Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
 |
|
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
Uncle Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 8:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
Uncle Ben
|
Here are the correct calculations :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_spaceship_paradox#Analysis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 12:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:7af63343-b5f0-4623-8bbb-4958d03a72ba@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
| 'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
| as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
| me is much clearer.
|
How come you don't respond to the task you were given?
Are you just another fucking chickenshit troll?
|
What task was I given? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 12:05 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 8:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
Uncle Ben
Here are the correct calculations :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_spaceship_paradox#Analysis- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
So your answer is it breaks, I presume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 1:18 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:3fe287f5-3ee9-41aa-ba09-16130b25feb9@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 12, 12:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:7af63343-b5f0-4623-8bbb-4958d03a72ba@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
| 'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
| as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
| me is much clearer.
|
How come you don't respond to the task you were given?
Are you just another fucking chickenshit troll?
What task was I given?
=================================
Can't remember?
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:fc17fcb3-7cf5-48d6-977c-8fe7078f793c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:609e125c-9c62-4c95-84e2-6524e95547c7@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:c37b0c42-9b18-4dda-b98e-3332d6230159@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
| How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
| experiment?
|
| Just to refresh memories, they looked for the ether, trying to measure
| the velocity of the earth through it. Their interferometer floated on
| the suface of a tank to eliminate vibrations. They tried during
| different times of the year, when the motion of the earth around the
| sun was going in opposite directions relative to the stars. And they
| tried just rotating the interferometer. The sensitivity of the
| interferometer was such that they should have been able to detect
| motion at a small fraction of the speed of light.
|
| They never did find any evidence of motion through the ether.
| Conclusion: Either a) the luminiferous ether that fills all space and
| transmits light to us from the stars is fixed to a floating
| interferometer in a tank in the basement of Adelbert Hall at Western
| Reserve University, or b) there is no ether, or c) galillean
| relativity is wrong, or some combination of these ideas.
|
| Einstein proposed (independently of this experiment,which he learned
| about later) answer c), and that if there is an ether, it is so clever
| at hiding from us that we can never detect it.
|
| What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment?
This:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
You've a lot of catching up to do.
Yes, I'm sure I have a lot of catching up to do.
Your first link is right on point. But I'm having a bit of trouble
following your argument.
You show four nicely animated figures. We have one interferometer
moving with the earth through the ether with one set of observers.
==============================================> > What aether? What set? In every case the eye at the bottom remains
fixed relative to the source at the left.
==============================================
Suppose that they are all moving w.r.t. the ether as in your diagram
at top right.
==============================================> > What aether?
==============================================
If the light paths are of unequal length,
==============================================> > What "if"?
The path lengths are equal, I was careful to draw them that way.
why don't
they observe a fringe shift as they change the direction of motion (by
rotating the interferometer) and the difference in path length
changes?
==============================================> > They do if you change the path length. Michelson fitted a screw thread
that moves the mirror to change the path length.
(Shown top left where the red ray reflects - there are four fixed mirrors
at three locations and at the fourth location there is one adjustable
mirror
with three fixed. The adjustable mirror is beside the eyepiece.)
When Michelson got the interference set up how he wanted it he then
turned the granite block through 90 degrees (it is resting on wood which
is floating on mercury) and that makes the supposed aether wind change
direction. If there were any aether that would affect the interference
pattern,
but that doesn't happen. Conclusion: No aether wind.
No aether needed, no SR needed.
Then in 1913 Sagnac repeated it, but arranged for the whole thing to
turn at a constant rate. Because he couldn't run around he put a
photographic
plate at the eyepiece and photograph the fringe shift, thus PROVING
beyond doubt there is no aether.
It's really quite simple. Light behaves like a bullet from a gun.
So...
100 years later we have a very simple idea that is very difficult for
indoctrinated minds to understand. Ockham's razor wins again.
If you were not so insistent that light is a wave you'd see it straight
away.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing
that light is like an elastic bullet.
===========================================
Yeah, we call them "photons".
===========================================
Like Spaceman, you want to say
that light bouncing off a moving mirror changes its speed like an
elastic ball.
============================================
More like Newton, actually. Driscoll still has a lot to learn.
============================================
So we agree: no ether.
=============================================> Good. So that answers your question "What do the anti-relativity folk have
to say about this experiment?"
=============================================
But we disagree about the speed of light
reflected from a mirror. Right?
===============================> I haven't paid attention to your view, you seem to be obsessed with waves..
===============================
If so, consider what I commented to him about radar ranging. How can
radar ranging work if the speed of the returning em wave is unknown?
===============================
These two waves have identical wavelengths and identical frequencies:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
What are their speeds?
=============================================
Still can't remember?
Go on, carry on recreating the same boring old paradoxes we've heard
a gazillion times before and give us the answer in a weeks time if you can
remember that long.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
OK. I have a little time right now. See you at that thread.
Ben |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 11:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
|
The contraction is just as real as the light particles
which Einstein did not win a Nobel prize for.
~The famous Lorentz transformation ensures that the velocity
of [inertially moving] light [particles] is invariant
between different inertial frames~
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html
<<The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
<< where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle,
these experiments must yield the same values for
$\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in
all inertial frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
IOW the string neither breaks nor slacks.
See also:
4-velocity and 4-acceleration
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html
Sue...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 1:42 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 11:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
The contraction is just as real as the light particles
which Einstein did not win a Nobel prize for.
~The famous Lorentz transformation ensures that the velocity
of [inertially moving] light [particles] is invariant
between different inertial frames~http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle,
these experiments must yield the same values for
$\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in
all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
IOW the string neither breaks nor slacks.
See also:
4-velocity and 4-accelerationhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html
Sue...
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Dono: breaks
Sue: doesn't
Androcles: <snarl>
1:1 so far. (And you thought the question was too old!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 9:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 12:05 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
Uncle Ben
Here are the correct calculations :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_spaceship_paradox#Analysis-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So your answer is it breaks, I presume.
|
Yes, the calculations are quite clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
"Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:7af63343-b5f0-4623-8bbb-4958d03a72ba@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
| 'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
| as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
| me is much clearer.
|
How come you don't respond to the task you were given?
Are you just another fucking chickenshit troll? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 12:30 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 1:42 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
The contraction is just as real as the light particles
which Einstein did not win a Nobel prize for.
~The famous Lorentz transformation ensures that the velocity
of [inertially moving] light [particles] is invariant
between different inertial frames~http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle,
these experiments must yield the same values for
$\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in
all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
IOW the string neither breaks nor slacks.
See also:
4-velocity and 4-accelerationhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html
Sue...
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dono: breaks
Sue: doesn't
Androcles: <snarl
1:1 so far. (And you thought the question was too old!)
|
This is not a sports contest. Science shows the answer quite clearly.
Do you have a problem with the answer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:18 pm Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
"Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:3fe287f5-3ee9-41aa-ba09-16130b25feb9@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 12, 12:27 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:7af63343-b5f0-4623-8bbb-4958d03a72ba@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
| There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
| 'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
| as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
| me is much clearer.
|
How come you don't respond to the task you were given?
Are you just another fucking chickenshit troll?
|
What task was I given?
==================================
Can't remember?
"Uncle Ben" <ben@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:fc17fcb3-7cf5-48d6-977c-8fe7078f793c@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 3:02 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:609e125c-9c62-4c95-84e2-6524e95547c7@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Uncle Ben" <b...@greenba.com> wrote in message
news:c37b0c42-9b18-4dda-b98e-3332d6230159@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| How does the anti-Einstein crowd explain the famous Michelson-Morley
| experiment?
|
| Just to refresh memories, they looked for the ether, trying to measure
| the velocity of the earth through it. Their interferometer floated on
| the suface of a tank to eliminate vibrations. They tried during
| different times of the year, when the motion of the earth around the
| sun was going in opposite directions relative to the stars. And they
| tried just rotating the interferometer. The sensitivity of the
| interferometer was such that they should have been able to detect
| motion at a small fraction of the speed of light.
|
| They never did find any evidence of motion through the ether.
| Conclusion: Either a) the luminiferous ether that fills all space and
| transmits light to us from the stars is fixed to a floating
| interferometer in a tank in the basement of Adelbert Hall at Western
| Reserve University, or b) there is no ether, or c) galillean
| relativity is wrong, or some combination of these ideas.
|
| Einstein proposed (independently of this experiment,which he learned
| about later) answer c), and that if there is an ether, it is so clever
| at hiding from us that we can never detect it.
|
| What do the anti-relativity folk have to say about this experiment?
This:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/mmx4dummies.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
and this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Orbit/Orbit.htm
You've a lot of catching up to do.
Yes, I'm sure I have a lot of catching up to do.
Your first link is right on point. But I'm having a bit of trouble
following your argument.
You show four nicely animated figures. We have one interferometer
moving with the earth through the ether with one set of observers.
===============================================
What aether? What set? In every case the eye at the bottom remains
fixed relative to the source at the left.
===============================================
Suppose that they are all moving w.r.t. the ether as in your diagram
at top right.
===============================================
What aether?
===============================================
If the light paths are of unequal length,
===============================================
What "if"?
The path lengths are equal, I was careful to draw them that way.
why don't
they observe a fringe shift as they change the direction of motion (by
rotating the interferometer) and the difference in path length
changes?
===============================================
They do if you change the path length. Michelson fitted a screw thread
that moves the mirror to change the path length.
(Shown top left where the red ray reflects - there are four fixed mirrors
at three locations and at the fourth location there is one adjustable
mirror
with three fixed. The adjustable mirror is beside the eyepiece.)
When Michelson got the interference set up how he wanted it he then
turned the granite block through 90 degrees (it is resting on wood which
is floating on mercury) and that makes the supposed aether wind change
direction. If there were any aether that would affect the interference
pattern,
but that doesn't happen. Conclusion: No aether wind.
No aether needed, no SR needed.
Then in 1913 Sagnac repeated it, but arranged for the whole thing to
turn at a constant rate. Because he couldn't run around he put a
photographic
plate at the eyepiece and photograph the fringe shift, thus PROVING
beyond doubt there is no aether.
It's really quite simple. Light behaves like a bullet from a gun.
So...
100 years later we have a very simple idea that is very difficult for
indoctrinated minds to understand. Ockham's razor wins again.
If you were not so insistent that light is a wave you'd see it straight
away.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
I think I misunderstood you at first. Now I know that you are arguing
that light is like an elastic bullet.
============================================
Yeah, we call them "photons".
============================================
Like Spaceman, you want to say
that light bouncing off a moving mirror changes its speed like an
elastic ball.
=============================================
More like Newton, actually. Driscoll still has a lot to learn.
=============================================
So we agree: no ether.
==============================================
Good. So that answers your question "What do the anti-relativity folk have
to say about this experiment?"
==============================================
But we disagree about the speed of light
reflected from a mirror. Right?
================================
I haven't paid attention to your view, you seem to be obsessed with waves.
================================
If so, consider what I commented to him about radar ranging. How can
radar ranging work if the speed of the returning em wave is unknown?
================================
These two waves have identical wavelengths and identical frequencies:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/waves.htm
What are their speeds?
==============================================
Still can't remember?
Go on, carry on recreating the same boring old paradoxes we've heard
a gazillion times before and give us the answer in a weeks time if you can
remember that long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:40 am Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 5:28 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 12:30 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:42 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
The contraction is just as real as the light particles
which Einstein did not win a Nobel prize for.
~The famous Lorentz transformation ensures that the velocity
of [inertially moving] light [particles] is invariant
between different inertial frames~http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle,
these experiments must yield the same values for
$\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in
all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
IOW the string neither breaks nor slacks.
See also:
4-velocity and 4-accelerationhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html
Sue...
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dono: breaks
Sue: doesn't
Androcles: <snarl
1:1 so far. (And you thought the question was too old!)
This is not a sports contest. Science shows the answer quite clearly.
Do you have a problem with the answer?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
No, I have no problem with the answer. But I think the answer can be
explained much more simply than in the Wikipedia article or in the
sci.physics.relativity FAQ paper on the Bell paradox. I will post the
simple argument next weekend.
I was at MIT a year or so after the problem appeared in the Am. J. of
Physics. I was delighted with the short paper explaining the result,
because I had bet several of my colleagues a small amount that the
paper was correct and that I could persuade them of it with a simple
argument. Somehow none of them had the time to spend to settle the
question.
It happened that the editor of the AJP was on the faculty of the
physics department and later told us that the little paper had been
greatly delayed in publication because various reviewers were arguing
among themselves whether the result was correct. It took the
authority of respected specialists in relativity theory, special and
general, to beat down the sceptics!
I had had a pet peeve about physics textbook authors using language in
describing relativity thought experiments in terms like "appears to be
shortened" and "according to observer B" and the like. I preferred
language that says straight out that the length with respect to frame
A is shorter than the length with respect to frame B. Nothing about
"appearing" or involving observers and their human frailties. The key
word in my version is "IS", in place of "appears to be."
(All of this is about what the theory of special relativity says; not
about whether it is true or not. The theory says that moving clocks
run slow and moving meter sticks are shorter. It does not say anthing
about thoughts or illusions or mere appearances.)
That was a long time ago, but the question is far from settled in the
minds of many practicing physicsts of my acquaintance with endowed
chairs in famous universities, not to mention in the minds of physics
afficianados writing confidently in newsgroups. So I think it proper
to bring up the problem from time to time for the enlightenment of
subsequent generations.
Uncle Ben
Age 78 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 12, 9:40 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 12, 5:28 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:30 pm, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:42 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:59 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
There is another thread in sci.physics.relativity entitled "Are
'observed' SR effects real?" I have trouble following the discussion,
as maybe you do too. I prefer to phrase the question in a way that to
me is much clearer.
