It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
Joe Gwinn
On 5/15/2022 0:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
Joe Gwinn
And it explains why clocks at the equator and on the poles run
the same without involving gravity.
On 15/05/2022 12:05, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 5/15/2022 0:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
Joe Gwinn
And it explains why clocks at the equator and on the poles run
the same without involving gravity.
Actually they don't.
One of Einstein's minor errors in his 1905 paper on special relativity
was to predict how much slower a clock at the equator would tick when compared to one at the pole (due to the extra rotational speed of a
clock at the equator). Every now and then someone points it out... eg
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1897562#
They only run at the same speed when *both* the GR and SR corrections
are applied simultaneously and only then at mean sea level.
It is hard to get your head round but everybody's clock ticks at a
different speed. Your head ages marginally more quickly than your feet.
The best clocks in the world at NIST are now sensitive and stable enough
to detect a vertical shift of about 30cm or a foot in old money.
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
This isn't a bad introduction by Brian Cox for BBC science series.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000x9v4/brian-coxs-adventures-in-space-and-time-series-1-4-what-is-time
(you might have to spoof a UK address to see it)
I have been digging into physics just as much as it takes to do what I
do so me being naive with that sort of thing is no surprise. I am
vaguely aware of what your references say, I think I may have read some
of these some time ago.
What I don't get though is the flashing light on the train thing.
Looks obvious to me that the observed period depends on the movement direction (assuming gravity is constant, i.e. it is no factor).
In fact this should be easily measurable (not that I would go into
it, just wondering if you or someone else has an explanation, I am
not the "out there to challenge the science" type, more the "curious
until things get clarified for me" sort).
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C in relation
to each other, <snip>
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example <http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the Twins Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their time to the other
twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the speed of light). Even
allowing for the travelling twin's speed when approaching the speed of
light, and the relativistic effect it has on each clock's perceived
time, as the travelling twin's speed doesn't exceed that speed, each
twin will, eventually, receive the clock time of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C in relation
to each other, although they can receive the stationary triplet's clock reading (and he can receive theirs), can one moving triplet still
receive the other moving triplet's clock signal? If there is such a
moment when they can no longer receive each other's signal, when they
finally stop moving away and start moving towards each other again, will there be a moment when they suddenly start receiving that "missing"
clock signal as they catch up with it (or perhaps it catches up with
them)? Will there be a specific moment when they not only receive a
missing clock time, but coincidentally receive the "accurate" time as transmitted by the other moving triplet, so appear to be receiving two different clock readings at the same time?
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel
explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example
<http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the
Twins Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their time
to the other twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the speed of
light). Even allowing for the travelling twin's speed when
approaching the speed of light, and the relativistic effect it has
on each clock's perceived time, as the travelling twin's speed
doesn't exceed that speed, each twin will, eventually, receive the
clock time of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets
are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C
in relation to each other, although they can receive the stationary
triplet's clock reading (and he can receive theirs), can one
moving triplet still receive the other moving triplet's clock
signal? If there is such a moment when they can no longer receive
each other's signal, when they finally stop moving away and start
moving towards each other again, will there be a moment when they
suddenly start receiving that "missing" clock signal as they catch
up with it (or perhaps it catches up with them)? Will there be a
specific moment when they not only receive a missing clock time,
but coincidentally receive the "accurate" time as transmitted by
the other moving triplet, so appear to be receiving two different
clock readings at the same time?
If you shine your laser pointer at two points 180 degrees apart in
the sky, the relative speed of the light pulses in your frame of
reference is 2c. No paradox is involved.
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Say you have a 1927 Bugatti Type 41, which is 252 inches long. Your
garage is the standard 20 feed (240 inches) long, and has a very
fast automatically-controlled door at each end. The doors are
designed to open and close automatically to allow the car to enter
and leave.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end of the
garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed
door opens before the back bumper has passed through the doorway. No
collision occurs, because the second door opens before the first one
closes.
