Hey guys,
I've started a thread in usenet sci.physics.relativity
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&frame=right&th=b10ba59fa7822939&seekm=SrSIc.48884%24oh.46343%40lakeread05#link4
but the answers given there didn't really satisfy me, so I'm back here.
I couldn't get...
Go repeat the experiment yourself and tell me your results. Until then, I will have to ignore you. Anyway, if I don't like your results, I will call them junk. So easy. Bye, Geistkiesel.
What the heck is this? Why is the arrow on the right side of A? The arrows are supposed to show a velocity vector. Do you mean like this?
<-A <-B
________
If so, their speeds are in the same direction according to the third observer, and then they are stationary wrt each other.
In...
What I had in mind was:
A->0.99c 0.99c <-B
____________________
the speeds are measured in the ____ frame. But in A or B frame, their relative speed is still below c.
You mean it is like this?
A <-B
____________
then where does "twice the distance" come from...
If you mean a third frame measures each spaceship's speed as 0.9999..c, ok,
yes, if you mean as seen in the third frame. Not so as seen from the spaceships! It's still below c. See again #2 for the formula.
Well, the relativistic mass does increase with speed according to a third frame...
I'd say more like frustrating. At some point you will wear everyone out. What you guys are doing isn't anything like physics. You are just rejecting SR because it seems to defy common sense, which we all understand (no we aren't crazy). But you can't ignore experiment results which are in...
An observer can consider himself to be at rest with the emission point of a single photon, regardless of the relative speed of the photon source. Also same with successively emitted photons, but the emission point for those successive photons will be getting closer/farther as the source moves...
From that, I guess you are imagining that speed of light is constant with respect to "aether". No, speed of light is measured the same in all frames (counter intuitive, but experimental fact). Also, I guess you are imagining that the explosions occurred simultaneously according to "aether". I...
OK, one more try for Geistkiesel:
Suppose we have two space-trains passing by each other. They are moving inertially, but we don't know which one had accelerated in the past. No experiment can determine which train is "really" moving. We only know that they have a relative speed wrt each...
I'm sorry Ram, I can't communicate with you either.
It does NOT say "experimental set up is such that .. those events happen simultaneously in the absolute sense for both frames" as Eyesaw claims. It says the opposite.
Nice that you now corrected your diagram. Hope someone helps you with...
Ram,
I hate to tell you this but (A-B)/t + (B-C)/t = (A-C)/2t is wrong, it equals to (A-C)/t. I hope you won't discuss this or we have serious problems here.
Apart from that, I looked at your first picture. I'm not very familiar with spacetime diagrams. But, the picture looks upside down...
Geistkiesel,
It turns out how light travels [direction]* is not totally independent from the source if the source is moving perpendicularly (this is something I didn't think clearly before, thanks). But, still, speed of light must remain the same, because otherwise you could send a message...
I don't understand your point. What kind of difference? Elaborate please..
Yes, both frog and duck are fried at the same time in the stationary frame. And, both frog and duck will be fried in the train frame, despite at different times. But their frying at different times doesn't mean you...
fine up to this point
this is your wrong conclusion. your reasoning is:
true, no longer at the midpoint, but you also assume that in ObserverB frame, ObserverA emitted light simultaneously with ObserverB. Not true. According to ObserverB, ObserverA emitted light before ObserverB, such that...