Re: OT Speed of light stuff - was Pluto.


"Kevin W. Miller" <i09172strudelyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:r8ednXdieeOOIUrenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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

The issue could become more complicated by the fact that the speed of light
is *independent of the source*. (not related to the emitter)

Max


.

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. ... in a stopped train, for example, and looked out the window and saw another ... You could try dropping a ball but it ...
    (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