Your spouse, waiting for you to come home from your drive, measures
the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door closes
before the second door opens. Once again no collision occurs,
because the car is shorter than the garage.
The math works out fine in both English and metric, and no paradoxes
are involved.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On 16/05/2022 14:38, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
I have been digging into physics just as much as it takes to do what I
do so me being naive with that sort of thing is no surprise. I am
vaguely aware of what your references say, I think I may have read some
of these some time ago.
What I don't get though is the flashing light on the train thing.
Looks obvious to me that the observed period depends on the movement
direction (assuming gravity is constant, i.e. it is no factor).
The bit you are missing is that to be able to meaningfully compare times between two different moving objects they *have* to be at the same
location. That means a round trip back to the stay at home.
In fact this should be easily measurable (not that I would go into
it, just wondering if you or someone else has an explanation, I am
not the "out there to challenge the science" type, more the "curious
until things get clarified for me" sort).
One of the classic illustrations is to draw a world lines diagram for
bleep who stays put and booster who goes off at 4c/5 (3,4,5 triangle).
This illustration says it more clearly than words ever can. It was a
diagram of this sort that convinced me to give up on common sense where relativity was concerned and trust the mathematics.
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Faapt.scitation.org%2Fdoi%2F10.1119%2F1.4947152&psig=AOvVaw2kQVy1xGR-cIehmwjR9R5y&ust=1652796475815000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAkQjRxqFwoTCLialeiY5PcCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE>
It points to this article (behind a paywall:( ) https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4947152
Be a miracle if that works so Google keywords
"world lines signal twin paradox illustration"
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example
<http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the Twins
Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their time to the
other twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the speed of light).
Even allowing for the travelling twin's speed when approaching the
speed of light, and the relativistic effect it has on each clock's
perceived time, as the travelling twin's speed doesn't exceed that
speed, each twin will, eventually, receive the clock time of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets
are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C in
relation to each other, although they can receive the stationary
triplet's clock reading (and he can receive theirs), can one moving
triplet still receive the other moving triplet's clock signal? If
there is such a moment when they can no longer receive each other's
signal, when they finally stop moving away and start moving towards
each other again, will there be a moment when they suddenly start
receiving that "missing" clock signal as they catch up with it (or
perhaps it catches up with them)? Will there be a specific moment when
they not only receive a missing clock time, but coincidentally receive
the "accurate" time as transmitted by the other moving triplet, so
appear to be receiving two different clock readings at the same time?
If you shine your laser pointer at two points 180 degrees apart in the
sky, the relative speed of the light pulses in your frame of reference
is 2c. No paradox is involved.
On 5/16/22 07:18, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel
explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example
<http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the
Twins Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their
time to the other twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the
speed of light). Even allowing for the travelling twin's speed
when approaching the speed of light, and the relativistic effect
it has on each clock's perceived time, as the travelling twin's
speed doesn't exceed that speed, each twin will, eventually,
receive the clock time of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving
triplets are accelerating away from each other? Once they've
"exceeded" C in relation to each other, although they can receive
the stationary triplet's clock reading (and he can receive
theirs), can one moving triplet still receive the other moving
triplet's clock signal? If there is such a moment when they can
no longer receive each other's signal, when they finally stop
moving away and start moving towards each other again, will there
be a moment when they suddenly start receiving that "missing"
clock signal as they catch up with it (or perhaps it catches up
with them)? Will there be a specific moment when they not only
receive a missing clock time, but coincidentally receive the
"accurate" time as transmitted by the other moving triplet, so
appear to be receiving two different clock readings at the same
time?
If you shine your laser pointer at two points 180 degrees apart in
the sky, the relative speed of the light pulses in your frame of
reference is 2c. No paradox is involved.
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Say you have a 1927 Bugatti Type 41, which is 252 inches long.
