetrical. JT Similarly, the forward going light touches the front of the train > much later as it catches up with it, at a much increased distance. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - On 23 Mar, 18:15, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - I do not think i had a satisfactory answer to my question that i beleive is rather straightforward. JT On Mar 23, 1:15 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I hope you realise what you say here you say that the light travels c > +v, if you call this light invariant you have me stumped. The light travels at c. The wall travels at v. Their distance shrinks at a rate v+c. There is nothing actually moving at that speed. > There is no c+v c-v in relativity, Yes there is. It is the separation rate, or approaching rate, of a light beam (always moving at c) and an object moving at +-v. - Randy > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - Maybe no high priority question. JT > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - I find these questions very interesting somehow i do not think you share my enthusiasm. JT > How come that during a simultaneous moment, when two beam of light > "fired from the center within the ship", hit the front wall and the > backwall in the ship, they can be spatially separated by a greater > length/distance within the rest space the ship travel. How come you don't actually learn about SR so you can express questions coherently? Rest of usual junk snipped. Bill > <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bill How come they can learn apes to smoke but it seem impossible to make them quit the bad habit. I've read the sh.t once it was imbecile enought to make me very upset, i will not go through that sh.t again. Einsteins train Gedankens is directed to imbeciles, as the nice conman he was he directed his joke in a way that would make imbecile people feel smart. I have a feeling that he knew exactly what he did when he presented his theory and directed it to imbeciles with a supressed ego. I mean once you feel smart you do not want anyone to come and take the feeling away from you. You just stay put there with the other monkey brains Bill... Hobba hubba >> <j...@tele2.se> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > them quit the bad habit. I've read the sh.t once it was imbecile > enought to make me very upset, i will not go through that sh.t again. Well lets see - virtually everyone else that reads it understands it, but you obviously don't; and hang around here posting profanities at those that do. As I said before look into Trifluoperazine. > Einsteins train Gedankens is directed to imbeciles, as the nice conman > he was he directed his joke in a way that would make imbecile people > feel smart. Large doses might be required in your case. Bill > I have a feeling that he knew exactly what he did when he presented > his theory and directed it to imbeciles with a supressed ego. I mean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hobba hubba >> How come you don't actually learn about SR so you can express questions >> coherently? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Hobba hubba So we can conclude that you have read about SR but are unable to understand it because you are too intelligent. We imbeciles, who are too stupid to fail to understand SR, find that rather amusing. - "Hvet du hvorfor en svenske ikke forstår Einsteins relativitetsteori?" - "Han er for intelligent til å forstå den". Takk for svenskevitsen! :-) Paul You are probably also too intelligent to understand why we imbeciles who understand SR find that to be a hilarious excuse for not understanding SR. On 25 Mar, 15:22, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > j...@tele2.se wrote: > >> How come you don't actually learn about SR so you can express questions [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - It though seems i am stupid enough carry on educating morons about simultanity, but then again those monkeys horrible smooking and sh.t eating habits seem rather hard to stop. And i never actually thought you monkeys would try to make any coherent argument about what SR simultanity is because there is none within a inertial frame of SR. Simultanity can have it's fallpits but it ain't f.cking rocket science, i do not expect monkeys building spaceship, i only expect them to know if they did smoke eachother before eating the sh.t or if they did it simultaneous. If you do not understand causuality and logic how can you expect to understand what is simultaneous. An event that will happen for at a place in a hollow object can not be simultaneous with a event for same hollow object if the object is blown away before simultaneous event number two happen. *IT HAS TO DO WITH CAUSUALITY MR ANDERSEN* "I am a proud relativist, i've been f.cking velocities, space, distances and time since 1903, lately i've been feeling this urge to f.ck simultanity to, but it is so f.cking hard filling two holes with one willy at the same time. JT JT > On 25 Mar, 15:22, "Paul B. Andersen" > <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > *IT HAS TO DO WITH CAUSUALITY MR ANDERSEN* Can one event be the cause of another simultaneous event? > "I am a proud relativist, i've been f.cking velocities, space, > distances and time since 1903, lately i've been feeling this urge to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > JT It is quite obvious from your eloquent postings that your intelligence is far superior to ours. But I am afraid that we sh.t eating monkeys are too stupid to take advantage of your teaching. Maybe you should try another forum where the participants are at your own intellectual level? A kindergarten? Paul On 25 Mar, 23:30, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > j...@tele2.se wrote: > > On 25 Mar, 15:22, "Paul B. Andersen" [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Visa citerad text - What make you think there are shiteating monkeys in a kindergarten? I thought everyone booked in to take a course in theoretical physic? JT >> Maybe you should try another forum where the participants >> are at your own intellectual level? >> A kindergarten? > > What make you think there are shiteating monkeys in a kindergarten? > JT :-) Paul On 26 Mar, 09:32, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...@hiadeletethis.no> wrote: > j...@tele2.se wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Paul ;-) well you have humor it is a sign of intelligence next step would be to learn a little about logic. Muahahah ;) JT > It is quite obvious from your [JT's] eloquent postings that your > intelligence is far superior to ours. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Paul Eloquently put, Tusseladd, and accurate. > > It is quite obvious from your [JT's] eloquent postings that your > > intelligence is far superior to ours. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Eloquently put, Tusseladd, and accurate. Yes *LOL* it was Androcles, you are the master of profound logic, they are to f.cking stupid to take advantage of my teaching although kind at kindergarten are not.. I turn to kindergarten i have higher hope for them to understand these very very very simple principles of simultaneous events. Yeah i know just maybe you are smarter than me, but to be smart is one thing to draw the right conclusions from data is another. And you seem to be pretty accurate at both. I know for sure your knowledge is far superior to mine. Even Bill Hobbas, Paul Andersen, Tom Roberts is, i would even go so far to state that Eric Gisses knowledge is far superiour to mine problem is he probably one of the most stupid parrots i ever met. Someday i think Roberts, Andersen and Hobba could change their mind but only if experimental facts is put forward them for Eric Gisse i must say i do not share that hope. JT On Mar 25, 2:08 pm, j...@tele2.se wrote: > > > It is quite obvious from your [JT's] eloquent postings that your > > > intelligence is far superior to ours. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > experimental facts is put forward them for EricGissei must say i do > not share that hope. OK Jonas. Here is one of my homework problems from the week before last [which I turned in awhile ago - don't whine about 'doing your homework for you']. For the record, this problem is from Symon's "Mechanics", 3rd ed. "Masses m and 2m are suspended from a string of length l_1 which passes over a pulley. Masses 3m and 4m and similarly suspended by a string of length l_2 over another pulley. These two pulleys hang from the ends of a string of length l_3 over a third fixed pulley." The question would be extended to Androcles as well, but it has been well- established that he doesn't even fully understand the concept of the square root and negative numbers. The goal of this problem is to find the tensions and accelerations of the masses. Tell me where you think you would start. > JT On Mar 23, 9:33 am, j...@tele2.se wrote: > How come that during a simultaneous moment, when two beam of light > "fired from the center within the ship", hit the front wall and the > backwall in the ship, they can be spatially separated by a greater > length/distance within the rest space the ship travel. <<This is a mystery because i thought the ship was supposed to contract not expand.>> No... The magnetic path-length changes. See equation 511. http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html Time-independent Maxwell equations Time-dependent Maxwell's equations Relativity and electromagnetism http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Maxwell's equations in classic electrodynamics (classic field theory)_ a) Maxwell equations (no movement), b) Maxwell equations (with moved bodies) http://www.wolfram-stanek.de/maxwell_equations.htm#maxwell_classic_extended Sue... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.