Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)

Science > Physics > Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"Spaceman"
Date:	08 Feb 2006 04:52:21 PM
Object:	Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)

Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
as far as we know infinite in length and width.
We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
an second observer is in a spaceship (B)
traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
According to basic math, the object will pass by
the 93,000th line in 1/2 second.
and the 186,000th line in 1 second..
(silly basic math)
:)
so...
What time does (B) pass the line according to
the time dilation of (B) while in motion?
.

User: "OG"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	08 Feb 2006 06:50:05 PM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:uLqdncgMRfOE63feRVn-jg@comcast.com...

Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
as far as we know infinite in length and width.

We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.

An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
an second observer is in a spaceship (B)
traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
According to basic math, the object will pass by
the 93,000th line in 1/2 second.
and the 186,000th line in 1 second..
(silly basic math)
:)
so...
What time does (B) pass the line according to
the time dilation of (B) while in motion?

What 'object' ?
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	08 Feb 2006 07:09:11 PM

User: "OG"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	09 Feb 2006 04:02:30 PM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:yOWdnSL2s6K2C3feRVn-pg@comcast.com...

Hang on,. you said that the object (now verified as B) would pass 186,000
lines in one second, but you have also said that it's travelling at .5c.
Surely silly basic math tells you that it would only pass 93,000 lines in 1
second?
Or have you made another boo boo?
You also ask what time does (B) pass 'the line', which line?
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	09 Feb 2006 04:17:01 PM

"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:451sfoF4e2hcU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:yOWdnSL2s6K2C3feRVn-pg@comcast.com...
| >
| > "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:44vhupF49bh0U1@individual.net...
| > |
| > | "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| > | news:uLqdncgMRfOE63feRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| > | > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > | > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| > | >
| > | > We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
| > | > we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
| > | > this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
| > | >
| > | > An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
| > | > an second observer is in a spaceship (B)
| > | > traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
| > | > at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
| > | > According to basic math, the object will pass by
| > | > the 93,000th line in 1/2 second.
| > | > and the 186,000th line in 1 second..
| > | > (silly basic math)
| > | > :)
| > | > so...
| > | > What time does (B) pass the line according to
| > | > the time dilation of (B) while in motion?
| > |
| > | What 'object' ?
| >
| > The spaceship (B)..
| > sorry bout that.
| > :)
|
| Hang on,. you said that the object (now verified as B) would pass 186,000
| lines in one second, but you have also said that it's travelling at .5c.
| Surely silly basic math tells you that it would only pass 93,000 lines in
1
| second?
Damn,
you are correct.
My total bad..
:(
I really need to "slow down.."
lol
| Or have you made another boo boo?
You got me.
I better proof read 3 times from now on.
:(
| You also ask what time does (B) pass 'the line', which line?
I am not asking what "time" it passes any line,
I was asking how many lines would it pass
using the time dilation that it is supposedly experiencing
at such speed.
I will need to repost with correct "speed and times"
:(
Thanks for really, and truly reading the post.
You should get a job as a proof reader if you find the
right money for it.
I owe you a good proof reading,
:)
.

User: "OG"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	09 Feb 2006 05:20:04 PM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:hdSdnTUKUqHSInbeRVn-iA@comcast.com...

"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:451sfoF4e2hcU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:yOWdnSL2s6K2C3feRVn-pg@comcast.com...
| >
| > "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:44vhupF49bh0U1@individual.net...
| > |
| > | "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| > | news:uLqdncgMRfOE63feRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| > | > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > | > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| > | >
| > | > We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
| > | > we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
| > | > this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
| > | >
| > | > An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
| > | > an second observer is in a spaceship (B)
| > | > traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
| > | > at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
| > | > According to basic math, the object will pass by
| > | > the 93,000th line in 1/2 second.
| > | > and the 186,000th line in 1 second..
| > | > (silly basic math)
| > | > :)
| > | > so...
| > | > What time does (B) pass the line according to
| > | > the time dilation of (B) while in motion?
| > |
| > | What 'object' ?
| >
| > The spaceship (B)..
| > sorry bout that.
| > :)
|
| Hang on,. you said that the object (now verified as B) would pass
186,000
| lines in one second, but you have also said that it's travelling at .5c.
| Surely silly basic math tells you that it would only pass 93,000 lines
in
1
| second?

