1 Ken Seto | Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zaterdag 15 september 2001 20:56 | |
2 Rod Ryker | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zaterdag 15 september 2001 22:29 | |
3 Eli Botkin | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 7:41 | |
4 Ken Seto | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 15:05 | |
5 Eli Botkin | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 17:34 | |
6 John Holland | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | sunday 16 september 2001 18:56 | |
7 Eli Botkin | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 19:42 | |
8 John Holland | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 20:10 | |
9 Ken Seto | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 20:58 | |
10 xxein | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | zondag 16 september 2001 23:45 | |
11 Ken Seto | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | maandag 17 september 2001 0:21 | |
12 David Evens | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | maandag 17 september 2001 1:34 | |
13 Nicolaas Vroom | Re: Is Length Contraction Physical?? | maandag 17 september 2001 15:48 |
A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front
and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and
rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and
move back to the marks on the track. Questions:
1. Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the track?
2. Will the train be longer than the distance between the marks on the
track?
3.Will the train be shorter than the distance between the marks on the
track?
What do you think?
My money is on #1. Why?
1. There is no physical length contraction due to relative motion.
2. The light path length of a stationary train in the track is shorter (is
different)
than the light path length of a moving train. SR and LET interpret
this as length contraction.
Please visit my website and click on to the section entitled "Doppler Relativity Theory" for a full description of this exciting concept. http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto
Hi Ken
> |
A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front
and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and
rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and
move back to the marks on the track. Questions: 1. Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the Track? |
Rod: Yes .
> | 2. Will the train be longer than the distance between the marks on the track? |
Rod: No .
> | 3.Will the train be shorter than the distance between the marks on the track? |
Rod: No .
The Aether is chaos , hence dynamic .
Rod Ryker
> |
What do you think?
My money is on #1. Why? Please visit my website and click on to the section entitled "Doppler Relativity Theory" for a full description of this exciting concept. http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html Ken Seto |
Ken Seto
> | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
Reply to Ken Soto:
By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer?
> |
Questions: 1. Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the track? 2. Will the train be longer than the distance between the marks on the track? 3.Will the train be shorter than the distance between the marks on the track? |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2].
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes.
Eli Botkin
> |
What do you think?
My money is on #1. Why? 1. There is no physical length contraction due to relative motion. 2. The light path length of a stationary train in the track is shorter (is different) than the light path length of a moving train. SR and LET interpret this as length contraction. Please visit my website and click on to the section entitled "Doppler Relativity Theory" for a full description of this exciting concept. http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html Ken Seto |
"Eli Botkin"
> |
Ken Seto |
> > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read??
> |
> > |
Questions: |
> |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
There is no track observer.
> |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that??
> |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target.
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
> |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > |
Ken Seto |
> > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> |
[KS] The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > |
[EB] Ken, I went back and looked at what you wrote. Your currently written statement, "The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train.", is nowhere to be found in your original statement. It is not enough to say "Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously (which is all you said there)." You have to add, specifically, in what frame it is simultaneous, regardless of whether or not a live observer is there to witness it.
So to answer your question, Yes, I can read. More to the point is: Can you think and write clearly and unambiguously?
> > > |
Questions: 1. Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the track? 2. Will the train be longer than the distance between the marks on the track? 3.Will the train be shorter than the distance between the marks on the track? |
> > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> |
[KS] There is no track observer. |
> > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
[EB] No, I'm not choosing #3. I'm saying that you didn't give enough information to make a selection. What CAN be said is that it is not #1. I choose #2 (the train is longer than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the track-fixed frame. But I choose #3 (the train is shorter than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the train-fixed frame.
So, if you intended the lightning strikes to be simultaneous in the train-fixed frame, then, yes, the correct choice would have to be #3.
> > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
As for how light moves from the source to the target, it moves at speed c, in either direction, in any inertial frame. Do you not agree?
Eli
Hi Eli Do no waste your well meant energy on this guy. He started the same thread about 6 weeks ago with exactly the same questions and answers from other people..., and it leads nowhere. Just forget it, Ceers, JH
Eli Botkin
> |
Ken Seto |
> > |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> > |
[KS] The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > > |
> |
[EB] Ken, I went back and looked at what you wrote. Your currently written statement, "The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train.", is nowhere to be found in your original statement. It is not enough to say "Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously (which is all you said there)." You have to add, specifically, in what frame it is simultaneous, regardless of whether or not a live observer is there to witness it. So to answer your question, Yes, I can read. More to the point is: Can you think and write clearly and unambiguously? |
> > > > |
Questions: |
> > > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > |
[KS] There is no track observer. |
> |
[EB] Ken, see above for my reply to this silly comment about the lack of an observer. |
> > > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the |
> > | trains |
> > > | rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> |
[EB] No, I'm not choosing #3. I'm saying that you didn't give enough information to make a selection. What CAN be said is that it is not #1. I choose #2 (the train is longer than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the track-fixed frame. But I choose #3 (the train is shorter than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the train-fixed frame. So, if you intended the lightning strikes to be simultaneous in the train-fixed frame, then, yes, the correct choice would have to be #3. |
> > > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> > |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
> |
[EB] Ken, It's becoming abundantly clear that this is a very difficult concept for you. I'm sorry. I would much prefer to see you in an enlightened state. You keep leaving out the crucial part your simultaneity statement, In what frame is it simultaneous? I must therefore believe that you think that if two events (like lightning strikes) are simultaneous in one frame, then they are simultaneous in all frames (including the track-fixed AND the train-fixed frames). That's Galilean (Newtonian) theory. As for how light moves from the source to the target, it moves at speed c, in either direction, in any inertial frame. Do you not agree? Eli |
Hi John - Thanks for your good sentiments. I've seen Ken Seto's posts for some time now and I don't really have any hope of setting him straight. I continue to comment on his posts only because there may be some well intentioned novice reading this stuff with the hope of learning something about SR. I don't want them to think that Ken's words on SR have any contact with reality.
EB
John Holland
> |
Hi Eli
Do no waste your well meant energy on this guy. He started the same thread
about 6 weeks ago with exactly the same questions and answers from other
people..., and it leads nowhere. Just forget it,
Ceers,
JH
Eli Botkin |
> > |
Ken Seto |
> > > |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > > > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> > > |
[KS] The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > > > |
> > |
[EB] Ken, I went back and looked at what you wrote. Your currently written statement, "The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train.", is nowhere to be found in your original statement. It is not enough to say "Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously (which is all you said there)."You have to add, specifically, in what frame it is simultaneous, regardless of whether or not a live observer is there to witness it. So to answer your question, Yes, I can read. More to the point is: Can you think and write clearly and unambiguously? |
> > > > > |
Questions: |
> > > > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > > |
[KS] There is no track observer. |
> > |
[EB] Ken, see above for my reply to this silly comment about the lack of an observer. |
> > > > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > > |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> > |
[EB] No, I'm not choosing #3. I'm saying that you didn't give enough information to make a selection. What CAN be said is that it is not #1. I choose #2 (the train is longer than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the track-fixed frame. But I choose #3 (the train is shorter than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the train-fixed frame. So, if you intended the lightning strikes to be simultaneous in the train-fixed frame, then, yes, the correct choice would have to be #3. |
> > > > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> > > |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
> > |
[EB] Ken, It's becoming abundantly clear that this is a very difficult concept for you. I'm sorry. I would much prefer to see you in an enlightened state. You keep leaving out the crucial part your simultaneity statement, In what frame is it simultaneous? I must therefore believe that you think that if two events (like lightning strikes) are simultaneous in one frame, then they are simultaneous in all frames (including the track-fixed AND the train-fixed frames). That's Galilean (Newtonian) theory. As for how light moves from the source to the target, it moves at speed c, in either direction, in any inertial frame. Do you not agree? Eli |
> |
I understand your good intentions, Cheers, JH
Eli Botkin
> |
Hi John - Thanks for your good sentiments. I've seen Ken Seto's posts for
some time now and I don't really have any hope of setting him straight. I
continue to comment on his posts only because there may be some well
intentioned novice reading this stuff with the hope of learning something
about SR. I don't want them to think that Ken's words on SR have any
contact with reality.