The following thought experiment is an old problem, not original with
me, but I will not give any reference to it just yet. Just think
about it and draw your own conclusion. I'll post my explanation in
about a week.
*****************
Imagine two rocket ships at rest, one behind the other at a distance
x0, in intergalactic space. Let's tie a light string between the two
ships -- so light that it cannot affect the motion of the ships.
Let both ships be aimed at a distant galaxy that is on the line
connecting the ships. The ships synchronize watches and fire their
identical rocket engines at the same time.
Theorem: According to either classical mechanics or relativistic
mechanics, as the two ships accelerate, they keep a constant distance
between them with respect to (w.r.t.) their intial rest frames.
-------------------------------
Proof:
1) According to Newton, the position of a ship under constant
acceleration is given by x=t*t in some units. In an obvious notation,
the equations of motion are
x1 = t*t + x0,
x2 = t*t,
so
x1-x2 = x0.
2) According to Einstein, the position of a ship under constant proper
acceleration is given by x=cosh(t). The equations of motion will be
x1 = cosh(t) + x0,
x2 = cosh(t).
so
x1-x2 = x0.
QED
-------------------------------
But what about the string? When the ships are moving at almost the
speed of light, the string must have tried to contract a lot. But it
is constrained to stay at a fixed length x0. Sooner or later it will
reach its breaking point and will snap!
Do you believe this? Does the string break or not? Is the Lorentz-
Fitzgerad contraction real or not real?
The contraction is just as real as the light particles
which Einstein did not win a Nobel prize for.
~The famous Lorentz transformation ensures that the velocity
of [inertially moving] light [particles] is invariant
between different inertial frames~http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants
which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
which involve measuring the force of attraction between
two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying
wires. According to the relativity principle,
these experiments must yield the same values for
$\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames.
Thus, the speed of light must be the same in
all inertial frames. >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
IOW the string neither breaks nor slacks.
See also:
4-velocity and 4-accelerationhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node115.html
Sue...
Uncle Ben- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Dono: breaks
Sue: doesn't
Androcles: <snarl
1:1 so far. (And you thought the question was too old!)
This is not a sports contest. Science shows the answer quite clearly.
Do you have a problem with the answer?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No, I have no problem with the answer. But I think the answer can be
explained much more simply than in the Wikipedia article or in the
sci.physics.relativity FAQ paper on the Bell paradox. I will post the
simple argument next weekend.
I was at MIT a year or so after the problem appeared in the Am. J. of
Physics. I was delighted with the short paper explaining the result,
because I had bet several of my colleagues a small amount that the
paper was correct and that I could persuade them of it with a simple
argument. Somehow none of them had the time to spend to settle the
question.
It happened that the editor of the AJP was on the faculty of the
physics department and later told us that the little paper had been
greatly delayed in publication because various reviewers were arguing
among themselves whether the result was correct. It took the
authority of respected specialists in relativity theory, special and
general, to beat down the sceptics!
I had had a pet peeve about physics textbook authors using language in
describing relativity thought experiments in terms like "appears to be
shortened" and "according to observer B" and the like. I preferred
language that says straight out that the length with respect to frame
A is shorter than the length with respect to frame B. Nothing about
"appearing" or involving observers and their human frailties. The key
word in my version is "IS", in place of "appears to be."
(All of this is about what the theory of special relativity says; not
about whether it is true or not. The theory says that moving clocks
run slow and moving meter sticks are shorter. It does not say anthing
about thoughts or illusions or mere appearances.)
That was a long time ago, but the question is far from settled in the
minds of many practicing physicsts of my acquaintance with endowed
chairs in famous universities, not to mention in the minds of physics
afficianados writing confidently in newsgroups. So I think it proper
to bring up the problem from time to time for the enlightenment of
subsequent generations.
Uncle Ben
Age 78
|
I think the wiki explanation is excellent. I don't care much for the
FAQ explanation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Sue...
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 13, 12:40 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
No, I have no problem with the answer. But I think the answer can be
explained much more simply than in the Wikipedia article or in the
sci.physics.relativity FAQ paper on the Bell paradox. I will post the
simple argument next weekend.
I was at MIT a year or so after the problem appeared in the Am. J. of
Physics. I was delighted with the short paper explaining the result,
because I had bet several of my colleagues a small amount that the
paper was correct and that I could persuade them of it with a simple
argument. Somehow none of them had the time to spend to settle the
question.