Damn,
you are correct.
My total bad..
:(
I really need to "slow down.."
lol

| Or have you made another boo boo?

You got me.
I better proof read 3 times from now on.
:(

| You also ask what time does (B) pass 'the line', which line?

I am not asking what "time" it passes any line,
I was asking how many lines would it pass
using the time dilation that it is supposedly experiencing
at such speed.

I will need to repost with correct "speed and times"
:(
Thanks for really, and truly reading the post.
You should get a job as a proof reader if you find the
right money for it.
I owe you a good proof reading,
:)

Right,
It will pass exactly the same number of lines.
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	09 Feb 2006 01:00:08 AM

In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:09:11 -0500
<yOWdnSL2s6K2C3feRVn-pg@comcast.com>:

The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
(93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Greg Neill"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 08:25:57 AM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lq2rb3-2aa.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
(93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )

Hey Ghost, you appear to be using the dilation factor
for relativistic Doppler shift rather than the
gamma factor 1/sgrt(1-(.5)^2) for coordinate
transforms . Any particular reason?
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 05:00:06 AM

In sci.physics, Greg Neill
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:25:57 -0500
<oo1Hf.40114$1e5.765056@news20.bellglobal.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lq2rb3-2aa.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
(93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )

Hey Ghost, you appear to be using the dilation factor
for relativistic Doppler shift rather than the
gamma factor 1/sgrt(1-(.5)^2) for coordinate
transforms . Any particular reason?

Because it's the correct one. :-) (At least, it's correct
from a mathematical standpoint; so far no experiments
have falsified it, either, at least AFAIK.)
If one hypothesizes O and A, my customary two observers,
moving away from each other, with O firing a beam of
known length at A, than the gamma factor indeed applies
as the light beam moves from O to A, but the problem is
that by the time the trailing edge of the beam moves to
the gamma-corrected length A has moved as well.
It's probably easiest to show this algebraically. If O and A
are coincident at time 0, then O can fire off two "instant pulses"
or time edges at t_O_0 and t_O_1. (We ignore such things here as
diffraction effects.)
We assume the usual Lorentz:
x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) * g
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) * g
where g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). We can also invert these, giving
x_O = (x_A + v * t_A) * g
t_O = (t_A + v * x_A/c^2) * g
if need be.
A will intercept these pulses when x_A = 0 (he's forever
locked at his origin, as is O -- that is the crucial point in
all this). The pulses themselves are such that
x_O = c * (t_O - t_O_0) and x_O' = c * (t_O' - t_O_1),
since they're fired forward.
So now assume A has seen the first pulse. We have, for some t_O,
0 = x_A = (c * (t_O - t_O_0) - v * t_O) * g
(c * (t_O - t_O_0) - v * t_O) = 0
(c - v) * t_O = c * t_O_0
t_O = c/(c-v) * t_O_0
x_O = (c^2/(c-v) - c) * t_O_0 = cv/(c-v) * t_O_0
Note the pseudo-Newtonianism -- but that's because we've not jumped
frames yet.
Now we jump; t_A is simply:
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) * g = t_O_0 * g * (c/(c-v) - cv^2/(c^2(c-v))
= t_O_0 * g * (c/(c-v)) * (1 - v^2/c^2)
At this point it's probably best to explicitly write g thusly:
= t_O_0 * (c/(c-v)) * (1 - v^2/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t_O_0 * (c/(c-v)) * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= t_O_0 * (1/(1-v/c)) * sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
= t_O_0 * (1/(1-v/c)) * sqrt(1 - v/c) * sqrt(1 + v/c)
(we can do this because v/c < 1)
and finally
t_A = t_O_0 * sqrt(1 + v/c) / sqrt(1 - v/c)
The t_O_1 calculation is almost identical. Ergo, A sees the
time delta between the two pulses to be longer by this ratio.
It took me a while to figure this out properly, so don't feel too bad.
:-)
If we assume the spacecraft (A) will pass over two points 0 and L
marked on O's grid, then the spacecraft will pass over the
second point when
x_A = 0 = (L - v * t_O) * g
or t_O = L/v
t_A = (L/v - v * L/c^2) * g = (L/v) * (1 - v^2/c^2) * g
= (L/v) * sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)
In retrospect I probably should have just gone with this, as it's
a *lot* simpler than the "firing off a ray" calculation, but
I for one hope both are instructive -- and both lead to the same ratio.
Note that the spacecraft can still measure the velocity
correctly if we use an appropriately equipped rod (with a mirror)
on the *spacecraft*, together with a light on the ground; one
need merely compensate for the time the light passes over
the rod from the far end, which is always constant (c) regardless
of spacecraft speed.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Greg Neill"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 12:15:00 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cjq0c3-sj9.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, Greg Neill
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:25:57 -0500
<oo1Hf.40114$1e5.765056@news20.bellglobal.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lq2rb3-2aa.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
(93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )

Hey Ghost, you appear to be using the dilation factor
for relativistic Doppler shift rather than the
gamma factor 1/sgrt(1-(.5)^2) for coordinate
transforms . Any particular reason?

Because it's the correct one. :-) (At least, it's correct
from a mathematical standpoint; so far no experiments
have falsified it, either, at least AFAIK.)

[snip nice derivation]
I'm curious as to why you went to the trouble of
using light pulses rather than just considering the
line separations as fixed lengths in one frame which
are contracted when viewed in the other.
A naive approach would be to simply assume that the
distance between lines has been shortened from the
point of view of the moving observer, so that:
L' = L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
and the observer is passing the lines with a relative
velocity of v from his point of view, so the frequency
of line passing becomes:
f = v/L' = v/(L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
For the given example v = 0.5c and L = 1 mile, so
f = 0.5c/(1mile*sqrt(1 - 0.5^2))
= 107387.15 Hz
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 04:00:10 PM

In sci.physics, Greg Neill
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:15:00 -0500
<cQpHf.47075$1e5.954913@news20.bellglobal.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cjq0c3-sj9.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, Greg Neill
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:25:57 -0500
<oo1Hf.40114$1e5.765056@news20.bellglobal.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lq2rb3-2aa.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
(93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )

Hey Ghost, you appear to be using the dilation factor
for relativistic Doppler shift rather than the
gamma factor 1/sgrt(1-(.5)^2) for coordinate
transforms . Any particular reason?

Because it's the correct one. :-) (At least, it's correct
from a mathematical standpoint; so far no experiments
have falsified it, either, at least AFAIK.)

[snip nice derivation]

I'm curious as to why you went to the trouble of
using light pulses rather than just considering the
line separations as fixed lengths in one frame which
are contracted when viewed in the other.

A naive approach would be to simply assume that the
distance between lines has been shortened from the
point of view of the moving observer, so that:

L' = L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

and the observer is passing the lines with a relative
velocity of v from his point of view, so the frequency
of line passing becomes:

f = v/L' = v/(L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

For the given example v = 0.5c and L = 1 mile, so

f = 0.5c/(1mile*sqrt(1 - 0.5^2))

= 107387.15 Hz

As you can see, the results are different. In any event, you
probably didn't see (it's at the very end) an alternative
derivation focusing on a rod in O's space, which A is trying
to measure. (Replication of this rod yields markers or lines.)
It turns out to also have sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) as
a ratio, rather than the expected 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).
A bit surprising to me, but logical enough. I'll reprise it,
in case you didn't see it the first time:
O has a rod of length L (in his space); A passes over it.
A hits the first endpoint at x_A = 0, x_O = 0, t_A = 0, t_O = 0.
The second endpoint is hit when x_A = 0 (as A is the one
observing it) and x_O = L (since O has the rod). We don't
particularly care about t_O. What is t_A?
g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) * g
t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) * g
0 = (L - v * t_O) * g
L = v * t_O
t_O = L/v
t_A = (L/v - v * L/c^2) * g
= (L/v) * (1 - v^2/c^2) * g
= (L/v) * sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)
As you can see, the Lorentz can be tricky.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Greg Neill"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 05:52:39 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:r512c3-sfm.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

In sci.physics, Greg Neill
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca>

[snip]

L' = L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

and the observer is passing the lines with a relative
velocity of v from his point of view, so the frequency
of line passing becomes:

f = v/L' = v/(L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

For the given example v = 0.5c and L = 1 mile, so

f = 0.5c/(1mile*sqrt(1 - 0.5^2))

= 107387.15 Hz

[snip]

g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

[snip]

t_A = (L/v - v * L/c^2) * g
= (L/v) * (1 - v^2/c^2) * g
= (L/v) * sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c)

As you can see, the Lorentz can be tricky.

Indeed. Your final two lines are not the same expression!
The first of the pair yields my answer (when the time
period is inverted to yield frequency), while the second
gives your answer. In particular, the first is:
T = (L/v)*(1 - v^2/c^2)*(1 - v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)
= (L/v)&(1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
Inverting to yield frequncy:
f = (v/L)*(1 - v^2/c^2)^(-1/2)
= v/[L*sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)]
Which is the expression that I derived above.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 10:01:48 AM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cjq0c3-sj9.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Note that the spacecraft can still measure the velocity
| correctly if we use an appropriately equipped rod (with a mirror)
| on the *spacecraft*, together with a light on the ground; one
| need merely compensate for the time the light passes over
| the rod from the far end, which is always constant (c) regardless
| of spacecraft speed.
Ghost,
light passing by such a spaceraft at c is a problem,
it would have to be relatively moving FTL to do such.
C,mon, I thought you like to use your brain?
Try thinking about such without all that brainwashed
part of your brain.
:)
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 11:00:13 AM

In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:01:48 -0500
<GbSdnX0i78r1l3PeRVn-iw@comcast.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:cjq0c3-sj9.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Note that the spacecraft can still measure the velocity
| correctly if we use an appropriately equipped rod (with a mirror)
| on the *spacecraft*, together with a light on the ground; one
| need merely compensate for the time the light passes over
| the rod from the far end, which is always constant (c) regardless
| of spacecraft speed.

Ghost,
light passing by such a spaceraft at c is a problem,

Not really. If x_O^2 - c^2*t_O^2 = K, then,
after the Lorentz, x_A^2 - c^2*t_A^2 = K as well.

it would have to be relatively moving FTL to do such.
C,mon, I thought you like to use your brain?
Try thinking about such without all that brainwashed
part of your brain.
:)

A question for you. Why is it that no modern lightspeed measurement
has ever measured anything but c, within experimental error?
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 01:15:21 PM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:h3h1c3-vvk.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| Not really. If x_O^2 - c^2*t_O^2 = K, then,
| after the Lorentz, x_A^2 - c^2*t_A^2 = K as well.
|
| A question for you. Why is it that no modern lightspeed measurement
| has ever measured anything but c, within experimental error?
Because no actual attempt that would find variable speeds
has been done.
All the tests done so far have failed to do such simply
because they are not set up correctly to actually do such.
Use a specific speed of sound in the same experiments
that prove light is c always and you will find sound
as "soundspeed" only also.
The experiments themselves are not set up correct to do
such at all.
and again,
How can you possibly think that no speed change is needed
for light to have a doppler effect.
You can not get an actual doppler (frequncy change)
effect without a relative speed difference.
(barring medium problems of such)
Doppler is based upon relative speed differences.
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 01:26:03 PM

Spitshit wrote:

Ghost,
light passing by such a spaceraft at c is a problem,
it would have to be relatively moving FTL to do such.
C,mon, I thought you like to use your brain?

Spitshit isn't using his brain here.
o The speed of light is a constant for all observers.
o Motion is relative and always with respect to something else.
o Light not interacting isn't a consideration.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 01:37:21 PM

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fTqHf.769148$_o.78752@attbi_s71...
| Spitshit wrote:
| >
| > Ghost,
| > light passing by such a spaceraft at c is a problem,
| > it would have to be relatively moving FTL to do such.
| > C,mon, I thought you like to use your brain?
|
| Spitshit isn't using his brain here.
|
| o The speed of light is a constant for all observers.
Parrot ***** and *****.
Doppler shift of light would not be possible from
relative speed differences alone if such was actually true.
| o Motion is relative and always with respect to something else.
Correct, this statement actually is part proof the lightspeed
can not be a constant relative speed with respect to all things.
| o Light not interacting isn't a consideration.
Light not interacting isn't a consideration?
No *****!
Too bad you won't consider what you just stated.
LOL
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 01:49:49 PM

Spitshit wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fTqHf.769148$_o.78752@attbi_s71...
| Spitshit wrote:
| >
| > Ghost,
| > light passing by such a spaceraft at c is a problem,
| > it would have to be relatively moving FTL to do such.
| > C,mon, I thought you like to use your brain?
|
| Spitshit isn't using his brain here.
|
| o The speed of light is a constant for all observers.

Parrot ***** and *****.
Doppler shift of light would not be possible from
relative speed differences alone if such was actually true.

| o Motion is relative and always with respect to something else.

Correct, this statement actually is part proof the lightspeed
can not be a constant relative speed with respect to all things.

| o Light not interacting isn't a consideration.

Light not interacting isn't a consideration?
No *****!
Too bad you won't consider what you just stated.
LOL

Spitshit, you don't understand Doppler shift... it has to
do with measured shifts in frequency and wavelength of
the EM radiation and is observer dependent. The speed of
light is a fundamental constant of nature and is observer
independent.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 01:53:12 PM

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:xdrHf.761197$x96.326443@attbi_s72...
| Spitshit, you don't understand Doppler shift... it has to
| do with measured shifts in frequency and wavelength of
| the EM radiation and is observer dependent. The speed of
| light is a fundamental constant of nature and is observer
| independent.
Sam,
You don't understand that a "fundamental constant" should not be
affected by doppler shift, yet for light to doppler shift
without a medium as a cause, it would have to have
relative speed differences to occur at all.
You truly are brainwashed beyond help it seems.
LOL
.

User: "Greg Neill"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 05:19:41 PM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:JM6dnffG1dI43XPeRVn-tA@comcast.com...

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:xdrHf.761197$x96.326443@attbi_s72...
| Spitshit, you don't understand Doppler shift... it has to
| do with measured shifts in frequency and wavelength of
| the EM radiation and is observer dependent. The speed of
| light is a fundamental constant of nature and is observer
| independent.

Sam,
You don't understand that a "fundamental constant" should not be
affected by doppler shift, yet for light to doppler shift
without a medium as a cause, it would have to have
relative speed differences to occur at all.
You truly are brainwashed beyond help it seems.

You are obviously wrong because we measure Doppler
shifts for light and we measure constant speed for
light from both moving and stationary sources. So
you're just engaging in one of your favorite
pastimes: arguing with the universe.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	11 Feb 2006 05:46:17 PM

"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:RhuHf.49797$1e5.998551@news20.bellglobal.com...
| You are obviously wrong because we measure Doppler
| shifts for light and we measure constant speed for
| light from both moving and stationary sources.
You can't measure doppler shifts of light
without a relative speed change of the light.
You are full of crap.
No relative speed change = No doppler shift.
Sheesh!
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	09 Feb 2006 11:50:50 AM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lq2rb3-2aa.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
| (93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )
So
(a) The spacecrafts clock is truly messed up?
OR..
b) 161080.7miles/sec = 186,000 miles/sec at .5c
I will pick (a) since (b) is completely crazy.
The actual distance it travels at .5c would be 186,000
miles in 1 second, the 161080.7 miles in 1 second
is false, and all observers not on the spacecraft will
agree it is false and something is wrong with the
spacecrafts clock to say differently at all.
:)
.

User: "The Ghost In The Machine"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 02:00:15 AM

In sci.physics, Spaceman
<Realspace@comcast.not>
wrote
on Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:50:50 -0500
<3r6dnUUMT6NwHXbeRVn-hA@comcast.com>:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:lq2rb3-2aa.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The spacecraft will pass by 161080.7 lines per second.
| (93000 * sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1-.5) )

So
(a) The spacecrafts clock is truly messed up?
OR..
b) 161080.7miles/sec = 186,000 miles/sec at .5c

I will pick (a) since (b) is completely crazy.
The actual distance it travels at .5c would be 186,000
miles in 1 second, the 161080.7 miles in 1 second
is false, and all observers not on the spacecraft will
agree it is false and something is wrong with the
spacecrafts clock to say differently at all.
:)

The spacecraft's clock is indeed messed up, as observed
by the groundbased observer. It will click at a rate of
about .57735 shipboard second for every one groundsecond,
if the spacecraft is moving away. If the spacecraft is
approaching the groundclock the ratio the reciprocal of
this value, namely 1.73205 = sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1 - .5).
The odd thing is that the spacecraft will see exactly the
same factor for the groundbased-clock; both will see the
other's clock running slow if they're moving away from
each other, and fast if they're moving towards each other.
In short, every clock -- and every other physical process,
for that matter -- on the spacecraft is "malfunctioning".
And it matters little whether the acceleration was done
over the course of a half year at 1 g, the course of
about 15 days at 10 gs, or the course of an instant.
--
#191,

It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 11:02:16 AM

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:vurtb3-2em.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| The spacecraft's clock is indeed messed up, as observed
| by the groundbased observer. It will click at a rate of
| about .57735 shipboard second for every one groundsecond,
| if the spacecraft is moving away. If the spacecraft is
| approaching the groundclock the ratio the reciprocal of
| this value, namely 1.73205 = sqrt(1+.5) / sqrt(1 - .5).
|
| The odd thing is that the spacecraft will see exactly the
| same factor for the groundbased-clock; both will see the
| other's clock running slow if they're moving away from
| each other, and fast if they're moving towards each other.
That is very odd indeed, since the clock on the ground
is actually matching the physical data, and yet
the clock in motion is not.
It is odd that people will accept such ***** about
clocks boht being wrong instead of the actual clock
that is wrong.
| In short, every clock -- and every other physical process,
| for that matter -- on the spacecraft is "malfunctioning".
Really,
I thought you just said the observer would see the ground
based observer having the same problems with "time" ?
What one is actually experiencing the time dilation?
How do you know what one is actually doing the motion
faster while compared to the other?
It seems SR is wishy washy, no wonder it is still
basically unchanged for ~100 yrs.
LOL
.

User: "Greg Neill"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 11:38:06 AM

"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:8bOdnbCPQ8mKWnHeRVn-ug@comcast.com...

| In short, every clock -- and every other physical process,
| for that matter -- on the spacecraft is "malfunctioning".

Really,
I thought you just said the observer would see the ground
based observer having the same problems with "time" ?

Correct.

What one is actually experiencing the time dilation?

Both. It's an observer dependent phenomenon.

How do you know what one is actually doing the motion
faster while compared to the other?

Obviously you can't, because the motion is relative.
A is moving away from B at the same rate as B is moving
away from A. There is no absolute frame of reference
from which you can declare, "this one's moving and that
one's not".

It seems SR is wishy washy, no wonder it is still
basically unchanged for ~100 yrs.

Wishy washy to the extent that it makes empirically
verified predictions to the tune of 14 decimal places.
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	08 Feb 2006 05:28:28 PM

Spaceman wrote:

Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
as far as we know infinite in length and width.

If you want to do a real problem, forget the infinite
Newtonian space and time *****, spaceshit. Learn some
relativity.
How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	08 Feb 2006 05:32:52 PM

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w8vGf.754583$x96.752786@attbi_s72...
| Spaceman wrote:
| > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| >
|
|
| If you want to do a real problem, forget the infinite
| Newtonian space and time *****, spaceshit. Learn some
| relativity.
|
| How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
| http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
Sam is real afraid to answer such a question.
so instead he sticks his head in the sand of relativity.
and expects me to join him..
Sam the osterich..
LOL
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 12:57:40 AM

Spaceman wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w8vGf.754583$x96.752786@attbi_s72...
| Spaceman wrote:
| > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| >
|
|
| If you want to do a real problem, forget the infinite
| Newtonian space and time *****, spaceshit. Learn some
| relativity.
|
| How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
| http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Sam is real afraid to answer such a question.
so instead he sticks his head in the sand of relativity.
and expects me to join him..
Sam the osterich..
LOL

Actually I did answer you spaceshit... you choose not to listen.
.

User: "Spaceman"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 10:57:52 AM

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:EPWGf.758747$x96.173241@attbi_s72...
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
| > news:w8vGf.754583$x96.752786@attbi_s72...
| > | Spaceman wrote:
| > | > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > | > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > | If you want to do a real problem, forget the infinite
| > | Newtonian space and time *****, spaceshit. Learn some
| > | relativity.
| > |
| > | How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
| > | http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html
| >
| > Sam is real afraid to answer such a question.
| > so instead he sticks his head in the sand of relativity.
| > and expects me to join him..
| > Sam the osterich..
| > LOL
| >
| >
|
| Actually I did answer you spaceshit... you choose not to listen.
You gave no answer Sam,
To answer a question, you don't tell someone to look for
the answer on such and such page.
You gave no answer that directly fits the experimental question.
I asked for the "actual answer" not the "how to figure it" answer.
You failed.
Try putting that on a physics test.
Teacher, the answer is "How do you add velocities in SR"
the teacher says. This is not Jeopordy moron,
now answere the actual question.
.

User: "Sam Wormley"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	10 Feb 2006 01:05:07 AM

Spaceman wrote:

"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:w8vGf.754583$x96.752786@attbi_s72...
| Spaceman wrote:
| > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| >
|
|
| If you want to do a real problem, forget the infinite
| Newtonian space and time *****, spaceshit. Learn some
| relativity.
|
| How Do You Add Velocities in Special Relativity?
| http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Sam is real afraid to answer such a question.
so instead he sticks his head in the sand of relativity.
and expects me to join him..
Sam the osterich..
LOL

Actually I did answer you spaceshit... you choose not to listen.
.

User: "Eric Gisse"
Title: Re: Speed gedanken time.. (time dilation problems 099)	08 Feb 2006 05:40:30 PM

Spaceman wrote:

Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
as far as we know infinite in length and width.

We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.

An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
an second observer is in a spaceship (B)
traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
According to basic math, the object will pass by
the 93,000th line in 1/2 second.
and the 186,000th line in 1 second..
(silly basic math)
:)
so...
What time does (B) pass the line according to
the time dilation of (B) while in motion?

In return, I ask that you commit seppuku or something that garners a
similar result. When you have completed this task, I will help you
learn.
.

Page 1 of 2

Post reply

Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099
ch4
Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099
Let me Clear something up about speed and angular speed - Smart1234
Speed of gravity study discredited
speed of light
Superluminal science lab kit that falsifies Einstein's speed limit, auctioned at eBay, starting at $10.00................................................................................................................
if you were running at the speed of light would you have a shadow?

Rotating bodies and speed
Current defn of the astronomical unit -- via Gaussian year or speed of light?
transfer speed of Network, humidity in air
Relative speed
Another question on the speed of light
Newtonain question - speed vs efficiency tradeoff?
Long Railroad Trains, air brakes and speed of sound

NEWER

pg.1612 pg.1232 pg.940 pg.716 pg.544 pg.412 pg.311 pg.234 pg.175 pg.130 pg.96 pg.70 pg.50 pg.35 pg.24 pg.16 pg.10 pg.6 pg.3 pg.1

OLDER