EB
John Holland |
> > |
Hi Eli
Do no waste your well meant energy on this guy. He started the same thread
about 6 weeks ago with exactly the same questions and answers from other
people..., and it leads nowhere. Just forget it,
Ceers,
JH
Eli Botkin |
> > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > > > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > > > > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> > > > |
[KS] The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > > > > |
> > > |
[EB] Ken, I went back and looked at what you wrote. Your currently written statement, "The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train.", is nowhere to be found in your original statement. It is not enough to say "Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously (which is all you said there)." You have to add, specifically, in what frame it is simultaneous, regardless of whether or not a live observer is there to witness it. So to answer your question, Yes, I can read. More to the point is: Can you think and write clearly and unambiguously? |
> > > > > > |
Questions: |
> > > > > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > > > |
[KS] There is no track observer. |
> > > |
[EB] Ken, see above for my reply to this silly comment about the lack of an observer. |
> > > > > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > > > |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> > > |
[EB] No, I'm not choosing #3. I'm saying that you didn't give enough information to make a selection. What CAN be said is that it is not #1. I choose #2 (the train is longer than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the track-fixed frame. But I choose #3 (the train is shorter than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the train-fixed frame. So, if you intended the lightning strikes to be simultaneous in the train-fixed frame, then, yes, the correct choice would have to be #3. |
> > > > > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> > > > |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
> > > |
[EB] Ken, It's becoming abundantly clear that this is a very difficult concept for you. I'm sorry. I would much prefer to see you in an enlightened state. You keep leaving out the crucial part your simultaneity statement, In what frame is it simultaneous? I must therefore believe that you think that if two events (like lightning strikes) are simultaneous in one frame, then they are simultaneous in all frames (including the track-fixed AND the train-fixed frames). That's Galilean (Newtonian) theory. As for how light moves from the source to the target, it moves at speed c, in either direction, in any inertial frame. Do you not agree? Eli |
> > |
> |
"Eli Botkin"
> |
Ken Seto |
> > |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> > |
[KS] The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > > |
> |
[EB] Ken, I went back and looked at what you wrote. Your currently written statement, "The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train.", is nowhere to be found in your original statement. It is not enough to say "Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously (which is all you said there)." You have to add, specifically, in what frame it is simultaneous, regardless of whether or not a live observer is there to witness it. |
So you are saying that lightnings strkie the front and rear of the train simultaneously is not the same as lighnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. OK I'll go along with that. Since I already clarified that why are you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again?
> > > > |
Questions: 1. Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the Track? 2. Will the train be longer than the distance between the marks on the Track? 3.Will the train be shorter than the distance between the marks on the track? |
> > > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > |
[KS] There is no track observer. |
> |
[EB] Ken, see above for my reply to this silly comment about the lack of an observer. |
There is no need for a track observer. The marks on the train are very close to the marks on the track ....perhaps 1mm apart in the verticle direction. So if the lightnings strike simultaneously in the train frame they will also stike simultaneously in the track frame.
> > > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> |
[EB] No, I'm not choosing #3. |
But you said later that you were choosing #3. So are you saying that you only want #3 when you wanted it??
> | I'm saying that you didn't give enough information to make a selection. |
Even if I said that the lightning strkie simultaneously in the frame of theww train?
What CAN be said is that it is not #1.
This conclusion is contradicting the SR conclusion that there is no physical length contraction or expansion.
> | I choose #2 (the train is longer than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the track-fixed frame. But I choose #3 (the train is shorter than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the train-fixed frame. |
These conclusions are based on the assumption that Relativity of Simultaneity is correct. Since it isn't these conc;usion are wrong.
> |
So, if you intended the lightning strikes to be simultaneous in the train-fixed frame, then, yes, the correct choice would have to be #3. |
The gedanken is set up so that the lightning strkie the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. But the marks on the track are so close to the train marks we can also claim that the lighnings strike the track simultaneously. Even if there is a track observer he can't use the erroneous notion that he can see the train observer move relative to light. In real life, it doen't matter how the track observer sees the train observer moves he will always conclude that it takes the same transit time in all directions for light to traverse an equal distance in the train.. Therefore he sees the same simultaneity as the train observer.
> |
> > > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> > |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
> |
[EB] Ken, It's becoming abundantly clear that this is a very difficult concept for you. |
Wrong it is not difficult at all. It is wrong. That's why I am not accepting it.
> | I'm sorry. I would much prefer to see you in an enlightened state. You keep leaving out the crucial part your simultaneity statement, In what frame is it simultaneous? |
Right here is your problem. You wanted me to accept RoS right from the start. You wanted me to say that if it is simultaneous in one frame it is not simultaneous in another frame. Whereas I demonstrated to you that based on the idea that all the processes involving light are Lorentz Invariant----including simultaneity. To summarize: RoS is based on a circular assumption. In other words, you have to assume that RoS is true then it follows that RoS is true. Is that science? With my concept: Simultaneity is Lorentz Invariant and this statement is based on the SR postulates.
> | I must therefore believe that you think that if two events (like lightning strikes) are simultaneous in one frame, then they are simultaneous in all frames (including the track-fixed AND the train-fixed frames). That's Galilean (Newtonian) theory. |
You got it the other way around. RoS is based on Galilean Relativity and my interpretation is based on the SR postulate and Lorentz Invariant.