It happened that the editor of the AJP was on the faculty of the
physics department and later told us that the little paper had been
greatly delayed in publication because various reviewers were arguing
among themselves whether the result was correct. It took the
authority of respected specialists in relativity theory, special and
general, to beat down the sceptics!
I had had a pet peeve about physics textbook authors using language in
describing relativity thought experiments in terms like "appears to be
shortened" and "according to observer B" and the like. I preferred
language that says straight out that the length with respect to frame
A is shorter than the length with respect to frame B. Nothing about
"appearing" or involving observers and their human frailties. The key
word in my version is "IS", in place of "appears to be."
(All of this is about what the theory of special relativity says; not
about whether it is true or not. The theory says that moving clocks
run slow and moving meter sticks are shorter. It does not say anthing
about thoughts or illusions or mere appearances.)
|
The 1905 paper may be that way but from the 1920 publication:
"The *Apparent* Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity"
With time dependent Maxwell's equations the conflict
indeed seem to be only apparent.
or
<<As *judged* from K, the clock is moving with
the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body,
the time which elapses between two strokes of the
clock is not one second, but
http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >>
http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
I don't infer black robes and white wigs from
the term *judged* but a path subject to
the finite speed of light and a pair of
eyes seems the mimimum. Clocks don't
change with inertial motion unless we
include a changing path as part of their
mechanism.
| Quote: |
That was a long time ago, but the question is far from settled in the
minds of many practicing physicsts of my acquaintance with endowed
chairs in famous universities, not to mention in the minds of physics
afficianados writing confidently in newsgroups. So I think it proper
to bring up the problem from time to time for the enlightenment of
subsequent generations.
Uncle Ben
Age 78
|
You might post back if you think the 1920 paper
better qualifies what is real, what is seen,
what is perceived and what is imaginary (sqrt -1)
compared to the paper of you criticism. (1905?)
Sue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Uncle Ben
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Are SR effects real or not? Simplified case. |
|
|
On Jul 13, 1:25 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jul 13, 12:40 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
[...]
No, I have no problem with the answer. But I think the answer can be
explained much more simply than in the Wikipedia article or in the
sci.physics.relativity FAQ paper on the Bell paradox. I will post the
simple argument next weekend.
I was at MIT a year or so after the problem appeared in the Am. J. of
Physics. I was delighted with the short paper explaining the result,
because I had bet several of my colleagues a small amount that the
paper was correct and that I could persuade them of it with a simple
argument. Somehow none of them had the time to spend to settle the
question.
It happened that the editor of the AJP was on the faculty of the
physics department and later told us that the little paper had been
greatly delayed in publication because various reviewers were arguing
among themselves whether the result was correct. It took the
authority of respected specialists in relativity theory, special and
general, to beat down the sceptics!
I had had a pet peeve about physics textbook authors using language in
describing relativity thought experiments in terms like "appears to be
shortened" and "according to observer B" and the like. I preferred
language that says straight out that the length with respect to frame
A is shorter than the length with respect to frame B. Nothing about
"appearing" or involving observers and their human frailties. The key
word in my version is "IS", in place of "appears to be."
(All of this is about what the theory of special relativity says; not
about whether it is true or not. The theory says that moving clocks
run slow and moving meter sticks are shorter. It does not say anthing
about thoughts or illusions or mere appearances.)
The 1905 paper may be that way but from the 1920 publication:
"The *Apparent* Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity"
With time dependent Maxwell's equations the conflict
indeed seem to be only apparent.
or
As *judged* from K, the clock is moving with
the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body,
the time which elapses between two strokes of the
clock is not one second, but
http://www.bartleby.com/173/M5.GIF
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/12.html
I don't infer black robes and white wigs from
the term *judged* but a path subject to
the finite speed of light and a pair of
eyes seems the mimimum. Clocks don't
change with inertial motion unless we
include a changing path as part of their
mechanism.
That was a long time ago, but the question is far from settled in the
minds of many practicing physicsts of my acquaintance with endowed
chairs in famous universities, not to mention in the minds of physics
afficianados writing confidently in newsgroups. So I think it proper
to bring up the problem from time to time for the enlightenment of
subsequent generations.
Uncle Ben
Age 78
You might post back if you think the 1920 paper
better qualifies what is real, what is seen,
what is perceived and what is imaginary (sqrt -1)
compared to the paper of you criticism. (1905?)
Sue...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Sue, I'm not interested in what Einstein said at one time or another.
I care what the theory of relativity says. I claim that given the
postulates of the theory, the usual textbook proofs of time dilation
and length contraction show what the theory implies. The theory could
be wrong and not describe reality at all (although I believe it to be
true); I just want to be clear about what the theory says. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