Your garage is the standard 20 feed (240 inches) long, and has a
very fast automatically-controlled door at each end. The doors
are designed to open and close automatically to allow the car to
enter and leave.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end of
the garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed
door opens before the back bumper has passed through the doorway.
No collision occurs, because the second door opens before the first
one closes.
Your spouse, waiting for you to come home from your drive,
measures the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door
closes before the second door opens. Once again no collision
occurs, because the car is shorter than the garage.
The math works out fine in both English and metric, and no
paradoxes are involved.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
But, but... the bottom of the tires are in contact with the garage
floor. Shouldn't that anchor the Bugatti and garage into the same
frame?
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Say you have a 1927 Bugatti Type 41, which is 252 inches long.
Your garage is the standard 20 feed (240 inches) long, and has a
very fast automatically-controlled door at each end. The doors
are designed to open and close automatically to allow the car to
enter and leave.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end
of the garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed
door opens before the back bumper has passed through the
doorway. No collision occurs, because the second door opens
before the first one closes.
Your spouse, waiting for you to come home from your drive,
measures the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door
closes before the second door opens. Once again no collision
occurs, because the car is shorter than the garage.
The math works out fine in both English and metric, and no
paradoxes are involved.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
But, but... the bottom of the tires are in contact with the garage
floor. Shouldn't that anchor the Bugatti and garage into the same
frame?
And the pistons are going up and down pretty good too. ;)
Just stick with the front and rear bumpers for present purposes.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
then the closed door opens before the back bumper has passed through the doorway. No collision occurs
On 17/5/22 12:18 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
then the closed door opens before the back bumper has passed through
the doorway. No collision occurs
Umm, sorry? "before"? Is that a slip? Did you mean "as the back bumper
passes through the doorway?
Very cool illustration BTW. I want to use it, but want to make sure I
have it correct first.
Clifford Heath.
On 5/16/22 13:26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Say you have a 1927 Bugatti Type 41, which is 252 inches long. Your
garage is the standard 20 feed (240 inches) long, and has a very
fast automatically-controlled door at each end. The doors are
designed to open and close automatically to allow the car to enter
and leave.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end
of the garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed
door opens before the back bumper has passed through the
doorway. No collision occurs, because the second door opens
before the first one closes.
Your spouse, waiting for you to come home from your drive, measures
the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door closes
before the second door opens. Once again no collision occurs,
because the car is shorter than the garage.
The math works out fine in both English and metric, and no paradoxes
are involved.
But, but... the bottom of the tires are in contact with the garage
floor. Shouldn't that anchor the Bugatti and garage into the same
frame?
And the pistons are going up and down pretty good too. ;)
Just stick with the front and rear bumpers for present purposes.
Now I want to tweak the car and garage lengths, and the speed, so that
the car goes thru unscathed in one frame but gets smashed in the other.
Is it possible?
I have been digging into physics just as much as it takes to do what I
do so me being naive with that sort of thing is no surprise. I am
vaguely aware of what your references say, I think I may have read some
of these some time ago.
What I don't get though is the flashing light on the train thing.
Looks obvious to me that the observed period depends on the movement direction (assuming gravity is constant, i.e. it is no factor).
In fact this should be easily measurable (not that I would go into
it, just wondering if you or someone else has an explanation, I am
not the "out there to challenge the science" type, more the "curious
until things get clarified for me" sort).
Clifford Heath wrote:
On 17/5/22 12:18 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
then the closed door opens before the back bumper has passed through
the doorway. No collision occurs
Umm, sorry? "before"? Is that a slip? Did you mean "as the back bumper
passes through the doorway?
No, the point is that seen from a point in the car's reference frame,
the events happen *in a different order* from what you'd see in the
garage's frame.
Very cool illustration BTW. I want to use it, but want to make sure I
have it correct first.
Clifford Heath.
I picked the Bugatti because I'm a fan,
On 17/5/22 9:42 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Clifford Heath wrote:
On 17/5/22 12:18 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
then the closed door opens before the back bumper has passed through
the doorway. No collision occurs
Umm, sorry? "before"? Is that a slip? Did you mean "as the back
bumper passes through the doorway?
