This is what I described and illustrated from the frame of reference of the
train.
Section C shows the railway ties closer together.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5cXNmZU1aUXNTRFE/edit?usp=sharing

Harry


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:

> There has been a continuous discussion on the list about the reality of SR
> time dilation and length contraction.  Most of the commenters accept the
> time dilation concept since it is relatively easy to measure.  Some among
> the group point out the paradox that they perceive as existing, but for now
> I want divert attention to evidence of length contraction that seems highly
> relevant.
>
> I found an article in Wikipedia about the free electron laser.  There is a
> technique for generating very high energy tunable x rays which strongly
> depends upon the length contraction due to electron velocities near light
> speed.   The frequency and wavelength of the emitted radiation can be
> directly calculated by using the Lorentz factor.  Read the article found at
> the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_electron_laser to
> see how well the mathematics works.
>
> The process uses an alternating series of magnets that are clearly spaced
> a large distance apart when compared to the the emitted wavelength of the
> synchronous radiation.  If you accept that the electrons are moving at very
> nearly the speed of light, then the wavelength should be approximately
> equal to the spacing between alternate magnets unless that distance is
> effectively shortened by the Lorentz contraction as seen by the electrons
> in motion.  The shortening factor directly enters into the determination of
> the radiation frequency.  A  radio wavelength structure of magnets is
> employed to achieve an x-ray length emission due to Lorentz contraction.
>
> Harry, this might help to explain the behavior of your train on the track
> questions.  Think of the distance between the magnets as being similar to
> the space between the rail ties.
>
> Dave
>
>

Reply via email to