> |
As for how light moves from the source to the target, it moves at speed c, in either direction, in any inertial frame. Do you not agree? |
Yes but you miss one important point: Your claim that the track observer sees light takes different transit times to reach the train observer is dead wrong.
Ken Seto
"Ken Seto"
> |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > |
Ken Seto |
> > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> |
The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > |
> > > |
Questions: |
> > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> |
There is no track observer. |
> > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
I understand your question. Ken, you seem to be an etherist (or something like that) just as I am (or something like that).
First, do you have a proof or motivational factor that will preclude physical length contraction in the direction of travel? If you do, then compare it with how you think a lightclock works. Then compare that with how a lightclock must work so that we don't see unknown gaps in our observation. Iow, the universe appears to be physically seamless (dx/dt). Work out the physical before the proclamation of a theory.
What I just said is not only to you, but to SR and GR. It has long been recognized that any renormalization procedure should not be a part of physical theory (the theory is incomplete or dependent). This means that renormalization is no answer to paradox. Rather, it is the attempt to get around it that may satisfy some math (or poorly understood (dx/dt)observations), but not reality.
Please study a lightclock for at least 6 mos. Put it in your pocket and carry it whenever and wherever. When you finally decide how it has to work, then post a theory.
Second, this whole matter seems not unlike religion. You can rationalize any scenario, but compare how you prove. If it is the same, then we are in a world of doodoo. It looks like we are going to have enough of god.soc.eco.pol. without what we hold for sci.
My opinion is that we have forgotten science in favor of abstractions. That is that we intermix disciplines more than is warranted or realized. It is reality vs. observation vs. neurons vs. imprinting vs behavior vs. how we make laws (rel., sci., soc., etc.). What a mess with that conflicting logic!
But still, without direction, we would be a mass of doodoo. How many people do you think can understand science, a pure science that describes Alsheimer's, cancer, etc.? Who is your leader? Is he untainted? We have a long way to go. Perhaps after WWIII we will get another chance! How many chances do we have, anyway?
If you want to recognize brilliance, then look to Osama Ben Ladin (spelling?). Can such brilliance be wrong? Of course! Let him get ahold of publishing physics books. Would they necessarily be wrong?
That depends, doesn't it?
Well have a nice war anyway, xxein
I have no idea what youn are talking about. In any case I did think about the light clock a lot. In fact, I wrote an article in the peer-review journal "Galilean Electrodynamics" on this subject. The title of the article is: "A New Concept for the Propagation of Light"--- Sept/Oct, 1998 issue
Ken Seto
"xxein"
> |
"Ken Seto" |
> > |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> > |
The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > > |
> > > > |
Questions: |
> > > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > |
There is no track observer. |
> > > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> > > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> > |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
> |
I understand your question. Ken, you seem to be an etherist (or something like that) just as I am (or something like that). First, do you have a proof or motivational factor that will preclude physical length contraction in the direction of travel? If you do, then compare it with how you think a lightclock works. Then compare that with how a lightclock must work so that we don't see unknown gaps in our observation. Iow, the universe appears to be physically seamless (dx/dt). Work out the physical before the proclamation of a theory. What I just said is not only to you, but to SR and GR. It has long been recognized that any renormalization procedure should not be a part of physical theory (the theory is incomplete or dependent). This means that renormalization is no answer to paradox. Rather, it is the attempt to get around it that may satisfy some math (or poorly understood (dx/dt)observations), but not reality. Please study a lightclock for at least 6 mos. Put it in your pocket and carry it whenever and wherever. When you finally decide how it has to work, then post a theory. Second, this whole matter seems not unlike religion. You can rationalize any scenario, but compare how you prove. If it is the same, then we are in a world of doodoo. It looks like we are going to have enough of god.soc.eco.pol. without what we hold for sci. My opinion is that we have forgotten science in favor of abstractions. That is that we intermix disciplines more than is warranted or realized. It is reality vs. observation vs. neurons vs. imprinting vs behavior vs. how we make laws (rel., sci., soc., etc.). What a mess with that conflicting logic! But still, without direction, we would be a mass of doodoo. How many people do you think can understand science, a pure science that describes Alsheimer's, cancer, etc.? Who is your leader? Is he untainted? We have a long way to go. Perhaps after WWIII we will get another chance! How many chances do we have, anyway? If you want to recognize brilliance, then look to Osama Ben Ladin (spelling?). Can such brilliance be wrong? Of course! Let him get ahold of publishing physics books. Would they necessarily be wrong? That depends, doesn't it? Well have a nice war anyway, xxein |
On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:56:50 +0200, "John Holland"
> | Hi Eli Do no waste your well meant energy on this guy. He started the same thread about 6 weeks ago with exactly the same questions and answers from other people..., and it leads nowhere. Just forget it, Ceers, |
Not so fast, John. The last go-round of this, Ken pretended that SR led to prediction #1, not #3. After being humiliated about that for a while, he rewrote the spam file to say they both predict #3.