No, the point is that seen from a point in the car's reference frame,
the events happen *in a different order* from what you'd see in the
garage's frame.
Oh ok, I get it.
Very cool illustration BTW. I want to use it, but want to make sure I
have it correct first.
Clifford Heath.
I picked the Bugatti because I'm a fan,
My grandfather had a Type 40 for a while - it's now restored and living
in a garage 15km from here. But his really interesting car that I'd like
to find more about was a Lea-Francis "Hyper" - the first supercharged
British production car. He used to race that at the Albert Park track
and the Philip Island track, which are both current or previous F1
tracks. I don't think he ever entered F1, but I have a number of photos
he took while flag marshalling at Phillip Island in 1933.
Clifford Heath.
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
Joe Gwinn
On 5/15/2022 0:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
Joe Gwinn
And it explains why clocks at the equator and on the poles run
the same without involving gravity.
Actually they don't.
One of Einstein's minor errors in his 1905 paper on special relativity was >>to predict how much slower a clock at the equator would tick when compared >>to one at the pole (due to the extra rotational speed of a clock at the >>equator). Every now and then someone points it out... eg
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1897562#
They only run at the same speed when *both* the GR and SR corrections are >>applied simultaneously and only then at mean sea level.
It is hard to get your head round but everybody's clock ticks at a >>different speed. Your head ages marginally more quickly than your feet.
On 2022/05/16 7:18 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations: >>>>
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example
<http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the
Twins Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their time to
the other twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the speed of
light). Even allowing for the travelling twin's speed when
approaching the speed of light, and the relativistic effect it has on
each clock's perceived time, as the travelling twin's speed doesn't
exceed that speed, each twin will, eventually, receive the clock time
of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets
are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C in
relation to each other, although they can receive the stationary
triplet's clock reading (and he can receive theirs), can one moving
triplet still receive the other moving triplet's clock signal? If
there is such a moment when they can no longer receive each other's
signal, when they finally stop moving away and start moving towards
each other again, will there be a moment when they suddenly start
receiving that "missing" clock signal as they catch up with it (or
perhaps it catches up with them)? Will there be a specific moment
when they not only receive a missing clock time, but coincidentally
receive the "accurate" time as transmitted by the other moving
triplet, so appear to be receiving two different clock readings at
the same time?
If you shine your laser pointer at two points 180 degrees apart in the
sky, the relative speed of the light pulses in your frame of reference
is 2c. No paradox is involved.
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Say you have a 1927 Bugatti Type 41, which is 252 inches long. Your
garage is the standard 20 feed (240 inches) long, and has a very fast
automatically-controlled door at each end. The doors are designed to
open and close automatically to allow the car to enter and leave.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end of the
garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed door
opens before the back bumper has passed through the doorway. No
collision occurs, because the second door opens before the first one
closes.
Your spouse, waiting for you to come home from your drive, measures
the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door closes
before the second door opens. Once again no collision occurs, because
the car is shorter than the garage.
The math works out fine in both English and metric, and no paradoxes
are involved.
How fast do the doors have to rise or close to clear the car...this
seems to be getting annoying close to the speed of light.
Pretty sure my garage door would warp if I ran it that fast! (ducking)
On 2022/05/16 7:18 a.m., Phil Hobbs wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations: >>>>
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example
<http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the
Twins Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their time to
the other twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the speed of
light). Even allowing for the travelling twin's speed when
approaching the speed of light, and the relativistic effect it has on
each clock's perceived time, as the travelling twin's speed doesn't
exceed that speed, each twin will, eventually, receive the clock time
of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets
are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C in
relation to each other, although they can receive the stationary
triplet's clock reading (and he can receive theirs), can one moving
triplet still receive the other moving triplet's clock signal? If
there is such a moment when they can no longer receive each other's
signal, when they finally stop moving away and start moving towards
each other again, will there be a moment when they suddenly start
receiving that "missing" clock signal as they catch up with it (or
perhaps it catches up with them)? Will there be a specific moment
when they not only receive a missing clock time, but coincidentally
receive the "accurate" time as transmitted by the other moving
triplet, so appear to be receiving two different clock readings at
the same time?
