Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:45:05 GMT
On 11 Jan 2006 15:58:01 -0800, "rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx"
<rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:33:38 -0000, "al"
>> <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he
>> wrote:
>>
>> >As I recall (and it's been a while) the thought experiment to prove time
>> >dilation was with a long rod with a light source and reflector at each end.
>> >The rod and attachments were travelling at relativistic speeds towards their
>> >destination end on. The light flashed at one end and was detected timed and
>> >returned by the other. In this way it was inferred that the shortening of
>> >the rod due to velocity would alter the time.
>> >If you agree with this I will continue.
>>
>> Then you may as well stop because the rod will never change length.
>
>It depends on the observer. Moving objects are foreshortened along the
>direction of movement. (However, from the point of view of the object,
>it's everything else that is moving and is foreshortened. Yes, this is
>a paradox, but it's still correct.)
And a cornerstone of relativity.
>
>The time dilation experiment is a train with a beam of light moving
>from ceiling to floor and back to the point of origin - there's a
>mirror on the floor. An observer in the train sees light moving in a
>straight line || An observer outside sees light travelling further \/
>because the target on the ceiling has moved. Since the speed of light
>is counted the same by each observer, they reach different naive
>conclusions about the time that has passed on the train. Special
>relativity means that each of their conclusions is correct.
>
Correct.
>But again, the observer on the train can watch the observer outside
>performing a similar experiment and draw the same conclusion - that the
>other guy is moving and /his/ clock is running slow. The paradox.
>
>Now if you shoot a beam of light along the axis of travel - from one
>end of the train carriage to the other - and then reflect it back
>again, the maths is different again. I suppose it's kind of like
>walking against the wind and then walking with the wind at your back -
>say you make 3 miles an hour in one direction and then 5 miles an hour
>the other direction, your average speed is not 4 mph, it's 3.75 mph.
>(60 miles is a good round number, but rather a long walk.)
Very true.
However, the point I made is 100% true - Al was wrong to claim the rod
would change length. One of our methods of testing the length - using
light as a range finder - would seem to say it has, but in fact it is
still the same length.
--
Bob.
.
- References:
- Re: C S Lewis
- From: Richard Forrest
- Re: C S Lewis
- From: al
- Re: C S Lewis
- From: VoiceOfReason
- Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: al
- Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: Dave
- Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: al
- Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: Dave
- Re: Re: C S Lewis
- From: al
- Re: C S Lewis
- From: rja.carnegie@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: C S Lewis
- Prev by Date: Re: Any Evidence for Doubting Thomas?
- Next by Date: Re: Cell division creationism
- Previous by thread: Re: C S Lewis
- Next by thread: Re: C S Lewis
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading