Stephan,
No, Like Harry I am having trouble too but I think you are simply
making a distinction between different sources of time dilation. I know that
time dilation is much greater sitting on the surface of a dead star vs. a small
planet and therefore would agree with Harry that it is
On 04/02/2010 08:28 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Stephan,
No, Like Harry I am having trouble too but I think you are simply
making a distinction between different sources of time dilation. I
know that time dilation is much greater sitting on the surface of a
dead star vs. a small planet and
On 04/02/2010 08:28 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote:
Stephan,
This isn’t meant
to be philosophical but if these fields meet in the cavity and there
is no mass there for them to fight over, will the fields even sum or
just pass through each other?
That question can only be answered in the
From Francis:
Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass
through the eye of a stationary needle?
That's a new one for me. I'm not a definitive expert on relativity, other
than reading a lot of popular books on the most obvious effects relativity
produces, but it was my
On 03/31/2010 11:52 PM, Francis X Roarty wrote:
Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass through
the eye of a stationary needle?
No. The basketball is contracted fore-and-aft, but not side-to-side, as
viewed by an observer sitting next to the needle. So, it's going
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:14:50 -0700IOW, Steven Vincent Johnson said
the basketball would appear visually to look more and more like a
flattened pancake.
Steven,
My mistake in not limiting the question to only the dimension in the
direction of
Travel -spaceship crossing our line of
On Mar 31, 2010, at 7:52 PM, Francis X Roarty wrote:
Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass
through the eye of a stationary needle?
No. The basketball appears to contract only in its axis of motion,
which in this case must be through the eye of the needle. This
would now fit where only a few un-contracted balls should fit?
Regards
Fran
http://www.mail-archive.com/
Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
Stephen A. Lawrence
Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:40:36 -0700
On 03/31/2010 11:52 PM, Francis X Roarty wrote:
Am I correct in believing a near
From Fran
I see that Horace has already spoken definitively on the subject of shrinkage.
...
... so say I widen one dimension of the eye large enough
for the basketball but keep the other dimension just
wide enough for the pancake to slip through – assuming
I got my orientation dead on to
the chamber to determine whether he's being
subjected to a gravitational field, or is simply accelerating at a
uniform rate. Clocks will runs slower at the bottom of the chamber
than at the top.
Regards
Fran
http://www.mail-archive.com/
*Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz
From Mr. Lawrence
...
For example, if we dig a spherical chamber in the center
of a planet, there will be *no* gravitational field
within that chamber caused by the mass of the planet.
However, the gravitational potential is lower in that
chamber than it is on the surface, and clocks in the
At 09:39 AM 4/1/2010, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
It's the fact that there's no side to side contraction which leads to
all the arguments over whether the contraction is real. The
fore-and-aft contraction is arguably just a trick of the light.
This whole universe is a trick of the light. Eh?
Steven V Johnson wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements
conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the
surface of Earth.
Gravity or acceleration slow down time. They are one and the same in
general relativity theory.
If you start
From Jed:
Gravity or acceleration slow down time. They are one and the same in general
relativity theory.
If you start with 2 atomic clocks synchronized together, and you move one up
10 m to another floor, that causes it speed up slightly, and diverge from
the one below. It is amazing that
On 04/01/2010 02:06 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Mr. Lawrence
...
For example, if we dig a spherical chamber in the center
of a planet, there will be *no* gravitational field
within that chamber caused by the mass of the planet.
However, the gravitational potential is
On 04/01/2010 02:20 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Steven V Johnson wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements
conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the
surface of Earth.
Gravity or acceleration slow down time.
*WRONG*
A momentarily
On 04/01/2010 02:29 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote:
From Jed:
Gravity or acceleration slow down time. They are one and the same in general
relativity theory.
If you start with 2 atomic clocks synchronized together, and you move one up
10 m to another floor, that causes it speed
I wrote:
If you start with 2 atomic clocks synchronized together, and you
move one up 10 m to another floor, that causes it speed up slightly . . .
. . . distance is now a function of time (1 m = distance light
travels in a vacuum during the interval of 1/299,792,458 s).
ahem This leads to
Relativistic compression is actually Terrell rotation. Here's a great vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
T
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements
conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the
surface of Earth.
Gravity or acceleration slow down time.
*WRONG*
A momentarily comoving inertial observer who is colocated
On 04/01/2010 03:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory about the precise time measurements
conducted with atomic clocks positioned at different elevations on the
surface of Earth.
Gravity or acceleration slow down time.
*WRONG*
A
http://ysc.kiev.ua/abs/proc13_11.pdf
See item #5.
T
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
Relativistic compression is actually Terrell rotation. Here's a great vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4
T
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 2:53:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
In short, acceleration
does not slow down clocks. This is predicted
theoretically and has
Steven ,
Thanks for the compliment but to be honest it wasn't meant to be
philosophical and just reveals my rough edges regarding the scientific. I was
hoping
To find some parallels between SR in the macro world and what I think is going
on inside the Casimir cavity. I am looking
On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 2:53:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
In short, acceleration
does not slow
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on
this topic in this mailing list after this message.
John Berry wrote: ...
Hi All,
Stephen and John posted an interesting discussion
on this subject in 2007, which I can post if
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:01:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This becomes a real problem with the GPS
satellite clocks.
Well, not really a problem, because the engineers who designed them
knew about GR.
Scott Chubb tells me they do not understand it very well, and they
have been experiencing unanticipated problems from
On 04/01/2010 05:37 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
This becomes a real problem with the GPS
satellite clocks.
Well, not really a problem, because the engineers who designed them
knew about GR.
Scott Chubb tells me they do not understand it very well, and they
On 04/01/2010 05:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 4:01:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
On 04/01/2010 03:51 PM, Harry Veeder
- Original Message
From: Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, April 1, 2010 5:55:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:checking my understanding of Lorentz contraction
On 04/01/2010 05:31 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
- Original Message
From
On 04/01/2010 08:37 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
Only if potentials exist without fields, can it be said that time
dilation doesn't depend in any way on *variations* in the *strength* of
the gravitational field.
I thought what I said was pretty clear. Are you just trying to pick
nits, or
Am I correct in believing a near luminal basketball could pass through the
eye of a stationary needle?
33 matches
Mail list logo