If you shine your laser pointer at two points 180 degrees apart in the
sky, the relative speed of the light pulses in your frame of reference
is 2c. No paradox is involved.
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Say you have a 1927 Bugatti Type 41, which is 252 inches long. Your
garage is the standard 20 feed (240 inches) long, and has a very fast
automatically-controlled door at each end. The doors are designed to
open and close automatically to allow the car to enter and leave.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end of the
garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed door
opens before the back bumper has passed through the doorway. No
collision occurs, because the second door opens before the first one
closes.
Your spouse, waiting for you to come home from your drive, measures
the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door closes
before the second door opens. Once again no collision occurs, because
the car is shorter than the garage.
The math works out fine in both English and metric, and no paradoxes
are involved.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
How fast do the doors have to rise or close to clear the car...this
seems to be getting annoying close to the speed of light.
Pretty sure my garage door would warp if I ran it that fast! (ducking)
On 14/05/2022 22:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
It turns out there is a long history, with many parallel explanations:
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox>
It can be expanded to the Triplets Paradox, for example <http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/html/251.Triplets.html>
SRT is well above me, I'm afraid. Some of the explanation of the Twins Paradox refers to the twins' clocks transmitting their time to the other
twin (the clock signal is transmitted at the speed of light). Even
allowing for the travelling twin's speed when approaching the speed of
light, and the relativistic effect it has on each clock's perceived
time, as the travelling twin's speed doesn't exceed that speed, each
twin will, eventually, receive the clock time of the other.
But what happens with the Triplet Paradox where the moving triplets are accelerating away from each other? Once they've "exceeded" C in relation
to each other,
although they can receive the stationary triplet's clock
reading (and he can receive theirs), can one moving triplet still
receive the other moving triplet's clock signal? If there is such a
moment when they can no longer receive each other's signal, when they
finally stop moving away and start moving towards each other again, will there be a moment when they suddenly start receiving that "missing"
clock signal as they catch up with it (or perhaps it catches up with
them)? Will there be a specific moment when they not only receive a
missing clock time, but coincidentally receive the "accurate" time as transmitted by the other moving triplet, so appear to be receiving two different clock readings at the same time?
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end
of the garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed
door opens before the back bumper has passed through the
doorway. No collision occurs, because the second door opens
before the first one closes.
Your spouse measures the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door
closes before the second door opens. Once again no collision
occurs, because the car is shorter than the garage.
Now I want to tweak the car and garage lengths, and the speed, so that
the car goes thru unscathed in one frame but gets smashed in the other.
Is it possible?
On May 16, corvid wrote:
Also, there's no simultaneity between separated objects moving at
different speeds. The relativistic garage illustrates this.
Because the Bugatti is so fast, you drive towards the open end
of the garage at 0.5c. You measure the length of the garage as
240 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 207.8 inches.
The hood of the car passes through the open door, then the closed
door opens before the back bumper has passed through the
doorway. No collision occurs, because the second door opens
before the first one closes.
Your spouse measures the length of the car as
252 inches * sqrt(1-0.5**2) = 218.2 inches.
The car fits into the garage, so as it enters, the first door
closes before the second door opens. Once again no collision
occurs, because the car is shorter than the garage.
Now I want to tweak the car and garage lengths, and the speed, so that
the car goes thru unscathed in one frame but gets smashed in the other.
Is it possible?
heh
Einstein skeptics have been trying to do that for a hundred years.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 135 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 75:33:07 |
Calls: | 2,801 |
Files: | 9,656 |
Messages: | 2,489,245 |