Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.

In news:43pfarF1othiiU3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Lon VanOstran <RVnFT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> bill horne wrote:
>
>> Kevin W. Miller wrote:
>>
>>> BwaaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>>>
>>> Oh, GOD! That was the funniest thing I've read in ages! Oh, crap.
>>> Thanks. No wonder you have trouble with Darwin.
>>>
>>> To quote Mr. Lampson, "HAW HAW HAW"!
>>>
>>> Kevin W. Miller
>>
>>
>> A week or so ago I was Cloroxing my roof. At the time of what
>> promises to become an historical event in the field of
>> pseudoscience, I was about 12 feet off the ground. I had a minor
>> stumble, and the recovery maneuvers included an approximately 4"
>> vertical jump. Using Sill Physics, this was a 12' 4" jump, and
>> conclusively disproves the theory that white men can't jump.
>>
>
> Maybe I'm as "illogical" as Will. His explanation seemed sensible to
> me. Here on earth, we measure speed relative to earth, which is moving
> pretty fast as it circles the sun. It would seem that if we employ the
> movement of earth as it circles the sun, we could fire rockets into
> space, with greater speed and less rocket boost than if we fired them
> counter to the movement of the earth around the sun. Their speed,
> while not changing, would be different relative the the speed of
> various other objects in space, just as you can pass a vehicle coming
> toward you much more quickly than you can pass one going away from
> you.
> In space, when we measure speed, what are we comparing it to, since
> everything in space is moving?
>
> Lon

We are, usually, measuring it in miles per hour (could be kilometers,
parsecs, light years etc). That means the number of miles traveled each
hour. It has nothing to do with the motion of the Earth around the Sun or
the motion of the Sun around the Galaxy. It's the number of miles the object
travels each hour. That seems very simple. I think where poor Will, and
apparently some others, gets confused is with the word "relativity".

The way "relativity" is usually explained is by example. If you were sitting
in a stopped train, for example, and looked out the window and saw another
train passing, you would not be able to tell whether it's the other train
moving by you or you moving by the other train (assuming you could ignore
the lack of sound and vibration as clues to your own movement and all you
could see out the window was the other train). It would look the same
whether it was you moving and the other train stopped or vice versa. There
is no experiment you could perform that would tell you whether it was your
train moving or the other train moving. You could try dropping a ball but it
would appear to you to drop straight down. You could toss the ball forward
but it would appear to follow exactly the arc you would expect it to follow.
You could toss the ball to the rear and it would again follow exactly the
arc you would expect it to follow. And it would appear to you to do that no
matter what your own speed.

Now let's pretend that you could see the fellow in the other train drop the
ball and could watch it as it hit. Because of the motion of the other train
(or yours, since you can't tell which one is moving), it would appear to you
that the dropped ball did not drop straight down but actually dropped at an
angle. The same for a ball tossed by the other fellow toward the front or
back of his train. It would appear to you that the arc of the ball was
either stretched or shortened depending upon the direction of the tossed
ball. The other observer, watching you perform with the ball, would see the
same effects. Neither of you would be able to tell which is moving
"relative" to the other. If both trains were each moving towards the other
near light speed, as the other passed it would appear to you as though the
other were moving at near twice the speed of light (or that the other was
stopped and you were moving at near twice the speed of light) but it's still
only an appearance. Each would still cover the same amount of distance in
the same amount of time. The effect isn't additive. No matter what the "two
bullet" theory says.

Kevin W. Miller


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.
    ... Here on earth, we measure speed relative to earth, which is moving pretty fast as it circles the sun. ... It would seem that if we employ the movement of earth as it circles the sun, we could fire rockets into space, with greater speed and less rocket boost than if we fired them counter to the movement of the earth around the sun. ... and saw another train passing, you would not be able to tell whether ... You could try dropping a ball but it ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.
    ... Here on earth, we measure speed relative to earth, which is moving ... >> pretty fast as it circles the sun. ... > sitting in a stopped train, for example, and looked out the window and saw ... > dropping a ball but it would appear to you to drop straight down. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.
    ... Sue... ... why raindrops viewed from a moving car don't take ... Why can't we see light moving from the sun to the ... But in the train example, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.
    ... That means the number of miles traveled ... >> and saw another train passing, you would not be able to tell whether ... >> it's the other train moving by you or you moving by the other train ... You could try dropping a ball but it would ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Questions (Space)
    ... sun and the sun moving in the galaxy. ... moving around on the surface of the Earth, ... Reminds me of some funny idea someone had while sitting in a train. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
Loading