> |
Eli Botkin |
> > |
Ken Seto |
> > > |
"Eli Botkin" |
> > > > |
Ken Seto |
> > > > > | A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and move back to the marks on the track. |
> > > > |
Reply to Ken Soto: By this time in your career, Ken, you should know that you need to state for whom the front and rear lightning strike is simultaneous. Is it the track-fixed or the train-fixed observer? |
> > > |
[KS] The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train. Can't you read?? |
> > > > |
> > |
[EB] Ken, I went back and looked at what you wrote. Your currently written statement, "The lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously in the frame of the train.", is nowhere to be found in your original statement. It is not enough to say "Lightnings strike the front and rear of the train simultaneously (which is all you said there)." You have to add, specifically, in what frame it is simultaneous, regardless of whether or not a live observer is there to witness it. So to answer your question, Yes, I can read. More to the point is: Can you think and write clearly and unambiguously? |
> > > > > |
Questions: |
> > > > |
[EB] Assume it is simultaneous for the track-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L*sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > > |
[KS] There is no track observer. |
> > |
[EB] Ken, see above for my reply to this silly comment about the lack of an observer. |
> > > > |
Assume it is simultaneous for the train-fixed observer. Then if the trains rest length is L, the marks on the track will be separated by L/sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. |
> > > |
So you are choosing #3 ---right? Of course this means that length explansion (or length contraction) is physical. The problem with this interpretation is that it violate the basic assumption of SRT...which is: that in SR the length contraction or expansion is not physical but only geometrical (or apparent). So how do you explain that?? |
> > |
[EB] No, I'm not choosing #3. I'm saying that you didn't give enough information to make a selection. What CAN be said is that it is not #1. I choose #2 (the train is longer than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the track-fixed frame. But I choose #3 (the train is shorter than the distance between the marks on the track) if you tell me that the simultaneity is in the train-fixed frame. So, if you intended the lightning strikes to be simultaneous in the train-fixed frame, then, yes, the correct choice would have to be #3. |
> > > > |
So either way, the train at rest will not match, in length, the marks on the track. It has nothing to do with "physical" contraction. It is simply due to the timing of the lightning strikes. |
> > > |
It has everything to do with physical contraction or expansion. The lightnings strike the train _AND _the track simultaneously. Here you are trying to use your naive and erroneous knowledge how light move from the source to the target. Ken Seto |
> > |
[EB] Ken, It's becoming abundantly clear that this is a very difficult concept for you. I'm sorry. I would much prefer to see you in an enlightened state. You keep leaving out the crucial part your simultaneity statement, In what frame is it simultaneous? I must therefore believe that you think that if two events (like lightning strikes) are simultaneous in one frame, then they are simultaneous in all frames (including the track-fixed AND the train-fixed frames). That's Galilean (Newtonian) theory. As for how light moves from the source to the target, it moves at speed c, in either direction, in any inertial frame. Do you not agree? Eli |
> |
Ken Seto
> |
A train is moving at a very high speed. Lightnings strike the front
and rear of the train simultaneously leaving marks on the front and
rear of the train as well as on the track. The train is stopped and
move back to the marks on the track. Questions: 1. Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the track? 2. Will the train be longer than the distance between the marks on the track? 3.Will the train be shorter than the distance between the marks on the track? |
A train with a long length is moving at a certain speed v. Lightnings strikes the track simultaneous (for an observer near the track) leaving two track marks. The observer is also at equal distance with those two track marks. This same lightning also strikes the train leaving two train marks. The train is stopped and moves back to the marks on the track.
Question: Will the marks on the train fit into the marks on the track?
IMO the answer will be no and the actual distance of the two train marks is a function f of the speed v = f(v)
I doubt however that such an experiment can actual be performed
My next question would be what is the closest experiment that actual proves f(v)
Back to my home page Contents of This Document